"The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems."
The Aims of the United Nations:
+ To keep peace throughout the world.
+ To develop friendly relations between nations.
+ To work together to help people live better lives, to eliminate poverty, disease and illiteracy in the world, to stop environmental destruction and to encourage respect for each other's rights and freedoms.
+ To be a centre for helping nations achieve these aims.
The Principles of the United Nations:
+ All Member States have sovereign equality.
+ All Member States must obey the Charter.
+ Countries must try to settle their differences by peaceful means.
+ Countries must avoid using force or threatening to use force.
+ The UN may not interfere in the domestic affairs of any country.
+ Countries should try to assist the United Nations.
posted on February 16, 2003 01:33:13 PM newWHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING A UN RESOLUTION?
Nations that are memberss of the United Nations must abide by all of the rules, regulations, or rulings made by the United Nations. The Penalty for breaking these resolutions can be economic sanctions placed upon a country, threaten to revoke a nation's membership, or to revoke its membership. Either you play by the Rules and get some of what you want or get out!
The United Nations IS NOT:
* IS NOT an International Police Agency!
* IS NOT an extention of Bush's Will!
* IS NOT a Tool for American Policy!
* IS NOT a Bully Pulpit to create discord with other nations!
The United Nations IS:
+ IS a safe place for diplomacy
+ IS a place for Nations to come together
+ IS a place for nations to do business
+ IS a place to address common interests
+ IS a place to address common threats (terrorism)
IN FACT, after 9-11, the entire United Nations was 100% behind us in going after terrorism and terrorist nations! Yes! They were all behind us in what we were doing!
Now, they are split up against us? Why? You can't figure that one out from the information above? Check out this link then:
posted on February 16, 2003 05:54:10 PM new
This is where we see how two-faced our country is when it comes to the UN.
When it is working *for* us, people will point indignantly & say "Iraq isn't following UN guidelines & must be punished"--and state loudly how wonderful the UN is for world affairs.
When the UN doesn't do exactly what want, you will hear people whining & bellowing "the UN is a flop! It is useless! We should get ride of it!" Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 16, 2003 08:28:35 PM new
When you tell someone to stop and they don't listen,it is then time to take the necessary action.The UN is joke for not taking action for there own regs. no less! Empty threats do not work,I told you to stop a number of times,you don't, so now I punch your face! what do you know you stopped!
Life is Grand!
[ edited by ijusthaveit on Feb 16, 2003 08:29 PM ]
posted on February 16, 2003 08:40:02 PM new
LET SEE TO ADD TO IJUSTHAVEIT'S POST, BOSNIA WAS NOT A SUCCESSFUL UN VENTURE, LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED THERE...
SOMALIA WAS NOT A SUCCESSFUL UN VENTURE, NOTHING CHANGED.
HOW MANY "WARNINGS" IS THE UN GOING TO GIVE TO SADDAM? ALL BARK AND NO BITE.
IF THE US WAS NOT A MEMBER, IT WOULD EVEN BE A MORE LAUGHABLE ORGANIZATION THAN IT IS BECOMING NOW...
ALL IN ALL THE UN HAS DONE LITTLE IN THE LAST 50 YEARS AND CERTANLY NOT WORTH THE US'S TROUBLE OF REMAINING A MEMBER.
posted on February 16, 2003 08:56:51 PM new
TWELVEPOLE, your post simply demostrates your ignorance of the situations that you are pointing out as evidence.
Furthermore, the United Nations is not meant tp be a millitary expiditionary force, but a policing force that tries to act as a "disinterested third-party" between two or more warring factions that need such a service to keep the peace while settlements and agreements are reached. When warring sides decide to stop peacemaking and get back to hostilities it is NOT the job of the UN trops to stop them or to arrest them! Therefore, in Somalia and other countries, the United Nation was a TOTAL SUSCCESS because they fulfilled their mission for as long as it was required of them!
TWELVEPOLE, your objections are totally based on ignorance -- which is why you are holding those opinions. Go get an education on the facts and THEN come back here and tell us why you still think that the United Nations if a "FLOP".
posted on February 16, 2003 10:20:28 PM new
>HEY HAVE BEEN LARGELY UNSUCCESSFUL IN ALMOST EVERY VENTURE
That's because they were never designed to be a millitary expiditionary force, like in the Korean conflict. If the United Nations HAD been designed to be the World's Police Force, only THEN could you say that it's a failure! As it is, it only goes to prove that the United Nation's role as Peacekeepers can not be successfully subverted and should be left alone to do its job -- which it does very well!
Instead, Bush should be using NATO as a weapon. It was designed to be the West's Millitary Arm. But to confuse the two only shows what boobs both you and Bush are!
posted on February 16, 2003 11:17:27 PM new
How was the United Nation a TOTAL SUCCESS in Somalia? They still don't have a government and our liberal judges here will not let us deport illegal aliens from Somalia that have committed felony crimes here back to Somalia.
posted on February 17, 2003 12:03:51 AM new
They were a total success because they fulfilled their charter. They did what they were supposed to do. That would be obvious to you if you bothered to read the links that I posted above.
posted on February 17, 2003 03:15:35 AM new
The UN is like having a few friends over for coffee every week. You go out and get the supplies, make all the food, make sure everyone gets their favorite tid-bit, etc. This goes on week after week, year after year at your house at your expense. Well now the "guests" start to complain about the type of coffee you serve, and you should try and get better quality pastry, etc. Couple of burn holes in the rug and some of the towels are missing.
Hmmm, time to have it at somebody else's house and let them cater.
But of course, if it came to that, it wouldn't exist anymore.
posted on February 17, 2003 03:46:52 AM new
The League of Nations-I mean the United Nations is an outstanding organization! Nevermind the fact that it is made up of mostly anti-US socialists and dictators. I was very impressed when they elected Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights! LOL!
posted on February 17, 2003 04:41:36 AM new
Without the United States, there would be no United Nations. It's time for us to depart and have them leave the country.
I think DeSquirrel says it best with the coffee club.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 17, 2003 06:37:48 AM new
HERE IS A QUOTE FROM MS. RICE...
"The Security Council has to be an instrument of peace, but it has to be an instrument of peace that has teeth, or it is never going to be able to deal with the myriad difficult actors out there in international politics who intend to disturb that peace,"
SEEMS TO SUM IT UP NICELY...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on Feb 17, 2003 06:38 AM ]
posted on February 17, 2003 12:06:56 PM new
It's what I keep saying. So long as the United Nations is NOT going to be used what it is designed for, it won't do what it is not supposed to do.
For instance, when you use a wrench to try to pound in some nails and discover what a lousy job it does, do you demand to throw away the wrench -- simply because it can't be used as a hammer replacement? No. The answer lies in using the wrench for what it was intended to do and then it does that perfectly. The UN is no exception, nor is the Constitution of the United States of America I'll add.
But you complainers are a bunch of idiotic pretend carpenters going around critcising wrenchs because they won't do a good job as hammers and are calling for the removal of all wrenches. "Let some OTHER carpenters use that wrench," they suggest, "and that way we won't have to put up with the annoyance."
The problem comes when you DO need a wrench! You need it and you don't have one. I suppose you'll just criticise hammers next for not turning bolts too well!
posted on February 17, 2003 01:41:43 PM new
I'm not sure how people arrive at the conclusion that the UN somehow owes the United States something. It's quite the other way around. This nation is still almost half-a-billion in arrears in UN dues. Despite that, the US delegation still acts as if it owns the place. The United States' annual dues are highest (because UN dues are based on GNP, and the US is the wealthiest nation.) Of course, many nations actually pay more.
The UN also makes massive contributions to the U.S. economy. It bought $216 million worth of goods and services from U.S. vendors in 2001. It pays about $20 million in rent for New York office space (in addition to the main building, which the UN owns.) It employs thousands directly, and has created thousands more support jobs.
I personally think the UN is a pretty good deal, especially given that the United States has been giving itself a "five-finger discount" on its obligations for so long. The question in my mind is how long will the UN put up with the absurd antics of the Bush administration? The 2001 decision to kick the U.S. off the Human Rights Council should have been a wakeup call.
posted on February 17, 2003 03:19:41 PM new
YOU'RE RIGHT MISCOGNITO, WE DON'T BELONG IN THE UN...
BORILLAR, WE DON'T BELONG IN THE UN PRETTY SIMPLE... WHY PRESIDENT BUSH IS EVEN WASTING HIS TIME WITH THEM IS ONLY BECAUSE OF GETTING THE TROOPS IN PLACE AND SET UP READY TO GO... ONCE ALL SET YOU THINK HE IS GOING TO GIVE A RAT'S A$$ ABOUT THAT BUNCH OF LOSERS?
posted on February 17, 2003 03:31:23 PM new
Your a real card msincognito
Telling us the UN brought 216M in goods and services from the United States. Where do you think they get there money from? who do you think is the biggest contributor?
Might just be the US of A.
Next time you use Google, you may want to check a couple sites instead of just one.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 17, 2003 07:50:34 PM newTwelvepole, After you find that "caps lock" key, I would suggest you brush up on your reading skills. I never suggested the United States did not belong in the United Nations. In fact, I believe quite the opposite, that the current administration is too stupid to understand the importance of the organzation, and that the United States needs to quit acting as if it was the last-ditch arbiter of global policy.
Rev. Colin, You know what they say about people who "assume" things, don't you? How in heaven's name do you know what sites I checked, or in fact, what I knew before even having to look? In fact, I have known for a long time that the United Nations' contribution to the New York-area economy is far greater than the dues the US pays, let alone the dues it owes. Your statement that the United States makes "contributions" to the UN reveals that you haven't the faintest notion how the organization operations. The US doesn't make contributions. It has obligations. Which it has not met. I know that, you don't.
You must separate out the payments to the UN general budget and the payments to the peacekeeping missions. In terms of its contribution to the general UN operating budget, the United States is in the position of almost catching up (well, sort of.) But in 2001 - the same year that the UN bought $216 million worth of goods and supplies (for general UN operations only, this doesn't include peacekeeping) from the United States - the US government was assessed $298 million and paid $100 million. Japan was assessed $203 million and paid .... $203 million. Germany was assessed $103 million and paid $103 million. So they both paid more than we did. Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Spain all paid 100 percent of their assessments. Russia paid its assessment in January. (The United States' $100 million didn't come across until December.)
For more up-to-date figures, here is a running total of U.S. debt to the UN through Dec. 2002. For a breakdown of the political issues surrounding the United States' debt to the UN check here. From PollingReport.com, a survey of American attitudes on international relations, including the United Nations. Support ebbs and flows, but Americans tend to be more supportive of the UN than not.
And finally, here is the testimony of a State Department official on behalf of Secretary Colin Powell to the House Appropriations Committee. I have the full text of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs hearings on the Helms/Biden Act, but the link has apparently been removed by the Senate so I cannot provide it. It is interesting reading.
And by the way ... the proper contraction for "you are" (as in, "You are a real card" ) is you're.
[ edited by msincognito on Feb 17, 2003 07:52 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2003 08:35:05 PM new
If the UN closed it's door's ,New York or The USA would not miss a beat,In fact we just about drive any outside economy.The Frogs are singing the blues because the sales of chease and wine are down right now.The UN is club Med for outside countries leaders,and is a self serving circle jerk whose ride is almost over.
>One should think this aspect of the UN is a FLOP. NO it is a joke
How so? In that it has not achieved its stated goals? That ideals are not possible to reach, so therefore, it is all just a sham? Are then all religions of the world not made frauds by the same measure? Think about what you are saying.
posted on February 17, 2003 10:21:33 PM new
>BORILLAR, WE DON'T BELONG IN THE UN PRETTY SIMPLE...
I don't agree.
>WHY PRESIDENT BUSH IS EVEN WASTING HIS TIME WITH THEM IS ONLY BECAUSE OF GETTING THE TROOPS IN PLACE AND SET UP READY TO GO
Agreed. Bush NEVER had a diplomatic solution in mind. He wants the Oil and he won';t get that through diplomacy.
>ONCE ALL SET YOU THINK HE IS GOING TO GIVE A RAT'S A$$ ABOUT THAT BUNCH OF LOSERS?
They aren't loosers and I don't think that he'll care anymore then than he does now or ever did. For monsters like Bush, diplomacy only gets in the way.
posted on February 17, 2003 10:29:26 PM new
>Twelvepole, After you find that "caps lock" key,
Msincognito, imagine someone who is a quadriplegic - paralyzed from the neck down. How do you think that a person like that can communicate on a messageboard like this? Think of a rubber-tipped stick held in the mouth to press keys on a keyboard and you'll get the picture. While TWELVEPOLE has never stated such a condition one way or another on here, both AW and the RT enjoy the company of several of these handicapped posters. If TWELVEPOLE is just being lazy about the caps lock, God'll get him for it!
Other than that, I like your contributions on here and your rational, adult writing style. I wish that we could interest you in participating more on here, as the air gets pretty thin when the Uncivil Anti-Libertarians start the name-calling.
I was eventually going to point out much of what you said. I was waiting until they had dug a deep enough grave for themselves before revealing just how much business and profit America makes in total not just from servicing that building and its group of diplomats, but in the business contracts and economics make it stupid beyond belief to even consider moving the UN to another country! And one of these days, we may even have an elected President that wants to take advantage of what the United Nations was always meant to be.
