We should get rid of the UN

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Warhammer RE:We should get rid of the UN 7/23/2004 12:16:57 PM

We need to keep in on our soil as a means of controlling it. We need to keep an active part in it, because we do not want the rest of the world going off and doing things without us. Best way to deal with something like the UN would be to either completely remake it, or keep it weak if it is going to continue to be as corrupt as it has been. Only way we can do either is to work within the system.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a RE:We should get rid of the UN 7/23/2004 4:29:49 PM

I think something needs to be done, but we have to have something like the UN. Maybe what it needs is a dynamic SecGen, like Dag Hammersjkold was, to get some needed reforms in there. Kofi Annan is proving to be more of a mistake every day, and the last few SecGens have not been any better.

Quote Reply

dn328 RE:We should get rid of the UN 7/24/2004 2:15:39 PM

I am afraid United is doing a lot, not for the nations, but for Dictators who are repressing their nations. It is one of the most corrupt and useless organization in the world occupied by a bunch of of inhuman individuals to protect right of humans.

Quote Reply

swhitebull Oil For Food Crisis 8/13/2004 1:35:01 PM

Someone posting to National Review's The Corner: Not to clutter your inbox, but I almost drove off the road today listening to BBC "News of the World" interview the dutch guy who headed the oil for food program 1999-2000: His three most important points: 1) He and his staff had "no idea" this was going on until the very end of his tenure: "FULL POWER to the ass shields!!" 2) It wasn't necessarily so bad, because as far as we know Saddam was hooking his peeps up with German luxury cars and other expensive trinkets, not using the money for WMD proliferation. 3) The security council never met on the subject because of the Russia/France/China vs. US/UK "rift," and this dutch guy explained that you can't even have a meeting in the UN unless you have consensus about having the meeting. It was a concise, 5 minute brief on why the UN should be disbanded immediately. swhitebull - any seconds?

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:Oil For Food Crisis 8/14/2004 1:00:25 AM

The U.N. still serves a purpose, and quite frankly, I don't think that America has the political clout to disband it, and we would only dramatically hurt ourselves by trying. The HQ could be moved from New York to Geneva or London (or Tokyo or somewhere else in Asia at this point). Too many countries care too much about the U.N. for it to completely die, however, even without the U.S. presence. The world is a lot different than it was in the days of the League of Nations. Culturally and politically, the world is stable enough now, with less rivalries among the major powers, that the U.N. could succeed without the U.S. where the League didn't. --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

Achilles RE:We should get rid of the UN 8/19/2004 1:17:31 PM

Well, truely yes we need to get out of the United Nations. We send 7 billion dollars a year there to have it thrown up in our faces.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Oil For Food Crisis-Phoenix 8/19/2004 9:35:34 PM

1)Agree 2)Given the current dynamics of the international system, if it moved, and America withdrew, I'd bet money the UN would become a center of antiAmericanism in the world. Antiamericanism would, in itself, become a key dynamic holding the body together. And, in doing so, it would draw most of our allies along with it.

Quote Reply

imperia RE:We should get rid of the UN 12/29/2004 7:37:30 AM

***We should get rid of the UN*** Where there's a will, there's a way. :-)

Quote Reply

BLUEMOON RE:The UN is a giant LUBYS........nothing more. 12/31/2004 12:08:23 AM

Thanks to American we have yet again overpowered complete morons from silly parts of the world who seem to spend more time dressing and acting like a scene out of Star Trek than really do anything..

Quote Reply

stratego RE:How About a Carrot & Stick Approach to UN? 1/14/2005 11:43:58 PM

Leaving aside the question of domestic political considerations and speaking only about the benefits to the US from an international perspective, I believe the US should consider the UN as potentially expendable, then present the UN with a tough choice: reform & keep US support or not reform and do without the US. Fears about the US "being isolated" if we leave the UN or the US not being "powerful enough" to disband the UN are unfounded. If the US walks away from the UN, it will shrivel away and die in fairly short order. Alternately, it may survive, strictly as a US-bashing forum, but their legitimacy would be vastly undermined. Of course, the world media would support them, but the world media is part of the Left now. Ultimately, the UN's legitimacy springs from the US, one of the few member states willing to do the thing the UN is supposed to do---support justice in the world. Plus, the US has the bulk of the military power. Therefore, a US threat to walk away from the UN is legitimate. What we should do therefore is think hard and come up with a list of vitally needed reforms to the UN. This list would simply detail the way to curb all of the worst excesses and evils of the UN. The UN, then, if it wished, could negotiate with the US to try to come to an agreement on what reforms to implement and how. One key strategy would be to ensure that we have just as many cushy jobs as now for worthless bureaucrats---just make sure to keep them where they can't do any harm. I believe worthless bureaucrats are the main consituency of the UN, and its worth it to pay them off. However, if the UN chose not to negotiate, the US would be ready to walk away, and simply do so. Then, the US would start its own newUN. The newUN, in contrast to some proposals, woudl not be only for democracies or anything like that. You need to have the bad countries in the newUN for it to be really useful. Just structure it better than the current UN. To join, a country would not have to give up old UN membership. At first, only a few would join. But after awhile, I think most countries would join. Then the oldUN would become like a branch of Al Jazerra, something that is there, but not so widely credited.

Quote Reply

Aleph-Null RE:We should get rid of the UN 1/29/2005 12:04:50 PM

The ridiculous idea that the United Nations would somehow be a staging ground for anti-Americanism after the U.S. left is one of the most laughable propositions I have ever heard. The fact of the matter is that if the U.S. pulled out, other nations would pull out as well. Sure, some nations would try to use it as a staging ground, but lets be realistic. The United Nations does not have the political clout nor has it won the hearts and minds of many nations in the world. The United States could easily withdraw, and with that withdraw, Japan would withdraw as well. The United Nations is already a strapped for cash organization which is why it engages in these desperate financial frauds. Minus Japan and the United States the United Nations would collapse immediately. Furthermore, as we know, the Security Council resolutions would be meaningless without the United States to back them up. So, no threat from them. Russia, China would likewise disband and the organization would be kept afloat only by the Europeans who would try to use it to control their former colonies in the Middle East and Africa. That wouldn't last long at all. In my honest estimation, any American found contributing to United Nations development should be considered a threat to peace & liberty. Furthermore, Americans from Texas to California to New York looking for an international organization should recognize as I did recently that the answer we're looking for is staring us right in the face. If we want an international organization we know will work, we can always facilitate the membership of new states in the United States.

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector 3/13/2005 7:26:43 PM

Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector By Francis Harris in Washington (Filed: 12/03/2005) Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (�1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction. link

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:We should get rid of the UN 3/15/2005 9:45:26 PM

JED BABBIN The unfixable UN By Jed Babbin | March 15, 2005 IN ''BLAZING SADDLES" -- probably the funniest movie ever made -- one of the characters Mel Brooks plays is the sexually preoccupied and utterly corrupt Governor LePetomaine. In one scene, the governor, worried about a failing scam, shouts to his assembled cronies that they've got to find a way to save their phony-baloney jobs. Which brings us to Secretary General Kofi Annan and the UN. Scandal piles on top of scandal, minor officials resign, investigations drag on, and Annan is under personal attack for failing to prevent the enormous corruption that's occurred on his watch. But Annan has nothing to fear. The widespread calls for UN ''reform" all aim at changing small problems. Not even its most diehard supporter -- Kofi Annan himself -- denies that the UN has enormous problems. Its bureaucracy, bloated and overpaid, is not a source of solutions to the world's problems or even the means by which solutions can be implemented. Its membership, with fewer than 50 democracies among its 191 members, is not capable of working in good faith toward solving the problems of our time. Americans don't spend a lot of time thinking about the UN. It's something we expect our elected leaders to do. When we do think about it, as the latest Rasmussen poll shows, only about 37 percent of us have a positive opinion of the UN; 63 percent believe Kofi Annan should resign; and among those who follow the news closely, 72 percent believe Saddam Hussein used the UN Oil for Food program to bribe other nations to get their support in the UN. If more people knew what the UN is doing to influence our lives and freedoms, the percentage of anti-UN feeling among Americans would have been much higher. It's important to understand what the UN means to us as individuals. The UN pokes its nose into anything and everything. Do you have a family member in the armed forces? If so, you should be grateful that President Bush ''un-signed" the UN agreement creating the International Criminal Court. That court wants to take jurisdiction over every American soldier (and government officials) to subject them to war crimes trials in a highly politicized setting. Do you use the Internet for your business or to get news and information? In November, the UN ''World Summit on the Information Society" will meet to decide if the third world nations (most of which want to deny freedom of the press and freedom of expression) will control the Internet. Does your family own guns? If so, you should be worried about the UN's international gun control initiatives. Instead of trying to control the smuggling of arms to terrorists, the UN wants to impose European-style gun controls on every nation that doesn't have them. Though no US president -- at least none we've seen so far -- would let it, the UN would impose taxes on air travel, international financial transactions, and even pocket some of the money donated for tsunami relief. America has been the greatest financial supporter of the UN since its creation. We now send about $7 billion a year in dues and contributions to many of its agencies. In return, we get the massive corruption that pervades the UN system, endless anti-Americanism in the General Assembly, and UN initiatives that infringe on our personal freedoms, our ability to trade with other nations, and on our nation's sovereignty. There is no way to fix the UN, because to do so would require that the votes of the despots and dictators be taken away and the democracies who are routinely outvoted and shouted down be the only voting members. There's only one solution to the problems of the UN: America must leave and form a new organization of democracies to try to deal with the problems we face together. Jed Babbin, former undersecretary of defense for President George H.W. Bush, is author of ''Inside the Asylum: Why the U.N. and Old Europe are Worse Than You Think." � Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:We should get rid of the UN 3/17/2005 9:35:00 PM

link March 17, 2005 Edition > Section: New York > Printer-Friendly Version Annan's Bow at Arafat's Grave Sparks Outrage in City BY MEGHAN CLYNE - Staff Reporter of the Sun March 17, 2005 URL: link U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's decision to lay a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat while on his way to the dedication of a Holocaust museum in Israel is infuriating New York politicians and Jewish leaders, some of whom are labeling Mr. Annan's gesture "outrageous," "grotesque," and an example of "mindless incompetence." The secretary-general joined world leaders in Israel on Tuesday to commemorate the opening of a new Holocaust museum in Jerusalem. His visit Monday to Mr. Arafat's grave rankled some representatives of the United Nations' host city, who said Mr. Annan had damaged the world body's already poor public image and may have further imperiled U.N. plans to expand into neighboring parts of Turtle Bay. Mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, a Democrat who represent parts pf Brooklyn and Queens in Congress, said yesterday: "It is almost grotesque to travel to Israel to pay tribute to the 6 million Jews massacred in the Shoah and use the opportunity to pay tribute to a terrorist who is responsible for murdering thousands more." "Just when I think the U.N. and its leadership had reached a new low," Mr. Weiner added, "I am reminded that when it comes to Israel, and sensitivity toward the Jewish community, there is no bottom to their pit." Many of Mr. Weiner's fellow congressmen from the New York metropolitan area echoed his sentiments. Rep. Peter King, a Republican of Long Island, said yesterday that Mr. Annan "is the worst type of world leader. He's arrogant and tone deaf; considering all that's gone down in the U.N., for him to be commemorating Arafat in this way is incredibly insensitive." "I have said for months now that Kofi Annan should step aside," Mr. King added. "For a person who's supposed to be a world-class diplomat, he's showing an amazing lack of skills." Mr. Annan is also harming the organization for which he is responsible, according to Rep. Vito Fossella, a Republican of Staten Island. "I'm disappointed that Annan chose to honor Arafat when he could have spent his time more productively. The U.N. remains unwilling to make the distinction between forces of good and bad. This has damaged its credibility and detracted from its mission of promoting democracy and freedom," Mr. Fossella said in a statement to The New York Sun yesterday. Long Island Democratic congressman Steven Israel, too, issued a statement to the Sun: "It's outrageous that on his trip to Israel to attend the opening ceremonies for the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial's new museum, Annan went out of his way to visit the grave of a man who murdered countless Jews." To Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, Mr. Annan's tribute to Arafat was symptomatic of the anti-Semitism ailing his organization. "A lot of what is wrong with the U.N. is nicely summed up by the fact that Kofi Annan, who goes to Israel to participate in the dedication of a memorial museum to Jewish victims of the Holocaust, lays a wreath at the grave of someone whose career was murdering Jewish civilians," Mr. Nadler said. One of the city's representatives in Albany, State Senator Martin Golden, Republican of Brooklyn, expressed weary disappointment in Mr. Annan. "I can't honestly tell you I'm surprised," Mr. Golden said, adding: "If anyone's looking for a set of reasons why Kofi Annan should step down ... here's another perfect example of mindless incompetence." Mr. Golden is one of the state senators thwarting the United Nations' ambitions to renovate and expand its headquarters in Manhattan. He has said on multiple occasions that his opposition to the project would dissipate were Mr. Annan to resign. For the time being, however, Mr. Annan appears firmly planted in his post. The U.N.'s public image has suffered amid scandals over corruption in the oil-for-food program for Iraq and reports of rape by U.N. peacekeepers in Congo. Some of the staff at the level beneath the secretary-general has changed amid vows by the U.N. to improve its relations with Washington and its image with ordinary Americans. Mr. Golden, however, said that wasn't enough: "We need to clean house at the top," he said, adding that the Arafat tribute showed how, despite recent gestures, what's going on in Turtle Bay is just "more of the same." Mr. Golden was not alone in his assessment that the Arafat tribute would endanger the world body's attempts to upgrade its facilities. "If I have anything to say about it, Kofi Annan is going to have to answer for these types of things before a spade is put in the ground on a U.N. expansion, and we as New Yorkers should use every opportunity we can to express how outrageous we think their behavior has been," Mr. Weiner said. Mr. King said of the expansion plans: "This can only hurt them - it's the type of thing that reminds people why they dislike the U.N." Jeffrey Wiesenfeld - one of the members of the United Nations Development Corporation, the city-state entity overseeing the expansion - was also outraged by Mr. Annan's gesture. "It's certainly not in his self-interest, nor in the interest of the image of the U.N., to put a wreath at the grave of such a vehement Jew-hater," Mr. Wiesenfeld said, adding that he would be no more appalled if Mr. Annan had honored the grave of Hitler henchman Adolf Eichmann, who implemented the Nazis' "Final Solution." "As far as Jews are concerned, the only difference between Eichmann and Arafat is that Eichmann mechanized Jewish murder, and Arafat would do it, as they say, on the installment plan. The concept is the same," Mr. Wiesenfeld, who is the son of Holocaust survivors, said. The UNDC director - who, despite his criticisms of the United Nations, maintains that the city should support the world body as long as it exists and is located in New York - disagreed that Mr. Annan's wreath-laying would further endanger the U.N.'s expansion plans. While Mr. Wiesenfeld labeled the secretary-general's decision "stupid," he said it couldn't do much damage to the U.N.'s public image, which "can't get worse anyway." Mayor Bloomberg, whose administration is strongly supportive of the U.N. expansion, was unavailable for comment yesterday because he was en route from Israel, where he was participating in the Holocaust museum events, according to spokesman Jordan Barowitz. Mr. Bloomberg's sister, Marjorie Tiven - commissioner of the New York City Commission for the United Nations, Consular Corps and Protocol, and a director of the UNDC - declined to comment for this story. The president of the UNDC, former state senator Roy Goodman, did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Mr. Annan, Fred Eckhard, responded to the Sun yesterday: "Kofi Annan is secretary-general of an organization made up of all nations, and so he could not be in the region without also paying a call on the new president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. Arafat's grave lies within the compound of the president's residence, and the secretary-general, like every international visitor to the residence, paid his respects at Arafat's resting place." The executive vice chairman of the New York-based Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, however, questioned the need for the diplomatic community to honor a figure Palestinians themselves are trying to forget. "I find it troubling when people elevate the status of a terrorist, especially at a time when the Palestinian people have put him behind them. There's no yearning for the good old days. People are still angry about the corruption and the raping of the country in terms of economic exploitation. You can go without laying a wreath," Mr. Hoenlein said.

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:We should get rid of the UN 3/18/2005 12:03:34 AM

Whistle-blower: 'Gaping holes' in oil-for-food link A former United Nations monitor of the organization's oil-for-food program in Iraq told a congressional committee Thursday that the program had "gaping holes" and that large amounts of aid never reached the Iraqi people. Mullick told the subcommittee that he repeatedly alerted U.N. officials of problems he observed but was rebuffed. "Each suggestion resulted in my supervisors reducing my job responsibilities," Mullick said. "This continued to occur until my only job was to run the slide projector at staff meetings."

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us