End the UN

**itld** · 04-27-2003

howdy,
Who pays the bills for the UN?

M.R.

**novacain** · 04-28-2003

Did you also sign the other petition on this site?

>>A petition to redress the anti-American petitions and ad campaigns sponsored by Hollywood and academic Leftists ostensibly objecting to the U.S. military campaign against terrorism following the unprecedented attack on our countrymen September 11, 2001. <<

I'm sorry but doesn't that violate the "Hollywood and academic Leftists" right to FREE SPEECH?

The big problem was that other countries threatened to user their veto power to block a resolution the US wanted in the UN. The US then acts as if this is an abuse of power.

Prahaps you should look up which country has used its veto power in the UN the MOST and WHY.

Surprise, surprise........... its the US.

The most recent US veto was to stop investigation into Israel killing UN relief workers and destroying a UN food warehouse.

Want to know what else the evil, irrelevent UN wanted to have a resolution about that the US vetoed?

on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians:: Dec 2001

on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians:: March 2001

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...o/vetosubj.htm

>>but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances, trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN...and then we don't have to cooperate with the nations which don't play nicely with others.<<

In an envioronment where the US can throw its weight around in an 'one on one' fourum. Rather than in a democratic forum where a weak country can hope to have a chance.

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Bill Clinton, April 2003

**itld** · 04-28-2003

howdy,

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Bill Clinton, April 2003

OR

we could send them money and beg them to stop.

M.R.

Unregd · 04-28-2003

So little time, so many faulty assumptions. First, the United Nations is neither an "external legislative body" nor is it an "'entangling alliance.'" The UN is many things, but it is not a world government organization. The various branches and levels of the U.S. governmental system remain sovereign and independent as shown by President Bush's actions.

If one country reasonably expects to work with another country, the international equivalent of respect is necessary. Precisely because the UN is not and cannot be a world government, it cannot coerce compliance from its sovereign members, specifically the U.S. The U.S. leadership had a humanitarian duty to call on the UN to stop genocide, too many times it backed away. The U.S. has neglected to pay its UN dues, depriving the UN of working for third-world concerns. With isolationists and unilateralists in the United States, the only current nation-state "super power," preferring the UN as the U.S.'s bully-pulpit or nothing, it's no wonder the UN has failed at its responsibilities. If walking out on talks on global warming, human rights, etc. and trying to buy support is "cooperation," then I'd rather see less "cooperation." Can President Bush and the other unilateralists realize that friends are not won when they are all treated as potential enemies?

Yes, France, Germany, and Russia let their self-interest show through when they opposed the resolution, but so did the United States in supporting and proposing it. It is hard to see concern for the downtrodden Iraqis when there is so much oil just ready to be liberated.

Returning to the text of the petition, "'Old Europe' and lesser nations" are equated with moral evil! If it is righteous for the United States to defend its own self-interests, how does it transform into being "morally evil" when these "lesser nations" do it? Oh, now I see. The UN's efforts may undermine corporate interests, conservative Christian morals, and the right to a machine designed expressly to destroy living organisms. We wouldn't want the UN cracking down on terrorist cells' ability to obtain AK-47's, nor would we want to interfere with CEO's' ability to extract wealth most efficiently from third-world countries.

**rahaydenuk** · 04-29-2003

Taken from the petition preamble:
The United Nations, then, is not merely morally ambiguous, but morally evil -- a clearing house for the ambitions and economic interests of "Old Europe" and lesser nations

What exactly is meant by 'lesser nations'?!

The preamble to that petition is one of the most ridiculous, short-sighted and internationally-blind pieces of drivel I've ever read and the US calls itself democratic? OK, maybe there's democracy within the country, but God forbid another country disagrees with the US government.

Some americans really need to wake up and see that people have the right to disagree with your country's principles/actions, and that the US, as a major power, needs to listen to others' concerns, and not just go ahead and do what they want regardless.

BTW, I was in full support of the war in Iraq, but was not in full support of the US's blatent disregard of the UN's power and authority. If they can disregard it so easily, why should other countries respect it? It's that kind of attitude that means that bodies such as the UN are condemned to failure from the start.

Regards,

**itld** · 04-29-2003

howdy,

Some americans really need to wake up and see that people have the right to disagree with your country's principles/actions, and that the US, as a major power, needs to listen to others' concerns, and not just go ahead and do what they want regardless.

no we don't, other countries need to realize the United States isn't playing the UN game anymore. WE the US can and will take care of it's own business with or without the aproval of anyone else.

M.R.

**rahaydenuk** · 04-29-2003

Originally posted by itld
howdy,

no we don't, other countries need to realize the United States isn't playing the UN game anymore. WE the US can and will take care of it's own business with or without the aproval of anyone else.

M.R.

Whilst I fully respect your viewpoint, do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants, whatever about anyone else's opinions, or do you only believe this is the right of the USA?

If the former is your opinion, then surely you are merely supporting anarchy in another guise? If the latter is your opinion, then surely you are suggesting a superiority of the USA over other nations? That sort of thinking was what caused the second world war, was it not?

*One plea everyone; let's try not to let this thread turn into a flame-war; let's see if we can have a constructive, thoughtful and intelligent debate on this interesting subject.*

Regards,

**itld** · 04-29-2003

howdy,
i would agree with your second asumption, however at this point in history the US is unlikely to try to conquer the world. at some point a country must deciede to stand for itself, this is not anarchy it's not even superiority, it's principle.
even today i hear that the UN has placed Cuba in a high position on the human rights council.
how can the UN expect to be taken seriously when it make appointments like this.

M.R.

**confuted** · 04-29-2003

The following are taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in Dec. 1948.

"23.1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." (We're all ensured a job...Marx and Engles had this idea..."Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!")

"24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" (For anyone without paid holidays, go to your boss and demand them, telling your boss that they are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

"25.1 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (For anyone who's ever needed something and the state hasn't stepped up and given it to you...I assume that's all of us...better complain to your local representatives)

"26.1 Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." (Yeah. Affirmative Action in colleges. Merit. I think I want to tell them I'm from Mars to see if that makes me enough of a minority to get admitted.) (that wasn't intended to offend anyone, and let's not turn this into an affirmative action thread, we can start one if we must, though. Anyway, the fact remains that at University of Michigan and other colleges, being a member of a minority group counts for significantly more than an excellent essay or perfect SAT scores.)

Just a cursory glance through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought up these violations by the most advanced nation in the world. Personally, I wouldn't WANT to live in a country which met all the demands in those articles...perhaps the UN is setting some impossible goals.

FURTHERMORE, nations are allowed admittance to the UN despite gross violations of the charter, a fact which has undoubtedly aided in the decay of the UN.

"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. "

"to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours" Heh. US, Iraq, Iran, DPRK (North Korea), more than I'm prepared to name...

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states " See above.

"A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. " Take a look at most of Africa, most of Asia, and much of the rest of the world. They/we're still members.

"the United Nations shall promote:...universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion...All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55." Wow...there are so many nations which violate this...the Middle East and South Eastern Asia are two big examples...along with places such as Rwanda.

I'm not going to keep citing these things. There are way too many examples which prove that the UN is hypocritical. If those are the goals of member nations, and if the failure to honor them can get a nation removed from the UN, why were nations practicing genocide ever admitted? Furthermore, why are these nations allowed to continue to hold membership when they clearly have no regard for the UN charter? Perhaps if members in good standing were willing to enforce the ideals of the UN through selective membership, something would get done. Until then, however...Rwanda, Somalia, Pakistan, Mauritius (total population: 1200) and North Korea will continue to have the same influence as Germany, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Spain.

**OneStiffRod** · 04-29-2003

>>do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants, whatever about anyone else's opinions, or do you only believe this is the right of the USA?

Yes, and Yes... most countries already do what they wish and the US will follow suit - what restricts the AFRICA nations from waring with each other and commiting attrocities - noone - they're doing what they wish along with IRAN, and SYRIA who support terror - noone at the UN prevented India or Pakistan from getting NUKES... so really the UN spends too much of it's time trying to restrict the actions of the US and not dealing with the rest of the globe.

It is clear that the UN has aspirations of becoming a WORLD GOVT. -- as shown by the setup of ICC and World Courts - the once lofty ambition of becoming a military entity and power - with it's efforts in BOSNIA and SOMALIA where a central commitee was setup to command the forces and both efforts ended in dismal failure. -- Also, the ambitions to create a world TAX that will go to the UN where at least 1% of your GDP must go to the UN.

The ambitions of the UN councils to be involved intimately within a countries political process by imposing it's standards for worker requirments, standard minimum wage, emission controls, and etc.
Whether you agree or not with the above it shouldn't be the UN who forces what a countries domestic and economic policies it should use. It's alright to pressure another country to adopt favorable policies with money incetives like the US does but to have the UN force it upon others with the rule of international law is BS.

**novacain** · 04-29-2003

The UN brings in these countries with terrible human right records in teh hope that they can be coerced diplomatically to reform (as the only other option is by force which will not benift those who are oppressed)

The veto power is what has eroded the UN.

No small country has a chance (against a major power or its allies) when their resolutions can be thrown out on a whim.
We need a world government/court that can stop corporations exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources and cheap labour.

>>do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants,

OSR >> yes

So Iraq should be allowed to develop WMD?

North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes?

>>however at this point in history the US is unlikely to try to conquer the world.

I think it already has. Thru its corporations and culture. They run the show in the US and many other countries. Just the threat of an army ten times its nearest rival (and a demonstrated willingness to use it) is enough to force most countries to tow the US line.

**itld** · 04-29-2003

howdy,

Thru its corporations and culture

yes there is no question that America is the leader in the industrialized world economy, But is that a bad thing. i think not. that kind of control in the hands of a nation like Iran would be a travisty to say the least.

We need a world government/court

my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??
are you serious??
gives me the chills just thinking of it.

M.R.

**OneStiffRod** · 04-29-2003

>>So Iraq should be allowed to develop WMD?

>>North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes?

Yes, weren't and aren't they already... it's also are right to KICK THEIR ASS for doing so.

**novacain** · 04-30-2003

You can't have it both ways OSR.

You can't say that these countries should be able to develop WMD. Then say that you have the right to attack them if they do.

And no, Iraq was not allowed to. Wasn't that the reason for the sanctions and the war?

>> my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??<<

Some thing to stop corprations from exploiting workers. Think about all the Americans on unemplyment after thier jobs are moved to cheap labour countries offshore.

Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?

I feel that the world environment belongs to me as much as it does to you or any corporation.
Yet in countries like Angola, Boganville and Nigeria safety and environmental protections are removed so the corporation can make more profit.

Who protects the population of these countries against corporations who make more proift than the countries GDP? (and so can buy whom ever they need to ensure their activities can continue?)

**OneStiffRod** · 04-30-2003

>>Who pays these benifits?
>>We as tax payers do.
>>So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can >>make more profit?

Uhh we will pay anyway, but my way I'm paying the TAX to my govt. and not the UN -- do u think that the UN won't require taxes and a hefty increase in taxes at that to pull the weight for those countries who can't survive w/o suking at the UN's teet...

To give an example a LAW is being proposed at the UN right now to tax the internet and those monies will go to the UN -- the UN is trying to get this law to be passed in it's council -- the law namely is a 1cent tax on every email throughout the world - if this law passes and the UN gains international LAW status with the expansion of the ICC -- all of us will have to pay 1cent to the UN to send an email...

The UN sees itself as a perfect entity to tax things that cross international boundries like the internet.