Do we have any anti-UN loonies here?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-07-10 09:51pm

The U.N has changed since it was formed after WW2. It's main goal was to "Prevent another World War", not to "Cripple the world's only superpower". There are many examples of this.

1. The Kyoto Protocol

It was supposedly made in order to reduce emissions worldwide, but many people knew that the requirements put in place by it would harm the US economy and raise gas prices. Bill Clinton, who might have known the consequences, approved it, despite a 95-0 Senate vote against it. When Bush nullified it, the biased American Media and Europeans acted like he said he wanted to destroy the ecosystem, even though he proposed alternatives.

2. The U.N. Small arms confrence.

A blatant attack on the second amendment. Proposed registering gun users, among other things. I'm quite fuzzy on it. Even worse, the conference was held on American soil!

3. The ICC

This called for a world court for war crimes, like the one used to prosecute Nazis after WW2. Clinton, probably knowing what would happen, approved of the treaty. If approved, America could be charged with war crimes such as dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as other, even older and more insignificant "crimes". Fortunally for the sovreignity of the US, Bush backed out of the treaty.

4. The Human Rights Comission

The US was voted out of this body, and voted in: slave-trading states (Sudan), rogue nations (Libya), and nations with horrid human rights records (China).

The U.N. misses an America led by Clinton, and as he left office, U.N. dreams of a socialist utopia were cut short.

Post by **Steve** » 2002-07-10 11:20pm

Oh please....

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-10 11:50pm

The U.N. misses an America led by Clinton, and as he left office, U.N. dreams of a socialist utopia were cut short

He was their best friend.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2002-07-11 02:14am

One notable thing, and the only good I have ever seen come of th UN, is disaster relief, and the World Health Organisation's immunisation program. I bet both functions could be done better if they were divorced from the UN. I have to go now, the black helicopters have been sent for me, since I neglected to put the aluminum foil back in my hat to keep the spy satilites using alien technology to read my mind.(If you cloak your thoughts too much, they will put radiation into your gonads)

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2002-07-11 07:58am

Anti-UN? Nope. I just can't take them seriously, primarily for one of the reasons Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi (what an awkward name) pointed out: They call the United States' human rights record "bad" while at the same time allowing places like the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and China to sit on the very same commission.

Sorry, but I've always hated hypocrisy. It's just a character flaw I have, I guess.

Of course, according to that Human Right's Commission, it's okay to own slaves. Jefferson Davis woulda loved them.

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2002-07-29 05:58am

My problem with the U.N is that if I ever became the ruler of a nation They would Just get in my way. I let you decide what that means.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-29 09:21am

Three words: Security council veto.

I would be a whole lot less fussed about the fact that permanent members exist if they didn't have a veto on the security council. Wheren't there about 6? movements passed through the Security Council during the Cold war, simply because America and Russia obstinately chose to vote on opposing sides?

Of course, my little gripe would go into the dustbin if it were ever raised in the UN, because it would have to be approved by.... you guessed it! the Security Council! And I guaruntee you that 4 of the 5 permanent members will look at it and go "Ha!" and then the ageing member for russia will have a heart attack because he's laughing so hard. I'm not entirely sure what France would do, as the European nations tend to be unpredictable at the best of times, and my little gripe might just tickle their fancy, although odds are they'll also laugh.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-29 12:02pm

Three words: Security council veto.

If it wasn't for the security council votes you would have the mob of third world nations as well as the attendent dictatorial powers hijacking the world agenda. Whta mnay people refuse to see is that the western world is currently outnumbered by the folks who believe in the power of the gun over words. The UN is not an intrument for peace and understanding, it is a cudgel to use against those nations which they would not have any power over at all.

Prime example was the recent conference on slavery held in South Africa IIRC, there you had nations trying to bring teh US to task over issues that we fought a bloody civil war over 150 YEARS ago. There are nations in Africa where slavery runs rampant NOW and they have the GALL to call us to task. I'm glad Bush told them to go to hell.

The UN is a beauracractic monstrosity that has the unerving tendency to bite the hand that feeds it. I can honestly say that if the UN went away tomorrow, I would not shed a tear. If the US went away tomorrow the world would be iun a much darker place.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-29 12:11pm

See how benevolent the US as world governemnt would be compared to the UN?

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-29 11:30pm

If it wasn't for the security council votes you would have the mob of third world nations as well as the attendent dictatorial powers hijacking the world agenda.

votes? I'm not complaining about the Security Council votes. I'm complaining about the way something can have an overwhelming majority in the Sec. COuncil, but still not be passed because the one nation that votes against it happens to be France/England/China/Russia/US.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-29 11:52pm

I think that the UN is completely impotent. I think it was a good idea, but it has absolutely no teeth because of the rules governing the Security Council. ANY of fifteen nations can veto ANY proposal, Resolution, etc. And five of those nations NEVER have to move out. Further, if there are going to be countries that are perpetually on there, Germany, Japan, and perhaps a few others should be added and the Council should be reduced in size.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-30 12:10am

I think that the UN is completely impotent. I think it was a good idea, but it has absolutely no teeth because of the rules governing the Security Council. ANY of fifteen nations can veto ANY proposal, Resolution, etc. And five of those nations NEVER have to move out. Further, if there are going to be countries that are perpetually on there, Germany, Japan, and perhaps a few others should be added and the Council should be reduced in size.

It's only the 5 permanent members who get the veto, which is bad enough.
The UN did precicely squat during the Cold War because the US and the USSR kept on vetoing each other.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-30 02:50am

Lusankya wrote:
I think that the UN is completely impotent. I think it was a good idea, but it has absolutely no teeth because of the rules governing the Security Council. ANY of fifteen nations can veto ANY proposal, Resolution, etc. And five of those nations NEVER have to move out. Further, if there are going to be countries that are perpetually on there, Germany, Japan, and perhaps a few others should be added and the Council should be reduced in size.
It's only the 5 permanent members who get the veto, which is bad enough.
The UN did precicely squat during the Cold War because the US and the USSR kept on vetoing each other.

And they're accomplishing sooo much now???

There's a reason why they have those vetoes. Its called being a world power and victors of WWII, in other words, they earned it.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-30 03:50am

More than they did during the Cold War.

And they didn't earn it. They just declared themselves permanent members when the UN started, more or less.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-30 11:57am

A few million dead soldiers, years of sacrifice on the homefront, hundreds of millions dead civilians (particularly on the Russian front) doesn't earn it for you, huh? Ok.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-07-30 12:45pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:The U.N has changed since it was formed after WW2. It's main goal was to "Prevent another World War", not to "Cripple the world's only superpower". There are many examples of this.

1. The Kyoto Protocol

It was supposedly made in order to reduce emissions worldwide, but many people knew that the requirements put in place by it would harm the US economy and raise gas prices. Bill Clinton, who might have known the consequences, approved it, despite a 95-0 Senate vote against it. When Bush nullified it, the biased American Media and Europeans acted like he said he wanted to destroy the ecosystem, even though he proposed alternatives.

Boo-hoo. U.S. gas prices are already extremely low. Further, are you actually making a serious argument that pollution is a good thing and should be ignored in order to keep the economy strong? I'm sorry, but I don't want North America to look like Europe in 200 years with nearly the entire continent deforested farmed.

2. The U.N. Small arms confrence.

A blatant attack on the second amendment. Proposed registering gun users, among other things. I'm quite fuzzy on it. Even worse, the conference was held on American soil!

In case you ddn't notice, the headquarters of the U.N. are "on American Soil!"

3. The ICC

This called for a world court for war crimes, like the one used to prosecute Nazis after WW2. Clinton, probably knowing what would happen, approved of the treaty. If approved, America could be charged with war crimes such as dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as other, even older and more insignificant "crimes". Fortunally for the sovreignity of the US, Bush backed out of the treaty.

So the U.S. should be above the law permanently because they are a great and benevolent country and will remain that way for centuries?

The U.N. misses an America led by Clinton, and as he left office, U.N. dreams of a socialist utopia were cut short.

Socialism is hardly a utopia. I'd like to actually keep more than 50% of my wages instead of spending them on people who don't want to work.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-31 01:10am

A few million dead soldiers, years of sacrifice on the homefront, hundreds of millions dead civilians (particularly on the Russian front) doesn't earn it for you, huh? Ok.

It's a continual thing, and Russia and the US at least have shown that they're quite willing to abuse the privelige of having a veto.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-31 01:25am

Lusankya wrote:
A few million dead soldiers, years of sacrifice on the homefront, hundreds of millions dead civilians (particularly on the Russian front) doesn't earn it for you, huh? Ok.
It's a continual thing, and Russia and the US at least have shown that they're quite willing to abuse the privelige of having a veto.

The veto has grown to be a protection for the powers from a very idiotic majority of nations. The US needs to protect itself and its allies from the resolutions of nations that only have it in for the US. There is no denying that our enemies, and even some of our friends *cough France * cough * have a agendas that purposely oppose US policy. We are outnumbered and it would hardly be democratic if nations whose combined GNP is less than 10% of the US's GNP (Before anyone tries to nitpick I will be the first to say that this number came straight from my ass but you get the point) can dictate policy to the US. Being the world's last great power means something whether the little nations like it or not.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-31 01:29am

The veto has grown to be a protection for the powers from a very idiotic majority of nations. The US needs to protect itself and its allies from the resolutions of nations that only have it in for the US. There is no denying that our enemies, and even some of our friends *cough France * cough * have a agendas that purposely oppose US policy. We are outnumbered and it would hardly be democratic if nations whose combined GNP is less than 10% of the US's GNP (Before anyone tries to nitpick I will be the first to say that this number came straight from my ass but you get the point) can dictate policy to the US. Being the world's last great power means something whether the little nations like it or not.

Well, it's not as though the UN means anything these days.

Even Australia (formerly known as the UN's lapdog) has been ignoring the UN lately.

Does anyone else think that the UN is pretty much the same as the Galactic Republic in its dying stages?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-31 03:08am

Hold onto your hats here kiddies, I am going to agree with Lusankya on what she has posted in this page. (as it is the only page I have read). The UN is an immpotant lap dog for the superpowers, nothing more.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-31 05:59am

Well, you're not all bad, Crown....

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-07-31 10:55am

Was that a compliment Lusankya?

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2002-07-31 05:16pm

Boo-hoo. U.S. gas prices are already extremely low. Further, are you actually making a serious argument that pollution is a good thing and should be ignored in order to keep the economy strong? I'm sorry, but I don't want North America to look like Europe in 200 years with nearly the entire continent deforested farmed.

Actually, the Kyoto Protocol would be totally ineffective at curbing air pollution, due to the fact that it would not apply to developing nations such as India and the People's Republic of China -- whose use of environmentally protective regulation is relatively nonexistent.

As it is, the Kyoto Protocol would only serve to cripple the economies of the United States and other fully developed states, whilst doing little to nothing to prevent continued air pollution. It is a flagrantly political measure, with the false mask of environmentalism used to convince uncareful observers of its own value.

In case you ddn't notice, the headquarters of the U.N. are "on American Soil!"

In what way does the location of the UNO affect the fact that it advocates the passage of measures which infringe upon the constitutional rights guaranteed United States citizens by their Second Article of Amendment to their Constitution?

The UNO headquarters could be located in Rouen, France, and it would still be totally irrelevant to the fact that the organisation held a conference in the sovereign territory of the United States advocating measures which are unconstitutional therein.

So the U.S. should be above the law permanently because they are a great and benevolent country and will remain that way for centuries?

Your pardon, but you are asking whether the United States should be above the "law"? What "law"? There is no such thing as "international law," only international convention.

Publius

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-07-31 05:20pm

So the U.S. should be above the law permanently because they are a great and benevolent country and will remain that way for centuries?

Your pardon, but you are asking whether the United States should be above the "law"? What "law"? There is no such thing as "international law," only international convention.

Publius[/quote]

Have to agree with Publius on this. When people casually throw around terms like International law they really don't know the basics like the fact that there are conventions, accords, agreements but no set laws the likes which sovereign nations have. Some students in law school got into a hot debate with our professor on this very topic many moons ago and when I saw this I had to respond out of reflex. Got drummed into me fairly well, I guess.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-31 07:09pm

Lusankya wrote:Three words: Security council veto.

I would be a whole lot less fussed about the fact that permanent members exist if they didn't have a veto on the security council. Wheren't there about 6? movements passed through the Security Council during the Cold war, simply because America and Russia obstinately chose to vote on opposing sides?

There were more than that because of a combination of two factors:

1. The Chinese vote was controlled by Chiang Kai-Shek's government, and really represented Taiwan for much of the early part of the war.
2. The Soviets frequently boy-cotted the UN.

The combination of those two factors made the UN an essentially pro-democratic institution for much of the early part of the Cold War. The lack of a Chinese and Soviet vote explains how the US was able to fight the Korean Conflict flying a UN flag, even though it was clearly going against the policies of two permanent members of the Security Council.

I think what the General Assembly needs is a way to one-up the veto of an SC country. Maybe if they could just vote on the measure again, after it had been vetoed, and get two thirds majority then the resolution could pass (like the American system of legislation). I think that that might give the UN some teeth again. To be honest, the way that they have the UN now really ticks me off. A hundred countries can want to do something, but if one of the wrong countries disagrees then the entire world is gone. They really are a kind of touchy-feely organization where everyone has to get along or nothing will happen. They didn't really consider how deep the divisions between countries were when they founded the UN in 1945. It's really little better than the League of Nations, as it stands today.