Can we trust the UN?

Well, the implementation of such reform seems to be obviously lacking.

It's just absurd for Iran to be appointed to the disarmament committee of the UN. There are other examples of such absurdity, including in the human rights arena.

If anything, the UN needs to be reorganized to not allow such rogue states influential positions on such matters that are conflicting in nature.

 

This is why the UN cannot and will not ever work. The UN, in order to further their stated purposes, must be better than the "international community" at large. As it is, in an effort to never call anything "right" or "wrong" they are unable to enforce their own standards within their own organization or any of it's members.

The lunacy of this latest appointment proves, IMO, that they don't care about anything other than their own prosperity. Iran should be booted out of the organization, but instead they give them a high profile position? Why? What logic is consistant with this?

That's crap. The UN has been reduced to the lowest common denominator of it's membership. And it is on that level that they want to bring the world to one mind. Socialism. Corruption. Abuse of power.

Gee, given the UN's behavior leading up to the Iraq war it's no wonder Iran doesn't take them seriously. They bought this situation and they own it.

 

There are many examples to show where the UN has been ineffectual in policing rogue states, and part of this is because it isn't the UN that does anything on the ground, it is whoever is willing to pay for it. The all-equal menatality works to keep people talking, but because those who make up the "electorate" has nothing to do with how much power or people you have or how you got that power, and only is made up of those with land (no matter how small) and the ability to control it, the UN can't possibily function in the way many would want it to. The major powers usually have too many national interests at stake in even rogue states to agree to do anything about anything.

In the multipolar system we are moving to with different poles with such divergent interests, the only way we can solve the root problems is to make our interests common.

 

J-Rod, don't use the word socialism. You're using it all wrong!

E_S

 

J-Rod how exactly is a democratic organization socialist? Connect those two dots for me and if you can't then please drop that line of argument as it makes you look foolish.

 

I love it. A whole post and you guys grab at only one part...Hell...one word.

The UN is partly about robbing from the rich and giving to the poor on a global scale. Socialism at it's finest.

Hell, even dues are figured on a basis consistent with,"From each according to their ability. To each according to their need."

If they could, they'd ban hand guns. As it is, they'd like to at least tax them. See, socialism, in order to work, must have many many many taxes and fears an armed populous.

They have a desire for socialized medicine.

They believe in unions before free trade between employer and employee.

This is just off the top of my head.

And, by the deafening silence regarding the rest of my last post, it was accurate in your opinion.

 

Actually, J-Rod, that's pretty much wholly wrong.

Socialism is when the state controls the means of production.

The UN =/= a state.

The edict you quoted came from Marx, a noted communist. Yet, dues are paid proportionate to the GDP of member states.

It's not that dissimilar to progressive taxation.

You see, it's hard for us to take you a serious, thoughtful critic of the UN when you make such whopping great errors on small things.



E_S

 

If they could, they'd ban hand guns. As it is, they'd like to at least tax them. See, socialism, in order to work, must have many many many taxes and fears an armed populous.

Whoever taught you about socialism is a flippin' moron. I suggest you get your money back. Secondly taxation isn't a part of socialism, at least not in that way. And another, socialism isn't a form of a dictatorship. As E_S said, if you can't even get something as simple as socialism correct how can you expect to be taken seriously with regards to the UN?

 

Plus America, and the American view on guns, accounts for about 4.5% of the world's population. Not 100% of it. Cultural imperialism = arrogant.

E_S

 

Actually, J-Rod, that's pretty much wholly wrong.

Is it? While I listed some things that inevitably accompany socialism, as well as socialistic goals, it is true and correct.

Socialism is when the state controls the means of production.

No kiddin'?

The UN =/= a state.

For now...

The edict you quoted came from Marx, a noted communist.

Give the man a gold star! That's why I put that in quotes. Socialists love quoting Marx.

Yet, dues are paid proportionate to the GDP of member states.

Yes...how very Marxist of them...

It's not that dissimilar to progressive taxation.

Yes...another hallmark of socialism.

You see, it's hard for us to take you a serious, thoughtful critic of the UN when you make such whopping great errors on small things.

While I left myself open to these criticisms, none of what I said were whopping errors.

 

J-Rod...stop, before you make yourself look worse.

 

Care to point out where you dissagree with me?

 

I wouldn't know when to start.

The UN GA certainly has the lion's share of issues, but socialism?

I mean, it sounds like you're quoting from the "Everything I needed to learn about the world I learned from Rambo II!"

E_S

 

I already pointed out your flaws. As did E_S, I think the inanity is covered.

 

No, you didn't. You correctly pointed out that I had lumped some governmental policies that are common with socialistic economies yet aren't a part of socialism per say. (And no, I never said anything about dictatorships...that was an assumption of your part)

But everything else I posted stands unchallenged.

 

Out of respect, J-Rod, because pointing out how silly it was to use socialism would be crueller than having you admit you don't really know what socialism is but suspect it's in the ballpark you lobbed your comment into.

E_S

 

I know what socialism is.

But ingoring my socialism comment in my first post, which I backed up with the UN's sliding fee as a supportive fact, the post stands unchallenged.

 

But ingoring my socialism comment in my first post, which I backed up with the UN's sliding fee as a supportive fact, the post stands unchallenged.

I believe the theory behind such progressive fees and taxation is not so much "each according to his ability, each according to his need" but rather "those that recieve the most benefit should contribute correspondingly".

 

I believe the theory behind such progressive fees and taxation is not so much "each according to his ability, each according to his need" but rather "those that recieve the most benefit should contribute correspondingly".

Isn't that saying exactly the same thing?

Of course it is. I'm sorry if Marx made the point first.

Rarely does a person become wealthy without contributing wealth to the society that made him wealthy. See, in reality contribution happens without government interference. It's just a weak excuse to punish people for daring to have the sack to rely on themselves instead of the government, IMO. (Not to mention it makes for easy votes at election time by those that have realized that they can vote themselves money from the general fund)

But I've just derailed the thread and I would like to focus on the UN's inability to effectively influence Iran due to their lack of will and leadership and the behaviour exhibited prior to the Iraq war.

 

J-Rod; the US has benefitted far more than anybody from the United Nations and it pays the highest dues. What's socialist about that?

E_S

 

Ya think so? The way I see it the UN has benefitted from the US more than any of it's other members. On top of that we have to pay more than anybody else to belong?

 

See, in reality contribution happens without government interference. It's just a weak excuse to punish people who for daring to have the sack to rely on themselves instead of the government,

Hardly J-Rod.

Who benefits most from the protections and the infrastructure governements set up? The rich and the people with property.

They have the most to lose if the government all of a sudden disappeared in a poof of smoke. All the things they had worked for all their lives would suddenly be unprotected. Without the infrastructure created and supported by the government, business relying on it would collapse.

You complain about people freeloading off of the government. However, what they gain from the government is nothing compared to what the rich gain from the government. It only makes sense for those who have the most interest in government dividends to pay the most into it.

 

I know so; look at how the UN worked closely with the US during the Cold War at thwarting Soviet aims.

E_S

 

J-Rod,
you seem to be treating the UN as a governing body. It's not. It's not really meant to be. It is a body to facilitate communication, open to all recognized countries. If the members of the forum want to take united action, the members meet and discuss it in the forum.

The forum does not compel. The forum merely facilitates relations between the members.

If the UN cannot compel Iran, it is because the members balk at compelling Iran (due to repercussions i.e. oil). Though much of the membership was against the US going into Iraq, the UN could not compel the US because the members balk at compelling the US (due to inability). The UN is not better than its members, it can't be. The UN is its members.

 

Flyer, start a thread, if you want. I would enjoy commenting on your last post but am trying to get out of the habbit of derailing topics. (IMO, I'm the King of that around here )

I know so; look at how the UN worked closely with the US during the Cold War at thwarting Soviet aims.

Whoa whoa whoa. Here is the meat and potatoes of the topic right here. The defeat of the Soviet Union was a shared goal of the US and the UN. And the US was the heart and soul of that goal. Did the UN or US benefit most during that time? It's hard to say, as it was really the world that gained.

Now, it seems, the UN has become directionless and without vision. Communism has been replaced by terrorism. A fair trade, IMO, just as Nazism was replaced by Communism before that. (After all, a nuked city...worst case...is better than a nuked planet...again worst case) While I was pretty young during The Cold War, I don't remember the UN splitting up over what to do about communism like they are on terrorism. But then again, the Soviets weren't put in charge of high profile UN committees.

Terror sponsors are. The UN has failed to rise above the lowest of it's members.

If the UN cannot compel Iran, it is because the members balk at compelling Iran (due to repercussions i.e. oil). Though much of the membership was against the US going into Iraq, the UN could not compel the US because the members balk at compelling the US (due to inability). The UN is not better than its members, it can't be. The UN is its members.

That's kinda my point. Shouldn't members need to step up or step out? I think so.

Otherwise we've learned nothing from the League of Nations. C'mon people! Was WWII really so long ago? Wasn't 9/11 a reminder of many of the lessons we had already forgotten that lead to WWII?

The US ignoring global threats? "Peace in our time?" Endless debates with out a call to action? The delusion that our enemies want peace?