Monday, 15 October 2007

UN = Useless Nations?

Angel [WomanHonorThyself] has posted the following comment on Yankee Doodle's blog:

"The Useless Nations...are a bunch of thugs who have long lost their value if ever they had one."

What do others think?

15 comments:

Richard W. Symonds said...

Perhaps Angel can't spell properly - Useless State of America ?

anticant said...

Richard, if we are to have a worthwhile debate with our American friends it would be better to refrain from insults [a blogging principle of mine, as you well know].

To begin with, are we talking about the organisation UN, or the member-states? Of course there are organisational shortcomings which can, and should, be addressed. But to label all the member states [except, of course, the USA] as a "bunch of thugs" is rather extreme, and in any case misses the point. The function of the UN is to provide an inclusive global meeting place for its constituent states - not to ostracise or expel the 'baddies', but hopefully to persuade if not shame them into better behaviour. It is basically a talking shop - not an embryonic world government, which most people nowadays realise would inevitably become a tyranny.

Maybe the question we should be debating is whether there is still a role for the sovereign nation-state in the 21st century? And if not, what to replace it with?

pela68 said...

Well, that can be discussed.

But! USA is the one nation that most often veto's proposals from the well known democratic states of Cuba, Iran, China, Russia and others...

The UN is indeed value less, as long as dictatorships is aloud to run the whole shebang!- As they are now.

What we got to ask ourselves is "Who have the superior morality?" If the answer is that democracys are morally superior, then UN should be dismanteled without a question.

If we (as modern times relativists) think that no ideology or culture are not superior to another, then UN should be dismanteled anyway! Because I like democracy and the Judeo- Christian heritage wich is the foundation of it. (No I'm not a believer!)

But just you look at which countrys that are represented in UN:s Human rights Comission, and you'll get my drift.

UN should be replaced with a "United Democracys"!

Yankee Doodle said...

The UN is very good at pulling on Israel's chain after Israel has been attacked by its peace-loving neighbors!

Who funds the UN? Where does it get its money?

anticant said...

"The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $20 billion each year, or about $3 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is just a tiny fraction of the world's military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced a financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of March 31, 2007, members' arrears to the Regular Budget topped $1,355 million, of which the United States alone owed $785 million (58% of the regular budget arrears)."

Source - Global Policy Forum.

Does this answer your question, YD?

Yankee Doodle said...

The new trend that I've noticed with you, Anticant, is that you take that part of the information that is useful to you. You allow your theory to determine which facts are presented, rather than gathering and evaluating the facts, then developing a theory to understand them.

I'm very surprised, Anticant. I didn't realize you were such an anti-American internationalist.

America is far from perfect, but I don't see you as trying to help solve the problems with America as much as just running America down, and for whose benefit?

We'll see how the politically-correct Islamic Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland fares.

anticant said...

I am neither a theorist nor an anti-American internationalist, YD. I am a student of realpolitik, and after listening as carefully as I can to what people say I base my judgements on what they actually do [which is not always what it appears to be]. In a fairly long life experience including considerable political involvement, I have concluded that most people are no better than they ought to be, and many are a good deal worse.
I don't suppose Americans are any different to everyone else in that.

Emmett said...

THE Thorny problem of /how/ power is legitimated lies behind he problem with the UN. At bottom, it is cut from some sort of federal or republican, western, cloth as a necessary function of its historical appearance-period; and, thus, its atmosphere is redolent with 'human rights' and so forth.

THIS Sort of conception was the product of millenia of european history, specifically; and, the american Founders wrestled specifically with 'legitimacy':

OBVIOUSLY, Not 'all' of the Americanos running about in half-witted raptures in 1789 gave their 'consent' to be governed, nor could they have done; rather, their consent is /implied/ in the american constitutional guarantee, of certain restrictions on central government. Or, rather, the protection of certain rights pronounced 'inalienable'. As a kind of red rag to a bull, this last has been a goad to power-driven under-personalities and epimethean drudges ever since; over and over, they thrust and heave against their brethren, to try repeatedly to 'push the envelope' on this point; and, for example, in the american Civil War alone, the sheer amount of gaudy thieving & lies simply puts Cheney and these cryptic /zionisti/ of contemporary american protestant trailercourt christian 'fundamentalism' in the shade.

AND, This Loose Mexican of Bush's who called himself lately AG for a time has many a jolly precedent -- including Woodrow Wilson's Democrat (!) chief law-officer, A Mitchell Palmer. /He/ was another 'piece of work' and self-indulgent sociopath of exemplary smiles, firm handshakes and shiny-shoed friendliness; and, one whose /forte/ was summary deportation of foreigners.

THE Point again is that, in time, the defectives must as a physical and statistical fact overcome bounds; and, all systems in turn must yield. As the humanist (and certain advanced mahometans!) know, in this abode of decay /all/ physical creations must pass; and, constitutions as physical and time-bound artifacts /are/ foredoomed, therefore. The american system, unless I am mistaken, has in its day both worked heinous violence and achieved bright gain. In the nature of things, modernism now is over -- and, I dare say, in future renascence Islam and the Han will contend at the ever-emerging task of, precisly human culrure.

IT Will be then the lowly role of these /soi-disant/ whites to scamper with the servings of sushi and full saki-bottles, and new corvees of sing-song girls -- these palid and pre-diabetic blonde daughters of ours then to be in much demand....

Jose said...

While there exists a right to veto in the Security Council, the United Nations will not be effective. Democratic principles are overcome by this right to veto. Also there should not exist permanent members in that Council.

The UN are not run in accordance with Democracy and they are only a waste of money and time.

Emmett said...

TAKING It all a step further -- and, the mahometan Sofees of Old Morocco all do contend that that humanity /is/ evolving toward a World community! -- the question becomes /how/ to legitimate a world government that would restrain itself in the name of human or "natural' rights, and without terrifying and abusing and driving into nationalist and ethnic revolts those who positively cannot "mix in?"

Emmett said...

WHEN A motley of sovereign states contend in a kind of diplomatic market, many of the results are already achieved that I would require of a world government. That is to say, people generally seek to move forth and back until they get to whichever shithole is most appealing to their particular stage of characteriological degeneracy. At present, our westernistic moral sewer seems to be the big draw, and indirectly (if the market-theorists are even remotely correct) one should expect the other pisshouse-operators, China & /cet/, to re-model forthwith, in order to compete!

[ESSAY-Question: In sixty-three words or less, what is WRONG with the foregoing line of the old faeces?

Jose said...

Shal I say, Emmett, that you're right?

Well, you are right, so I hadn't to use many words on which to base any contrary opinion.

In earnest, you are not too off the path.

falcon_01 said...

I am with Pela on this one...
While it is nice to think of everyone sitting down to talk and work out their problems, only the honest people have a true desire to do so.

Those whose core beliefs involve lying to, murdering, and dominating infidels can never be trusted to work towards any peace other than that through submission. Anything they say, or work towards, must be suspect.

The purposeful sabotage of America from within our own government shows what happens when corruption is given power by mislead masses. Now those government officials get to scramble pointing fingers at one another in attempts to hold onto their power.

We face a security crisis in our country because we embraced "globalism" and wound up being taken advantage of by illegals and terrorists. Our sustainability is threatened. Crime skyrockets when "peaceful" anti-gun laws are put in place. Sure, it looks good at first glance, but criminals being criminals they see weaknesses to be exploited.

It may seem very generalized, but there are three types of people: Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs. When you give the wolves power, they turn on you. When you give the sheep power, they give it to the wolves. That leaves the much- resented sheepdogs to do the real work to clean things up again and restore safety and order.

The lack of personal responsibility in our society is just one of the root causes of so many problems, that and the inability to see things with a "long term" perspective (both caused by a corrupt/infiltrated education system) has lead to and will continue to lead to the many pressures the U.S. faces building and building... and building, until something bursts.

anticant said...

Thank you for joining in the debate, falcon. Please stay with us, even though you find some of the things you read here annoying.

I agree with much of what you say. Personal responsibility - and self-respect - are the crux of the matter. Unfortunately, we now live in a culture of 'anything goes' and 'whatever you can get away with is OK'. This is not entirely the fault of the Left - though they do have some too-idealistic ideas. It is largely the product of the culture of greed that is exalted by consumerism and 'devil take the hindmost'.

Globalism is a fine notion, but plays into the hands of unbridled capitalism and 'corporatocracy'. US government has become the pawn of Big Business and what Eisenhower called the 'military-industrial complex'. It's high time these guy were reined in, and tough new anti-trust laws brought into force.

Otherwise, you're spot-on. What are your suggestions for reforming the UN so that it becomes a genuinely international body and not a catspaw of any one nation or faction?

Michael said...

I like this bit by Falcon "Crime skyrockets when "peaceful" anti-gun laws are put in place."

Data from all over the world proves without doubt that the greater the gun control the less deaths are caused by the use of a gun. The USA has around 13,000 homicides, not even including suicides, from guns, the UK has around 70.
The problem is with American "gun control" is that it only applies to certain areas, nothing at all to stop maniacs simply driving to another country or state and buying a gun without any checks at all.
Still if they really want to keep killing each other, let's not complain.
As far as the UN goes, it would go a long way to making it an efficient organisation if the membership of the USA was terminated.