North Korea ship being tailed by a US Navy destroyer

DougTravels · Jun 21, 2009

Dreammaker said:
If you were given the authority to fix the U.N., what would you do to fix it? First, you would have to define the problem(s). As Turtle pointed out, there are many. What would you do first, second, third?

I am in no way qualified to even guess.

Turtle · Jun 22, 2009

DougTravels said:
To really determine if the UN is a failure or success you would need a crystal ball.

No, a history book is all that you need. If the UN had made any headway at all in any of the areas of their goals, that would be one thing. But in every single case, everything the UN touches is worse now than before they touched it. The US government is an amateur compared to the UN at mucking up everything it touches. Peace isn't kept where they have peacekeppers unless the US military also has a presence there. In countries the UN has for decades continuously poured medical, food and financial aid into them, the medical, food and financial situations have gotten worse, not better. Oh, sure, they feed a lot of people and they immunize a lot of kids, but they're not making a dent with this "give 'em a fish" tactic. The more they pour in, the worse things get. We've got virtually routine genocide going in in a dozen places. The dignity and worth of the human person in equal rights for all has taken a serious hit around the globe. They have favored in no uncertain terms the Arabs over the Jews, even to the point of actually endorsing in 2002 the "legitimacy" of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. In 2000, the blue helmets videotaped Hezbollah kidnapping three Israeli soldiers. For eight months the U.N. angrily denied even having the tape. When forced to admit they did, they refused to release it because that might compromise their "neutrality." So much for the primay mission of global peace and security.

Their secondary mission is human rights. Records showed, unambiguously, that the world's worse offenders of human rights violations are more likely than not to be a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Once that came out, much to the chagrin of the UN, they abolished the UNCHR and created UN Human Rights Council, which is supposed to do a much better job of keeping the worst offenders at bay. That was in 2005, and so far they've done a bang up job at keeping the status quo. The international groups Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have both labeled the UNHCR as a "protective shield for torturers and tyrants". To date, the only resolution the UNHCR has passed that condemned anyone for human rights violations was one in 2007 where they condemned Israel for the deaths of some Hamas civilians. Interesting, no?

Who among us can state for fact what the world would be without it? Let me answer for you no one.

That's an empty argument. Nothing to base it on but feel-good optimism that has shown no signs whatsoever of coming to fruition. Hangin' tough on a "it could happen!" ain't gonna cut it when they show no signs at all, after 64 years, of being even a little bit effective. And it sure doesn't cut it when things have actually gotten worse across the board. The whole of human history has not seen the kind of mess the world is in now, and it's the worst wherever the UN has left footprints.

Yeah, when WW3 happens and the entire Human Race annihilates itself, the UN's mission will finally be a resounding success, as all of the problems it has been trying to fix will be eliminated. That's the problem with their goals, it depends on multilateralism and mutual cooperation, which sounds good, but it don't work with people.

Then again WW3 is not yet in the history books and the human race is still here to post their respective beliefs. Before you all jump on me and call me names think about 1 not so small thing the UN provides. A vehicle where Countries can engage in negotiations rather than bloodshed. It is place where the US, China, and Russia can talk diplomatically that in itself is a huge positive.

Again, sounds good, but the reality is that don't happen. Countries have been engaged in negotiations at the UN for 64 years, and the worldwide result is more bloodshed, not less.

So is the UN worth anything?
None of us can really say.

You're kidding, right? The love affair the world seems to have with the UN is based largely on a bizarre mix of illusion and politics. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then the UN is the opiate of the elite of the elites. Their primary objective is first to weaken the US, and then a one-world government with the UN being in charge. The U.N. Undersecretary-General Shashi Tharoor wrote a few years ago, "American power may well be the central issue in world politics today." Not AIDS, genocide, world hunger, or even global warming, but American power. Everbody roots for the underdog, and in this case, everyone in the world, except us, is the underdog. Makes it real easy to root against us rather than for anyone else specific. And that's what the UN encourages. All you have to do is look at what all they've done.

They have a current FY 09 operating budget of $4.19 Billion, and that's just the primary budget, and doesn't include any of the special programs like UNICEF which are separatey funded. The United States doesn't pay it's dues, but they continue to be the largest single voluntary contributor of the UN annual budget. Budget funding is all voluntary, but the UN assesses the amount a given country is to pay, and they do it in true liberal fashion, it's based on how much you got. There is a ceiling of 22% of the UN's budget to be obtained from any one country. The US is so far the only country to be assessed that ceiling. 22% of $4.19 Billion is a lot of money ($921.8 million) considering people are screaming that the US owes pocket change in dues. Most of the budget goes to the UN's stated primary mission of maintaining global peace.

What are we getting for that money? From the UN's Purpose and Principles as stated in the Charter:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."

Since it's founding in 1945 there have been more than 150 global wars resulting in more than 40 million deaths that were not resolved or prevented by dialog and mediation. They talk the talk that everyone loves to hear, but they fail, utterly, to walk the walk. Instead they sweep it all under the rug and make people think they're accomplishing something. Is the UN worth anything. Absolutely not. They have accomplished nothing positive and they show no signs of improvement.

If you think you can you are fooling yourself.

If you think they are, or can be, you're fooling yourself. The UN is a nice idea, but has't worked, and it won't work. It won't work because it relies on the mutual cooperation of people, all people, under all circumstances. It assumes that all people will do what the UN tells them to do for the simple reason of "because I said so", and that ain't gonna cut it for those who are seeking their own power. I mean, for cryin' out loud, one of their primary missions is human rights violations, and more than a third of the UN member states routinely engage in gross violations of the human dignity of their own people. And the UN does nothing to stop it. Nothing.

layoutshooter · Jun 22, 2009

Turtle said:
No, a history book is all that you need. If the UN had made any headway at all in any of the areas of their goals, that would be one thing. But in every single case, everything the UN touches is worse now than before they touched it. The US government is an amateur compared to the UN at mucking up everything it touches. Peace isn't kept where they have peacekeppers unless the US military also has a presence there. In countries the UN has for decades continuously poured medical, food and financial aid into them, the medical, food and financial situations have gotten worse, not better. Oh, sure, they feed a lot of people and they immunize a lot of kids, but they're not making a dent with this "give 'em a fish" tactic. The more they pour in, the worse things get. We've got virtually routine genocide going in in a dozen places. The dignity and worth of the human person in equal rights for all has taken a serious hit around the globe. They have favored in no uncertain terms the Arabs over the Jews, even to the point of actually endorsing in 2002 the "legitimacy" of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. In 2000, the blue helmets videotaped Hezbollah kidnapping three Israeli soldiers. For eight months the U.N. angrily denied even having the tape. When forced to admit they did, they refused to release it because that might compromise their "neutrality." So much for the primay mission of global peace and security.

Their secondary mission is human rights. Records showed, unambiguously, that the world's worse offenders of human rights violations are more likely than not to be a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Once that came out, much to the chagrin of the UN, they abolished the UNCHR and created UN Human Rights Council, which is supposed to do a much better job of keeping the worst offenders at bay. That was in 2005, and so far they've done a bang up job at keeping the status quo. The international groups Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have both labeled the UNHCR as a "protective shield for torturers and tyrants". To date, the only resolution the UNHCR has passed that condemned anyone for human rights violations was one in 2007 where they condemned Israel for the deaths of some Hamas civilians. Interesting, no?

That's an empty argument. Nothing to base it on but feel-good optimism that has shown no signs whatsoever of coming to fruition. Hangin' tough on a "it could happen!" ain't gonna cut it when they show no signs at all, after 64 years, of being even a little bit effective. And it sure doesn't cut it when things have actually gotten worse across the board. The whole of human history has not seen the kind of mess the world is in now, and it's the worst wherever the UN has left footprints.

Yeah, when WW3 happens and the entire Human Race annihilates itself, the UN's mission will finally be a resounding success, as all of the problems it has been trying to fix will be eliminated. That's the problem with their goals, it depends on multilateralism and mutual cooperation, which sounds good, but it don't work with people.

Again, sounds good, but the reality is that don't happen. Countries have been engaged in negotiations at the UN for 64 years, and the worldwide result is more bloodshed, not less.

You're kidding, right? The love affair the world seems to have with the UN is based largely on a bizarre mix of illusion and politics. If religion is the opiate of the masses, then the UN is the opiate of the elite of the elites. Their primary objective is first to weaken the US, and then a one-world government with the UN being in charge. The U.N. Undersecretary-General Shashi Tharoor wrote a few years ago, "American power may well be the central issue in world politics today." Not AIDS, genocide, world hunger, or even global warming, but American power. Everbody roots for the underdog, and in this case, everyone in the world, except us, is the underdog. Makes it real easy to root against us rather than for anyone else specific. And that's what the UN encourages. All you have to do is look at what all they've done.

They have a current FY 09 operating budget of $4.19 Billion, and that's just the primary budget, and doesn't include any of the special programs like UNICEF which are separatey funded. The United States doesn't pay it's dues, but they continue to be the largest single voluntary contributor of the UN annual budget. Budget funding is all voluntary, but the UN assesses the amount a given country is to pay, and they do it in true liberal fashion, it's based on how much you got. There is a ceiling of 22% of the UN's budget to be obtained from any one country. The US is so far the only country to be assessed that ceiling. 22% of $4.19 Billion is a lot of money ($921.8 million) considering people are screaming that the US owes pocket change in dues. Most of the budget goes to the UN's stated primary mission of maintaining global peace.

What are we getting for that money? From the UN's Purpose and Principles as stated in the Charter:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace."

Since it's founding in 1945 there have been more than 150 global wars resulting in more than 40 million deaths that were not resolved or prevented by dialog and mediation. They talk the talk that everyone loves to hear, but they fail, utterly, to walk the walk. Instead they sweep it all under the rug and make people think they're accomplishing something. Is the UN worth anything. Absolutely not. They have accomplished nothing positive and they show no signs of improvement.

If you think they are, or can be, you're fooling yourself. The UN is a nice idea, but has't worked, and it won't work. It won't work because it relies on the mutual cooperation of people, all people, under all circumstances. It assumes that all people will do what the UN tells them to do for the simple reason of "because I said so", and that ain't gonna cut it for those who are seeking their own power. I mean, for cryin' out loud, one of their primary missions is human rights violations, and more than a third of the UN member states routinely engage in gross violations of the human dignity of their own people. And the UN does nothing to stop it. Nothing.

And let us NOT forget the MILLIONS murdered since 1945 by left wing governments all over the world. You know, Russia, China, North Korea etc etc etc. These were NOT battlefield deaths, not civilian deaths that occourded during a armed conflict, these were just plain old everyday stab them in the back murders. All those countire were negotiating at the UN WHILE they were murdering MILLIONS!! The UN did NOTHING to stop it, they endorsed it.