posted on February 6, 2003 06:20:14 PM new
Tell us, TWELEVEPOLE, exactly what you think that the UN's job should be? A world government? The World's Police force? What?
posted on February 6, 2003 06:54:55 PM new
You know, the UN may be the Anti Christ.. oh wait, that was a movie....
Seriously... I never liked the ideal of the UN, but we do need the world to 'come together' on things. (or that is how its supposed to be)
THATS WHY BUSH has had to keep going to the UN for 'approval'. IRAQ belongs to the UN, and still the UN turns its blind eye to all that that countrys dictator has done, and keeps doing.
posted on February 6, 2003 07:05:02 PM new
Wasn't it Iraq's turn to host the U.N. Disarmament conference this week? That's like Sudan chairing the Human Rights committee.
...those are just a couple of examples of why the U.N. is no longer relevant
posted on February 6, 2003 08:07:07 PM new
Lets see, has the United Nations done anything better or accomplished more that the League oF Nations?
No.
The only thing holding the U.N. together is funding from the United States & the U.S. needs to reroute ALL that money to help U.S. citizens with food, schools, medicine & 'etc".
Abolish the U.N., it is a useless front for spineless, politically inept countries.
posted on February 6, 2003 08:33:53 PM new
BORILLAR, THE UN'S HEYDAY WAS KOREA...50 YEARS AGO AND ONLY A YEAR OR TWO AFTER COMING INTO BEING... ANY OTHER TIME IT HAS BEEN A SHAMBLES WITH THE US TAKING MOST OF THE BRUNT... NOW THAT WE WANT TO RID OURSELVES OF AN ENEMY, THOSE SPINLESS (THANKS BEAR) PIECES OF CRAP ARE BALKING...
BUSH HAS MADE ONE THING VERY CLEAR THROUGH THIS WHOLE ORDEAL... THE UN IS WORTHLESS.
posted on February 7, 2003 02:54:58 AM new
The UN was a good idea gone bad. I don't care if it's disbanded or not but would like to see it sent to France.
Amen,
Reveend Colin
posted on February 7, 2003 05:37:37 AM newWorld's Police force?
WOW, MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES, SOUNDS SIMILAR TO MOST POLICE CHARTERS TO ME...
THE REAL BASIC UNDERLYING FACT WAS FOR THE UN TO PREVENT ANOTHER WORLD WAR, HOWEVER HOW WAS THE PRECEDENT SET TO STOP AGGRESSION FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER? KOREA....
UN HAS TIME AND AGAIN PROVEN THAT IT IS ALL BARK AND NO BITE; TIME TO SAY GOODBYE.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on February 7, 2003 08:36:13 AM new
Maintain international peace and security, yeah, that is one of their purposes... then why? did N. Korea just kick those inspectors out of there? Seemed like they were thrown out in one day, and no one b*tched about it.
And N.KOREA belongs to the UN, try to figure that one out!
What country does NOT belong?.. as far as I can tell, ALL countries belong... there may be a couple that do not, but I cannot think of them...
Then there are the UN Peacekeepers.... now that must be a great job..... NOT.... they don't even carry any weapons, even in hostile UN chartered COUNTRIES.
posted on February 7, 2003 08:58:46 AM new
You are all showing just how ignorant that you are about diplomacy and the reason for the UN. For that reason, no one else is joining you in here with this nonsense. You are speaking from outright ignorance and are making fools of yourselves more than usual.
I'm done in this thread. You're all too lazy to go get educated.
posted on February 7, 2003 05:49:32 PM new
WOW BORILLAR, WHAT A SNAPPY COME BACK... BLAME YOUR IGNORANCE ON OTHERS... HOW ABOUT GETTING YOURSELF EDUCATED ON THIS SUBJECT... MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU.
posted on February 7, 2003 06:05:10 PM new
I understand the function of the UN - to provide a forum for the nations of the world, civilized and uncivilized, to deal with one another and hopefully, to resolve problems before they become wars, famines or plagues.
However, these functions have been corrupted by time and political manipulations and as a body it has become less than useful, instead becoming a place for 3rd World nincompoops to have equal stature with the civilized nations, put forth agendas that vare highly politicised and have no effect, and as much as possible, squeeze cash from the wealthy nations for the benefit of the ruling regimes of the poor ones.
The introduction of modern communications systems and jet aircraft eliminate the great need for a central gathering place - it can all be done by wire or if a face to face is required, hop a jet.
I have believed for many years that to have such an organization in the US is a mistake anyway- move it to a small nation that can use the service jobs and will appreciate the
income generated. My suggestion is the Canary Islands- low cost of living, lovely climate, and a passel of islands to locate your Un Mission on. Big nations can have an island to themselves, small ones can share.
The cost of relocation is covered easily- the sale of townhouses and office buildings
in Manhattan (and PRIME Manhattan for the most part)would generate enough cash to
build palatial digs in the C.I. The Secretariat building would bring enough money to build everything the organization
needs.
The city would get beaucoup tax dollars from all the prime real estate no longer exempt from taxes, the people would be spared the DPL cars double parked wherever they want and the nation would benefit by eliminating the PRIME cover for foreign intelligence agents in the US.
posted on February 7, 2003 06:47:48 PM new
> . . .to provide a forum for the nations of the world, civilized and uncivilized, to deal with one another and hopefully, to resolve problems before they become wars, famines or plagues.
Correct. It is also meant to be a central place where diplomats from all nation, big or small, can meet on an equal footing and mutual respect. It is being hosted by the United States as we used to be the most enlightened nation on earth. Moving it out of the United States will only validate our fall from grace and the dashing of worthy ideals. No such forward-looking establishment, such as that of the UN, is likely to be perfect or to completely achieve its goals. Remember that something is only a failure if you give up on it or stop believing in its mission. By remembering what that vision was and why we began it is to stay the course and takes us all ever closer to that place of perfection that we all seek, but can never achieve. Therefore, let us remember why the UN is there in the first place and not stray from supporting its ideals simply because of ignorant criticisms and radio talk show demagoguery.
That the UN was never meant to be a police agency, nor a Billy club to be wielded by whatever superpower that has a hankering to dominate the world seems to be lost on some people; that when asked about their criticism they can not provide an adequate answer shows just how much that they rely upon demagoguery instead of facts; that it makes them look foolish and stupid and ignorant to others when they repeat the nonsense that they heard and liked. That no one should feel sorry for them for looking like fools, because they invite ridicule when they don't do their own homework, we should simply ignore them and their unfounded tirades.
posted on February 7, 2003 09:06:29 PM new
Actually, it was hosted by the US for a couple of reasons, enlightenment not being among them.
The land on which it sits was given by the Rockefellers and even though it was a slaughterhouse site it was probably the single most valuable piece of undeveloped
land in midtown Manhattan. Was it altruism? No, it was self interest. Monied interests saw the benefit of drawing international organizations to New York in that era and the UN was the largest. Rockefeller Center was the largest office development in the world and the newest in NYC and only 6 blocks crosstown with lots of vacancies - and its losses were a drain on the Rockefeller interests. Not only did they anticipate numerous new tenants related to the UN but the land they owned ADJACENT to the UN would skyrocket in value. THAT's why they "donated" the land.
US commercial interests, both financial and industrial also saw potential- the presence of international prospects close to home without the bother of traveling to some rubbled european city or a swampy backwater -the end of the war left our european competitors destroyed and it was commercial America's chance to cash in AFTER a war.
Finally, Washington didn't need much convincing. Again, the idea of this organization being in the US and the "control" they thought that would bring convinced them BEFORE the commercial interests weighed in.
All of these politically connected groups saw to it that we got the UN, altruism and enlightenment had nothing to do with it.
posted on February 7, 2003 10:06:46 PM new
UN has proven impotant,
all it's head can do is say no,no,no. to USA & little more,
OR
It's heads can Quit in protest.
