DELETED

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[Brozozo]

Good read!

[Moledet]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

[American Patriot]

"Sell some medicine, bitches!" - Dave Chappelle

[mack pl]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

And who will decided about that which countries are democratic or not?What about China?
ohh,well, your idea is stupid.....no offense.....but its impossible.........

regards

[Brozozo]

IMO the only legitimacy the UN has is that it provides a forum for countries to raise issues and serve as a universal embassy (as many countries cannot afford to open embassies worldwide, the UN serves as a meeting ground for foreign officials). Otherwise, it gets few things done and whatever gets done is done with near maximum inefficiency.

[Moledet]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

And who will decided about that which countries are democratic or not?What about China?
ohh,well, your idea is stupid.....no offense.....but its impossible.........

regards
How people nowdays decide which country is democratic? How the atlas books decide which nation is democratic and which is not? The same way it will be decided who is democratic and who is not. It's not so hard.
China will offcourse stay out, what good are they? What do they do in the UN? Nothing good that's for sure. As long as they are not democratic they will stay out of an orgniazation that will only accept democratic nations.

[LordHalbert]

The UN is good for nothing.

It's time to scrap it.

[mack pl]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

And who will decided about that which countries are democratic or not?What about China?
ohh,well, your idea is stupid.....no offense.....but its impossible.........

regards
How people nowdays decide which country is democratic? How the atlas books decide which nation is democratic and which is not? The same way it will be decided who is democratic and who is not. It's not so hard.
China will offcourse stay out, what good are they? What do they do in the UN? Nothing good that's for sure. As long as they are not democratic they will stay out of an orgniazation that will only accept democratic nations.
Ok, but your idea is still senseless :| Im not China lover, but my point is this kind of multinational organisation cannot be strong without state like China,Russia etc.They arent most democratic states on the world, but organistaion without them is senseless.Well, im not UN lover too(lol), but we cannot invented anything better, man.Its like Churchill says-"Democracy is bad, but we didnt invented anything better untill now"-or something like that ;)

well, you could dreaming man, its your bisnes not mine ;)

shalom

regards

[fdt]

UN is like a company... it's worth as much as the partners are willing to put in it... and if it works as it does, it's not a fault of the concept as it is, but the partners themselves. Before one destroys smth better think of some replacement...and make sure it will be better than the previous one rofl . Easy, ain't it? rofl

[Haiw]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.
Or even better, it should never have been created in the first place! Would have saved us at least one middle east conflict! :roll:

[henksmoeder]

The UN is the ONLY thing between the western world and a furhter expanding terrorist threat/bigger difference between rich and poor/between east and west. Disbanding it would be absolutly foolish. Are you guys just asking for terrorists attacks?

[MARINO]

For nothing

[GrimmyRX]

This guy has a serious bug up his shorts about the UN. This reads like a diary from one of those Paranoid buggers that think big Brother is always after them.


In August, a spokesman for the UN Population Fund, Sven Burnester, told British reporters that "For all the bad press, China has achieved the impossible. The country has solved its population problem." This is consistent with the view that the world's real problem is the human race. Meanwhile, the forced abortions, sterilization, and the outright killing of new-borns, continues as a state-endorsed one-child-only program throughout Red China, though to the credit of ordinary Chinese, it is still widely flouted.

Well, as harsh as it is, it's true. China has font some wort of solution to solving it's Populations problem. Is it a good solution? No, is it a solution that should be copied? HELL no. But it is a solution.


The conference was intended to secure greater participation in a Convention on the Rights of Children, a treaty designed to steal the natural right of parents over their children and transfer it to the UN. One hundred and ninety-one nations have signed onto the Convention. The US and Somalia remain the last major holdouts. Ironically, the US finds itself allied with several Moslem nations in opposition to UN educational programs advocating abortion.

"A treaty designed to steal the natural right of parents over their children and transfer it to the UN" and "The US finds itself allied with serveral Moslem Nations in opposition to UN educational programs advocating Abortion"

Huh "Advocating Abortion" Wow... I guess he's an "anti-choicer", lol. I dunno about you, but I'd want my children to have rights independant of their guardian incase something bad happened to me or my wife.


The drive toward a global "environmental governance" program continues. In the same way the UN conjured up the Kyoto treaty on Climate Control, an insidious instrument intended to force Western, industrialized nations to destroy their economies, the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) has convened an "expert consultants" procedure that always precedes the creation of yet another noxious treaty. This one would be introduced at the June 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. The goal of this treaty would be to turn the UNEP into the UN equivalent of the World Trade Organization, but one that would give environmental groups the opportunity to impose restraints on trade in favor of environmental mandates.


When the Crown Buttes Mines wanted to mine for gold in Montana, that project to access this nation's valuable natural resource was thwarted by the United Nations at the request of the Clinton administration(*cough* kinda importent eh?). The mine, it said, was too close to Yellowstone. The project would have employed 280 people and generated $230 million in revenue.


Rofl "Intended to FORCE Western, Industrialized nations to destroy their economies..... yet another noxious treaty."

The one KEY word in that paragraph is Sustainable Development. Anyone here taken economics? Political Science?

Here's the traditional View on Development:

Process of progressive transformation of whole societies.
-Requires the Exploitation of natural Reasources.
-Natural environment was seen as little more than a set of reasources to be exploited.

Here's the paradox:
-A Clean and healthy environment is Essential to successful development. Most successful development practices are harmful to environment.

Sustainable Development seeks to reconsile the requirements of Devlopment with the nessesity of environmental conservations.

In otherwords, to grow in economic power and might, you NEED a clean environment, otherwise, you F*ck yourself up.


Americans remain blithely unaware of a vast matrix of United Nations treaties, some of which actually cede our national sovereignty in ways that would astound and appall them. For example, in 1972, the US signed the UN World Heritage Treaty. It created "World Heritage Sites" and Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks. Since 1972, 68 per cent of all US National Parks, Monuments and Preserves have been designated World Heritage Sites.
Among those that fall under the ultimate control of the United Nations are the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, the Florida Everglades, and the Grand Canyon.

Ah so... it's a bad thing that these sites are now sites not only protected by the US, but by the UN too? Ah.. darn? :cantbeli:


The United Nations has made no secret of its intent to be the sole government of the entire world. The report of the UN Commission on Global Governance, "Our Global Neighborhood", was published by the Oxford University Press in 1995. There you will find plans for the UN World Court endorsed by the Clinton administration, an independent military free to invade any nation that will not cede its freedom to the UN, and, of course, a system of worldwide taxation to fund this monstrosity.
The litany of the United Nations hypocrisy and its patient, creeping effort to control the world could fill several books.

National sovreignty is a great thing. After all, to have no higher power than the man you elected from, lets say, Texas, is a good feeling. However, National sovreignty creates International Anarchy (Def: Absence of a central government or authority to make and inforce rules and regulations.)

The Cosiquences of Anarchy are:
a) Difficult for these sovreign states to co-operate with each other
and, because of that,
b) Conflict, due to lack of co-operation, becomes the normal state of International Politics.

Which brings me to the Security Dilemma, which is brought up here:


The real question is when, if ever, Americans will awaken to the danger it represents and demand US withdrawal from this vile international institution? It took the destruction of the World Trade Center and an attack on the Pentagon to shake Americans to the realization that we have real enemies in the world.

First, the question: "What is security?"

Well, it can be defined as: "No threat to (in the case of individuals) my physical person."
ie: Freedom from physical attack, Freedom from the fear of Attack.

The problem? The two inter-related componants of security are very often not realised in practice. To realise one componant very often requires some trade off in the other.

In otherwords, when Sec of Def Rummsy comes on TV saying: "I dunno where.. I dunno when... but sometime, some place, the Terrorists are gonna strike! SO buy large rolls of ducktape, cover your windows with plastic and buy GUNS! Lots of them!" (thank you Robin Willams, lol), he is clearly stating the Security Dilemma.

When you live in an armed camp, you might be thinking "Aight, this is good. Lots of guns, lots of protection... No problem if those damn terrorist bastards attack."

However, human conditioning will always say, from the back of your mind "But... WHY do I have to have all these guns? What's gonna happen?"
So, when that car outside the armed camp decides to backfire, you're gonna Jump 10 feet in the air and reach for your gun, because, though you are free from physical attack or danger, you are not free from the FEAR of attack. Living in an armed camp creates an atmosphere of fear.

Now, I'm not saying that the US at the moment, is an armed camp. No, but, as well with Rummsy's speaches, lol, there is gonna be some sort of atmosphere of fear, even WITH your army kicking terrorist ass over in Iraq.

Yes, America has some real enemies in this world. And why is this? Non-sustainable development, International Anarchy and the Security Dilemma.

N-SD because N-SD incourages the rapid consumption of reasourses without the ability to replace them, which in turn, calls for the need of increased reasourse exploitation of new areas. Ie: stripmining some ****hole in SouthAmerica.

International Anarchy because IA means that there is NO overhead authority to lay down the laws for every nation and to make sure that every nation obays those laws (I'm not saying the UN is a good model for such a world government, but right now, it's the best we have).

and Security Dilemma because SD is hooked into IA; the lack of world governing body = the defacto state of international relations being conflict (of some sort) = the need for security and protection of national holdings via arms = SD.

Wow.. that was a long post.... ^^;;

[scm77]

The UN is the ONLY thing between the western world and a furhter expanding terrorist threat/bigger difference between rich and poor/between east and west. Disbanding it would be absolutly foolish. Are you guys just asking for terrorists attacks?

What do you mean? I don't see the UN doing a very good job fighting terrorism. Please explain more.

[GrimmyRX]

This guy has a serious bug up his shorts about the UN. This reads like a diary from one of those Paranoid buggers that think big Brother is always after them.


In August, a spokesman for the UN Population Fund, Sven Burnester, told British reporters that "For all the bad press, China has achieved the impossible. The country has solved its population problem." This is consistent with the view that the world's real problem is the human race. Meanwhile, the forced abortions, sterilization, and the outright killing of new-borns, continues as a state-endorsed one-child-only program throughout Red China, though to the credit of ordinary Chinese, it is still widely flouted.

Well, as harsh as it is, it's true. China has font some wort of solution to solving it's Populations problem. Is it a good solution? No, is it a solution that should be copied? HELL no. But it is a solution.


The conference was intended to secure greater participation in a Convention on the Rights of Children, a treaty designed to steal the natural right of parents over their children and transfer it to the UN. One hundred and ninety-one nations have signed onto the Convention. The US and Somalia remain the last major holdouts. Ironically, the US finds itself allied with several Moslem nations in opposition to UN educational programs advocating abortion.

"A treaty designed to steal the natural right of parents over their children and transfer it to the UN" and "The US finds itself allied with serveral Moslem Nations in opposition to UN educational programs advocating Abortion"

Huh "Advocating Abortion" Wow... I guess he's an "anti-choicer", lol. I dunno about you, but I'd want my children to have rights independant of their guardian incase something bad happened to me or my wife.


The drive toward a global "environmental governance" program continues. In the same way the UN conjured up the Kyoto treaty on Climate Control, an insidious instrument intended to force Western, industrialized nations to destroy their economies, the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) has convened an "expert consultants" procedure that always precedes the creation of yet another noxious treaty. This one would be introduced at the June 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. The goal of this treaty would be to turn the UNEP into the UN equivalent of the World Trade Organization, but one that would give environmental groups the opportunity to impose restraints on trade in favor of environmental mandates.


When the Crown Buttes Mines wanted to mine for gold in Montana, that project to access this nation's valuable natural resource was thwarted by the United Nations at the request of the Clinton administration(*cough* kinda importent eh?). The mine, it said, was too close to Yellowstone. The project would have employed 280 people and generated $230 million in revenue.


Rofl "Intended to FORCE Western, Industrialized nations to destroy their economies..... yet another noxious treaty."

The one KEY word in that paragraph is Sustainable Development. Anyone here taken economics? Political Science?

Here's the traditional View on Development:

Process of progressive transformation of whole societies.
-Requires the Exploitation of natural Reasources.
-Natural environment was seen as little more than a set of reasources to be exploited.

Here's the paradox:
-A Clean and healthy environment is Essential to successful development. Most successful development practices are harmful to environment.

Sustainable Development seeks to reconsile the requirements of Devlopment with the nessesity of environmental conservations.

In otherwords, to grow in economic power and might, you NEED a clean environment, otherwise, you F*ck yourself up.


Americans remain blithely unaware of a vast matrix of United Nations treaties, some of which actually cede our national sovereignty in ways that would astound and appall them. For example, in 1972, the US signed the UN World Heritage Treaty. It created "World Heritage Sites" and Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks. Since 1972, 68 per cent of all US National Parks, Monuments and Preserves have been designated World Heritage Sites.
Among those that fall under the ultimate control of the United Nations are the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, the Florida Everglades, and the Grand Canyon.

Ah so... it's a bad thing that these sites are now sites not only protected by the US, but by the UN too? Ah.. darn? :cantbeli:


The United Nations has made no secret of its intent to be the sole government of the entire world. The report of the UN Commission on Global Governance, "Our Global Neighborhood", was published by the Oxford University Press in 1995. There you will find plans for the UN World Court endorsed by the Clinton administration, an independent military free to invade any nation that will not cede its freedom to the UN, and, of course, a system of worldwide taxation to fund this monstrosity.
The litany of the United Nations hypocrisy and its patient, creeping effort to control the world could fill several books.

National sovreignty is a great thing. After all, to have no higher power than the man you elected from, lets say, Texas, is a good feeling. However, National sovreignty creates International Anarchy (Def: Absence of a central government or authority to make and inforce rules and regulations.)

The Cosiquences of Anarchy are:
a) Difficult for these sovreign states to co-operate with each other
and, because of that,
b) Conflict, due to lack of co-operation, becomes the normal state of International Politics.

Which brings me to the Security Dilemma, which is brought up here:


The real question is when, if ever, Americans will awaken to the danger it represents and demand US withdrawal from this vile international institution? It took the destruction of the World Trade Center and an attack on the Pentagon to shake Americans to the realization that we have real enemies in the world.

First, the question: "What is security?"

Well, it can be defined as: "No threat to (in the case of individuals) my physical person."
ie: Freedom from physical attack, Freedom from the fear of Attack.

The problem? The two inter-related componants of security are very often not realised in practice. To realise one componant very often requires some trade off in the other.

In otherwords, when Sec of Def Rummsy comes on TV saying: "I dunno where.. I dunno when... but sometime, some place, the Terrorists are gonna strike! SO buy large rolls of ducktape, cover your windows with plastic and buy GUNS! Lots of them!" (thank you Robin Willams, lol), he is clearly stating the Security Dilemma.

When you live in an armed camp, you might be thinking "Aight, this is good. Lots of guns, lots of protection... No problem if those damn terrorist bastards attack."

However, human conditioning will always say, from the back of your mind "But... WHY do I have to have all these guns? What's gonna happen?"
So, when that car outside the armed camp decides to backfire, you're gonna Jump 10 feet in the air and reach for your gun, because, though you are free from physical attack or danger, you are not free from the FEAR of attack. Living in an armed camp creates an atmosphere of fear.

Now, I'm not saying that the US at the moment, is an armed camp. No, but, as well with Rummsy's speaches, lol, there is gonna be some sort of atmosphere of fear, even WITH your army kicking terrorist ass over in Iraq.

Yes, America has some real enemies in this world. And why is this? Non-sustainable development, International Anarchy and the Security Dilemma.

N-SD because N-SD incourages the rapid consumption of reasourses without the ability to replace them, which in turn, calls for the need of increased reasourse exploitation of new areas. Ie: stripmining some ****hole in SouthAmerica.

International Anarchy because IA means that there is NO overhead authority to lay down the laws for every nation and to make sure that every nation obays those laws (I'm not saying the UN is a good model for such a world government, but right now, it's the best we have).

and Security Dilemma because SD is hooked into IA; the lack of world governing body = the defacto state of international relations being conflict (of some sort) = the need for security and protection of national holdings via arms = SD.

Wow.. that was a long post.... ^^;;

[GrimmyRX]

whoa.. it posted twice :cantbeli:

[cut]

The UN is the ONLY thing between the western world and a furhter expanding terrorist threat/bigger difference between rich and poor/between east and west. Disbanding it would be absolutly foolish. Are you guys just asking for terrorists attacks?

What do you mean? I don't see the UN doing a very good job fighting terrorism. Please explain more.

that's because no-one negotiates with terrorists, the US can't beat everyone therefore keeping the UN is wise.

[cut]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

clearly the stupidest idea ever, heard of the league of nations?

the UN is the legacy of those who died for us in WW2, obviously that means nothing to you. But to the nations that fought in WW" you are being pretty insulting, especially since they died for you two, if Hitler hadn't been dealt with their would be no jews to populate israel. The UN is fair at at the moment it is stopping Israel doing to palestine what WW2 did to europe

[Fiber]

I don't think the UN is useless. It is so much more than an peace keeping/making organisation. It's an organisation that provides much needed humanitarian aid. It's a place for the leaders of the world to discuss problems and possible solutions. It's intended to be a place where people from all over the world can work out our differences.

Replaceing the UN with a gentlemens club for the leaders of democratic countries will only make the gap between the different political "wings" of the world even bigger. Keeping a large portion of the world out of the loop will not make things better.

To think that the UN is just a no good organisation that supports terrorists just proves how little some people know about international politics.

What better way to convince non-democratic regimes to get with the program then to invite them to the table in a somewhat democratic organisation and actually get things done without resorting to violence?

I say somewhat democratic because of the veto-right of some countries in the security council. The veto-right in the security council is one thing I regard as a flaw. It makes the organisation "less democratic", but I guess it is necessary in order to get the superpowers to sit down at the same table.

When it comes to the enviromental issues I think GrimmyRX is correct when it comes to sustainable development beeing a pilar of healthy economic development.

There is a song I heard when I was a young sboolboy watching "Barne-TV". The essence of the song was that earth is like a balloon we all share and you can't pop the other guys part of the balloon.

I guess someone is going to flame me with "shut up tree hugger" or something like that. Well if beeing concerned with the future of this planet and our children makes me a tree hugger then I shall wear that badge proudly and walk this earth with me head up high.

"Alle er forskjellig men det er utenpå"

[UoUo]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

clearly the stupidest idea ever, heard of the league of nations?

the UN is the legacy of those who died for us in WW2, obviously that means nothing to you. But to the nations that fought in WW" you are being pretty insulting, especially since they died for you two, if Hitler hadn't been dealt with their would be no jews to populate israel. The UN is fair at at the moment it is stopping Israel doing to palestine what WW2 did to europe

Another nice propoganda....jews didn't safe by the countries that fight WW2...you did **** for us.

[Jehuty]

Yes, let's get back to the pre-WW1 world order.
Like that when Liechtenstein will be attack, we'll have a kewl WW3.

[cut]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

clearly the stupidest idea ever, heard of the league of nations?

the UN is the legacy of those who died for us in WW2, obviously that means nothing to you. But to the nations that fought in WW" you are being pretty insulting, especially since they died for you two, if Hitler hadn't been dealt with their would be no jews to populate israel. The UN is fair at at the moment it is stopping Israel doing to palestine what WW2 did to europe

Another nice propoganda....jews didn't safe by the countries that fight WW2...you did **** for us.

you've done **** for us, why ruin the international community for it?

[UkrainianAmerican]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

clearly the stupidest idea ever, heard of the league of nations?

the UN is the legacy of those who died for us in WW2, obviously that means nothing to you.

No it isnt.


But to the nations that fought in WW" you are being pretty insulting,


no he isnt.


especially since they died for you two, if Hitler hadn't been dealt with their would be no jews to populate israel.

So WW2 was fought to save some jews? rofl


The UN is fair at at the moment it is stopping Israel doing to palestine what WW2 did to europe
You ust lost a lotta respect here.

[cut]

Yes, let's get back to the pre-WW1 world order.
Like that when Liechtenstein will be attack, we'll have a kewl WW3.

exactly, anarchy is ****, especially now we've all got nukes


http://illinoisleader.com/content/img/f8188/un-flag.gif

[GrimmyRX]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

Nope, wasn't fought to save the Jews at all, but saveing the Jews was a nice little surprise at the end there.

Either way, Without the west's intervention in WW2, 1) a whole lot of us would probably be speaking German, or possibly Russian lol and 2) Jews would be VERY much an endangered species, if not totally destroyed.



The UN is fair at at the moment it is stopping Israel doing to palestine what WW2 did to europe

You ust lost a lotta respect here.

I think you misunderstood his point. What did WW2 do to Europe? Mass destruction, yes?

What has Isreal seen the need to do over the last few weeks? Destruction on a much smaller scale, yes?

What would Isreal do to protect itself? Destroy Palestine, if they had to, Yes?

Thus, so it goes with God. :lol: [/quote]

[SeanAshi]

The UN is turning into another League Of Nations. :roll:

[Kilgor]

Id say its another useless bloated bureaucracy ruined by infighting and member countries own interests rather than the common good.

[GrimmyRX]

Mostly because the Sec.Gen. Doesn't have enough powers, lol.

[cut]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.

[SeanAshi]

Wasn't Prince Philip a Nazi?

[UkrainianAmerican]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.
rofl
So, rofl , Britain made its decision to oppose hitler, because he was discriminating against jews? rofl rofl rofl
In that case the Britains foreign policy was INDEED controlled by a zionist cabal... rofl rofl rofl
O, and US hated britain because it was Imperialistic? rofl rofl
Please tell me you are under the influence.

[cut]

Wasn't Prince Philip a Nazi?

no, you're thinking of King Edward the queens uncle, who met Hitler because of what I said in my previous post about anti-British empire sentiment in the US and Russia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38748000/jpg/_38748681_hitler.jpg

this is him with Hitler and Mrs Simpson, the american women he abdicated for.

here's something he said:

"After the war is over and Hitler will crush the Americans...We'll take over...They (the British) don't want me as their King, but I'll be back as their leader." (as in he would have been appointed leader if the Nazis had invaded Britain.

[cut]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.
rofl
So, rofl , Britain made its decision to oppose hitler, because he was discriminating against jews? rofl rofl rofl
In that case the Britains foreign policy was INDEED controlled by a zionist cabal... rofl rofl rofl
O, and US hated britain because it was Imperialistic? rofl rofl
Please tell me you are under the influence.

no, I'm not uner the influence, I also happen to study this subject, so I know it's right.

Roosevelt even tried to get an anti-imperialist ******* with Stalin behind Churchill's back but that kind of backfired in his face.


The actual words I read was that "Hitler's obsession with Jews" made the Anglo-German alliance impossible.

The US was founded on anti-imperialism and communism was always anti-imperialist, funny thing is both followed up imperialist aspirations following the second world war.


If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary post it.

[UkrainianAmerican]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.
rofl
So, rofl , Britain made its decision to oppose hitler, because he was discriminating against jews? rofl rofl rofl
In that case the Britains foreign policy was INDEED controlled by a zionist cabal... rofl rofl rofl
O, and US hated britain because it was Imperialistic? rofl rofl
Please tell me you are under the influence.

no, I'm not uner the influence, I also happen to study this subject, so I know it's right.

Roosevelt even tried to get an anti-imperialist ******* with Stalin behind Churchill's back but that kind of backfired in his face.


The actual words I read was that "Hitler's obsession with Jews" made the Anglo-German alliance impossible.

The US was founded on anti-imperialism and communism was always anti-imperialist, funny thing is both followed up imperialist aspirations following the second world war.


If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary post it.
I dont like bringing it up in peoples faces, but since you brought up the Jews.......

The sad fact is that with or without the Allies (excluding the Commies) The exact same number of Jews would get killed. If you makes this a fight ONLY betweeen USSR and Germany, USSR would eventualy 'liberate' most of Europe anyways (after hitler would manage to kill the same 6 mil)
Stalin (there are rumors he had a ;solution' of his own) would probably die approximately the same time anyway, so Jews behind the Iron Curtain would live.

[cut]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.
rofl
So, rofl , Britain made its decision to oppose hitler, because he was discriminating against jews? rofl rofl rofl
In that case the Britains foreign policy was INDEED controlled by a zionist cabal... rofl rofl rofl
O, and US hated britain because it was Imperialistic? rofl rofl
Please tell me you are under the influence.

no, I'm not uner the influence, I also happen to study this subject, so I know it's right.

Roosevelt even tried to get an anti-imperialist ******* with Stalin behind Churchill's back but that kind of backfired in his face.


The actual words I read was that "Hitler's obsession with Jews" made the Anglo-German alliance impossible.

The US was founded on anti-imperialism and communism was always anti-imperialist, funny thing is both followed up imperialist aspirations following the second world war.


If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary post it.
I dont like bringing it up in peoples faces, but since you brought up the Jews.......

The sad fact is that with or without the Allies (excluding the Commies) The exact same number of Jews would get killed. If you makes this a fight ONLY betweeen USSR and Germany, USSR would eventualy 'liberate' most of Europe anyways (after hitler would manage to kill the same 6 mil)
Stalin (there are rumors he had a ;solution' of his own) would probably die approximately the same time anyway, so Jews behind the Iron Curtain would live.
What's this got to do with what I wrote?

For it to have been the USSR on it's own then Britain would have had to be out of the war, which wasn't possible anyway you look at it. Even if Britain had been invaded the German power would have been sapped as it was when Russia was invaded.

[GrimmyRX]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.
rofl
So, rofl , Britain made its decision to oppose hitler, because he was discriminating against jews? rofl rofl rofl
In that case the Britains foreign policy was INDEED controlled by a zionist cabal... rofl rofl rofl
O, and US hated britain because it was Imperialistic? rofl rofl
Please tell me you are under the influence.

no, I'm not uner the influence, I also happen to study this subject, so I know it's right.

Roosevelt even tried to get an anti-imperialist ******* with Stalin behind Churchill's back but that kind of backfired in his face.


The actual words I read was that "Hitler's obsession with Jews" made the Anglo-German alliance impossible.

The US was founded on anti-imperialism and communism was always anti-imperialist, funny thing is both followed up imperialist aspirations following the second world war.


If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary post it.
I dont like bringing it up in peoples faces, but since you brought up the Jews.......

The sad fact is that with or without the Allies (excluding the Commies) The exact same number of Jews would get killed. If you makes this a fight ONLY betweeen USSR and Germany, USSR would eventualy 'liberate' most of Europe anyways (after hitler would manage to kill the same 6 mil)
Stalin (there are rumors he had a ;solution' of his own) would probably die approximately the same time anyway, so Jews behind the Iron Curtain would live.

Now who's sounding like he's under the influance?

Hitler killed himself AFTER Normandy. Whould he have killed himself if the West hadn't landed? If the West hadn't hit him in Africa? If the West hadn't hit him in Italy?

I dunno. But I would hazerd a guess, NO.

Now, lets take a look. With Hitler Free to do what he pleased, the killing of Jews would not have stoped in 1945. The Russians would not have been able to penitrate as far as they had in 1945 either because there could have been MUCH more men and equipment brought to bare against him.

Hell, lets go a bit further back, shant we? 1942-43, Stalin begs the West to Open up a second front. For that, Italy gets invaded.

Who knows? Without the West's intervention, maybe Russia might have fallen?

And then it is VERY doubtful that Hitler would have killed himself.

Do you see where this is going RussianAmerican?

[UkrainianAmerican]

We ARE living in Anarchy if you guys didn't see my speel on it before, lol.

We are not living in total anarchy but yes the international system is anarchic the only way to combat that in my view is a more powerful IO/UN, but that's not going to happen for a while


So WW2 was fought to save some jews?

not directly. But remember that if Hitler had not been anto-semite, it would have been far more likely that Britain would have joined forces with the Germans, after all both the US and Russia were anti-imperialists and the British empire is what they hated, in the same way that the US is hated today.
rofl
So, rofl , Britain made its decision to oppose hitler, because he was discriminating against jews? rofl rofl rofl
In that case the Britains foreign policy was INDEED controlled by a zionist cabal... rofl rofl rofl
O, and US hated britain because it was Imperialistic? rofl rofl
Please tell me you are under the influence.

no, I'm not uner the influence, I also happen to study this subject, so I know it's right.

Roosevelt even tried to get an anti-imperialist ******* with Stalin behind Churchill's back but that kind of backfired in his face.


The actual words I read was that "Hitler's obsession with Jews" made the Anglo-German alliance impossible.

The US was founded on anti-imperialism and communism was always anti-imperialist, funny thing is both followed up imperialist aspirations following the second world war.


If you have any evidence to suggest the contrary post it.
I dont like bringing it up in peoples faces, but since you brought up the Jews.......

The sad fact is that with or without the Allies (excluding the Commies) The exact same number of Jews would get killed. If you makes this a fight ONLY betweeen USSR and Germany, USSR would eventualy 'liberate' most of Europe anyways (after hitler would manage to kill the same 6 mil)
Stalin (there are rumors he had a ;solution' of his own) would probably die approximately the same time anyway, so Jews behind the Iron Curtain would live.

Now who's sounding like he's under the influance?

Hitler killed himself AFTER Normandy. Whould he have killed himself if the West hadn't landed? If the West hadn't hit him in Africa? If the West hadn't hit him in Italy?

I dunno. But I would hazerd a guess, NO.

Now, lets take a look. With Hitler Free to do what he pleased, the killing of Jews would not have stoped in 1945. The Russians would not have been able to penitrate as far as they had in 1945 either because there could have been MUCH more men and equipment brought to bare against him.

Hell, lets go a bit further back, shant we? 1942-43, Stalin begs the West to Open up a second front. For that, Italy gets invaded.

Who knows? Without the West's intervention, maybe Russia might have fallen?

And then it is VERY doubtful that Hitler would have killed himself.

Do you see where this is going RussianAmerican?
Yeah, Hitler killed himself a couple of days before the Red Army stormed Berlin. Cause he knew it was better to be dead, then face some justice from the russian boys.

[cut]

This going a little off-topic

[SeanAshi]

What was the deal with Rudolph Hess, was he trying to get the Brits into a peace treaty with Nazi Germany?

[cut]

What was the deal with Rudolph Hess, was he trying to get the Brits into a peace treaty with Nazi Germany?

look it up ;)

I think he must of realised we couldn't be beaten.

[SeanAshi]

look it up

I think he must of realised we couldn't be beaten.
Ahhh yes it was Hess trying to kiss Hitlers ass, get the English to sign a peace treaty with Germany, so Germany could pay more attention to the Eastern front?

[cut]

look it up

I think he must of realised we couldn't be beaten.
Ahhh yes it was Hess trying to kiss Hitlers ass, get the English to sign a peace treaty with Germany, so Germany could pay more attention to the Eastern front?

Hitler had always wanted to be allied to Britain, he mentions it in Mein Kampf, Somthing like, Britain would be an ideal ally for the new Germany. But then Karl Marx also had Britain (and Germany) in mind for his ideal future.

[iflu]

The definition i give to UN is a mean to secure benefits of big countries by relatively low costs. the world order is balanced by big counties, so the sufficient and necessary condition for the world order is that those big bros do not fight each other. so they set up un to balance their benefits. things got changed after the cold war, and one brother is too strong to listen to others, so when that bro tries to realise his benefit ( if it would not hurt other big bros` benefit directly), they would just close their eyes and wait for that big guy makes mistakes some day. out of sight out of mind. btw, if u do so, the big guy will allow u share sth sweet. GOD, why not.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[fdt]

Taken from my today's post in strictly photos and video...

http://www.bendib.com/democracy/statue-of-tyranny.jpg

[Ian H]

Just a couple of things I noticed.



The notion of "peacekeeping" was tried out in 1950's and its
first test came in the Sinai Peninsula. Israel, in 1957, withdrew from the
Sinai, having been promised that UN troops would insure it was demilitarized and
its neighboring straits would be kept open to Israeli shipping. A decade later,
in May 1967, the UN Secretary General immediately complied with Egyptian
president Gamal Nasser's demand that it leave. Within days, Egypt attacked
Israel.

It was in fact Israel who attacked Egypt on this occasion. Whether or not Egypt would itself have attacked is a moot point, it didn't.

In one United Nations resolution after another, the UN has condemned Israel's
right to defend itself against its enemies from within and beyond its borders.
As early as November 29, 1947, it was trying to divide Israel into two states.

At which point Israel didn't exist as a state


Never making any judgement between aggressor and victim, the United Nations
stood by while 250,000 died in Bosnia and 900,000 died in Rwanda.

The US didn't exactly do much for Rwanda itself. In fact it went out of its way to avoid calling the situation there genocide, to prevent it being forced into action.


The United States and the whole world turned a corner in history on September
11, 200l. Remember, it was the World Trade Center that was destroyed by Islamic
militants. The United Nations is home to these enemies of mankind.

That'll be the non-state actor that is Al-Qaida will it?



I realise the writer seems to hate the UN with a passion, but that's no excuse for not getting the basic facts right.

[S'13]

What's the United Nations good for?

Providing transportation services for Palestinian terrorists in the organization's own ambulances:

http://e.tln0.com/ame/archives/*******_UN_amblulances_11_may_04.wmv

[Moledet]

Taken from my today's post in strictly photos and video...

http://www.bendib.com/democracy/statue-of-tyranny.jpg
Since when this became the neo nazis/KKK forum? You do know that it's an antisemitic caricature, right? This myth of controling america isn't diffrent then the myth about killing babies for Matzot.

[fdt]

Since when this became the neo nazis/KKK forum? You do know that it's an antisemitic caricature, right? This myth of controling america isn't diffrent then the myth about killing babies for Matzot.Wrong. It's not anti-semitic, nazi or KKK carricature... it's a political one. The carricature is not calling for murdering Jews nor destruction of the Eretz. It deals not with the Jews as a nation or religion, it deals with US and Israeli politics and the role (or it's lack) of UN in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. As it is the usual and imminent method of the satire, it uses exaggeration. In this particular case it exaggerates the actual influence of Jewish diaspora on US policy (picturing it as a complete control what is not true as latest vote in Security Council on Rafah events showed). Do I really have to explain the satire basics every time I post a political satire cartoon?

[Moledet]

Since when this became the neo nazis/KKK forum? You do know that it's an antisemitic caricature, right? This myth of controling america isn't diffrent then the myth about killing babies for Matzot.Wrong. It's not anti-semitic, nazi or KKK carricature... it's a political one. The carricature is not calling for murdering Jews nor destruction of the Eretz. It deals not with the Jews as a nation or religion, it deals with US and Israeli politics and the role (or it's lack) of UN in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. As it is the usual and imminent method of the satire, it uses exaggeration. In this particular case it exaggerates the actual influence of Jewish diaspora on US policy (picturing it as a complete control what is not true as latest vote in Security Council on Rafah events showed). Do I really have to explain the satire basics every time I post a political satire cartoon?
What about the part where you see Sharon holding Bush (who is in a shape of a missile) above the WTC like he gonna drop him, a hint to show that the Jews made the attack on WTC (antisemitic myth number 2). This caricature is antisemitic, period.

[fdt]

What about the part where you see Sharon holding Bush (who is in a shape of a missile) above the WTC like he gonna drop him, a hint to show that the Jews made the attack on WTC (antisemitic myth number 2). This caricature is antisemitic, period.This carricature was drawn before the WTC destruction. ESB, Chrysler and WTC (existing at time when the cartoon was drawn) are pictured here as a parts of NY landmark. It was supposed to be a reaction for the 28th March 2001 US veto to United Nations resolution calling for the deployment of unarmed monitors to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

[pinkeye]

the anti-united nations bashers are a bunch of silly wankers. the united nations is a great deal more than the security council.
read the following and shut the hell up:


The United Nations was established in the aftermath of a devastating war to help stabilize international relations and give peace a more secure foundation.
Amid the threat of nuclear war and seemingly endless regional conflicts, peace-keeping has become an overriding concern of the United Nations. In the process, the activities of blue-helmeted peace-keepers have emerged as the most visible role associated with the world organization.

The United Nations, however, is much more than a peace-keeper and forum for conflict resolution. Often without attracting attention, the United Nations and its family of agencies are engaged in a vast array of work that touches every aspect of people's lives around the world.

Child survival and development. Environmental protection. Human rights. Health and medical research. Alleviation of poverty and economic development. Agricultural development and fisheries. Education. Family planning. Emergency and disaster relief. Air and sea travel. Peaceful uses of atomic energy. Labour and workers' rights. The list goes on. Here, in brief, is a sampling of what the United Nations organizations have accomplished since 1945 when the world organization was founded.


Maintaining peace and security - By having deployed a total of 42 peace-keeping forces and observer missions as of September 1996, the United Nations has been able to restore calm to allow the negotiating process to go forward while saving millions of people from becoming casualties of conflicts. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

Making peace - Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. Recent cases include an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, and an end to the civil war in El Salvador. The United Nations has used quiet diplomacy to avert imminent wars.

Promoting democracy - The United Nations has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections, including those held in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua and South Africa. It has provided electoral advice, assistance, and monitoring of results.

Promoting development - The UN system has devoted more attention and resources to the promotion of the development of human skills and potentials than any other external assistance effort. The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion. The UN Development Programme (UNDP), in close cooperation with over 170 Member States and other UN agencies, designs and implements projects for agriculture, industry, education, and the environment. It supports more than 5,000 projects with a budget of $1.3 billion. It is the largest multilateral source of grant development assistance. The World Bank, at the forefront in mobilizing support for developing countries worldwide, has alone loaned $333 billion for development projects since 1946. In addition, UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

Promoting human rights - Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the United Nations has helped enact dozens of comprehensive agreements on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. By investigating individual complaints of human rights abuses, the UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure to be brought on governments to improve their human rights records.

Protecting the environment - The United Nations has played a vital role in fashioning a global programme designed to protect the environment. The "Earth Summit," the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on biodiversity and climate change, and all countries adopted "Agenda 21" - a blueprint to promote sustainable development or the concept of economic growth while protecting natural resources.

Preventing nuclear proliferation - The United Nations, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 countries to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted for military purposes.

Promoting self determination and independence - The United Nations has played a role in bringing about independence in countries that are now among its Member States.

Strengthening international law - Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed, have been enacted through the efforts of the United Nations.

Handing down judicial settlements of major international disputes - By giving judgments and advisory opinions, the International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, the right of asylum, rights of passage and economic rights.

Ending apartheid in South Africa - By imposing measures ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events, the United Nations was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system, which the General Assembly called "a crime against humanity." Elections were held in April 1994 in which all South Africans were allowed to participate on an equal basis, followed by the establishment of a majority government.

Providing humanitarian aid to victims of conflict - More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 1951 in a continuing effort coordinated by the United Nations that often involves other agencies. There are more than 19 million refugees, mostly women and children, who are receiving food, shelter, medical aid, education and repatriation assistance.

Aiding Palestinian refugees - Since 1950, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has sustained four generations of Palestinians with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.

Alleviating chronic hunger and rural poverty in developing countries - The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has developed a system of providing credit, often in very small amounts, for the poorest and most marginalised groups that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.

Focusing on African development - For the United Nations, Africa continues to be the highest priority. In 1986, the United Nations convened a special session to drum up international support for African economic recovery and development. The United Nations also has instituted a system-wide task force to ensure that commitments made by the international community are honoured and challenges met. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs. It is expected that these new enterprises will either earn or save some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.

Promoting women's rights - A long term objective of the United Nations has been to improve the lives of women and to empower women to have greater control over their lives. Several conferences during the UN-sponsored International Women's Decade set an agenda for the advancement of women and women's rights for the rest of the century. The UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) have supported programmes and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries. They include credit and training, access to new food-production technologies and marketing opportunities, and other means of promoting women's work.

Providing safe drinking water - UN agencies have worked to make safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

Eradicating smallpox - A 13-year effort by the World Health Organization resulted in the complete eradication of smallpox from the planet in 1980. The eradication has saved an estimated $1 billion a year in vaccination and monitoring, almost three times the cost of eliminating the scourge itself. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western hemisphere, with global eradication expected by the year 2000.

Pressing for universal immunization - Polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis still kill more than eight million children each year. In 1974, only 5 per cent of children in developing countries were immunized against these diseases. Today, as a result of the efforts of UNICEF and WHO, there is an 80 per cent immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million childrean each year.

Reducing child mortality rates - Through oral rehydration therapy, water and sanitation and other health and nutrition measures undertaken by UN agencies, child mortality rates in the developing countries have been halved since 1960, increasing the life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.

Fighting parasitic diseases - Efforts by UN agencies in North Africa to eliminate the dreaded screw worm, a parasite that feeds on human and animal flesh, prevented the spread of the parasite, which is carried by flies, to Egypt, Tunisia, sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. A WHO programme also has saved the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness and rescued many others from guinea worm and other tropical diseases.

Promoting investment in developing countries - The United Nations, through the efforts of the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), has served as a "match-maker" for North-South, South-South and East-West investment, promoting entrepreneurship and self-reliance, industrial cooperation and technology transfer and cost-effective, ecologically-sensitive industry.

Orienting economic policy toward social need - Many UN agencies have emphasized the need to take account of human needs in determining economic adjustment and restructuring policies and programmes, including measures to safeguard the poor, especially in areas of health and education, and "debt swaps for children."

Reducing the effects of natural disasters - The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has spared millions of people from the calamitous effects of both natural and man-made disasters. Its early warning system, which utilizes thousands of surface monitors as well as satellites, has provided information for the dispersal of oil spills and has predicted long-term droughts. The system has allowed for the efficient distribution of food aid to drought regions, such as southern Africa in 1992.

Providing food to victims of emergencies - Over two million tons of food are distributed each year by the World Food Programme (WFP). Nearly 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance in 1994.

Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land mines from former battlefields in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia that still kill and maim thousands of innocent people every year.

Protecting the ozone layer - The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have been instrumental in highlighting the damage caused to the earth's ozone layer. As a result of a treaty, known as the Montreal Protocol, there has been a global effort to reduce chemical emissions of substances that have caused the depletion of the ozone layer. The effort will spare millions of people from the increased risk of contracting cancer due to additional exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Curbing global warming - Through the Global Environment Facility, countries have contributed substantial resources to curb conditions that cause global warming. Increasing emissions from burning fossil fuels and changes in land use patterns have led to a build-up of gases in the atmosphere, which experts believe can lead to a warming of the Earth's temperature.

Preventing over-fishing - The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) monitors marine fishery production and issues alerts to prevent damage due to over-fishing.

Limiting deforestation and promoting sustainable forestry development - FAO, UNDP and the World Bank, through a Tropical Forests Action Programme, have formulated and carried out forestry action plans in 90 countries.

Cleaning up pollution - UNEP led a major effort to clean up the Mediterranean Sea. It encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50 per cent of the previously polluted beaches are now usable.

Protecting consumers' health - To ensure the safety of food sold in the market place, UN agencies have established standards for over 200 food commodities and safety limits for more than 3,000 food containers.

Reducing fertility rates - The UN Population Fund (UNFPA), through its family planning programmes, has enabled people to make informed choices, and consequently given families, and especially women, greater control over their lives. As a result, women in devloping countries are having fewer children - from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today. In the 1960s, only 10 per cent of the world's families were using effective methods of family planning. The number now stands at 55 per cent.

Fighting drug abuse - The UN International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) has worked to reduce demand for illicit drugs, suppress drug trafficking, and has helped farmers to reduce their economic reliance on growing narcotic crops by shifting farm production toward other dependable sources of income.

Improving global trade relations - The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has worked to obtain special trade preferences for developing countries to export their products to developed countries. It has also negotiated international commodities agreements to ensure fair prices for developing countries. And through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which has now been supplanted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United Nations has supported trade liberalization, that will increase economic development opportunities in developing countries.

Promoting economic reform - Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations has helped many countries improve their economic management, offered training for government finance officials, and provided financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment difficulties.

Promoting worker rights - The International Labour Organization (ILO) has worked to guarantee freedom of the right to association, the right to organize, collective bargaining, the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, promote employment and equal remuneration and has sought to eliminate discrimination and child labour. And by setting safety standards, ILO has helped reduce the toll of work-related accidents.

Introducing improved agricultural techniques and reducing costs - With assistance from the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) that has resulted in improved crop yields, Asian rice farmers have saved $12 million on pesticides and governments over $150 million a year in pesticide subsidies.

Promoting stability and order in the world's oceans - Through three international conferences, the third lasting more than nine years, the United Nations has spearheaded an international effort to promote a comprehensive global agreement for the protection, preservation and peaceful development of the oceans. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994, lays down rules for the determination of national maritime jurisdiction, navigation on the high seas, rights and duties of coastal and other states, obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, cooperation in the conduct of marine scientific research and preservation of living resources.

Improving air and sea travel - UN agencies have been responsible for setting safety standards for sea and air travel. The efforts of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have contributed to making air travel the safest mode of transportation. To wit: In 1947, when nine million travelled, 590 were killed in aircraft accidents; in 1993 the number of deaths was 936 out of the 1.2 billion airline passengers. Over the last two decades, pollution from tankers has been reduced by as much as 60 per cent thanks to the work of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Protecting intellectual property - The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides protection for new inventions and maintains a register of nearly 3 million national trademarks. Through treaties, it also protects the works of artists, composers and authors world-wide. WIPO's work makes it easier and less costly for individuals and enterprises to enforce their property rights. It also broadens the opportunity to distribute new ideas and products without relinquishing control over the property rights.

Promoting the free flow of information - To allow all people to obtain information that is free of censorship and culturally unbiased, UNESCO has provided aid to develop and strengthen communication systems, established news agencies and supported an independent press.

Improving global communications - The Universal Postal Union (UPU) has maintained and regulated international mail delivery. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has coordinated use of the radio spectrum, promoted cooperation in assigning positions for stationary satellites, and established international standards for communications, thereby ensuring the unfeterred flow of information around the globe.

Empowering the voiceless - UN-sponsored international years and conferences have caused governments to recognize the needs and contributions of groups usually excluded from decision-making, such as the aging, children, youth, homeless, indigenous and disabled people.

Establishing "children as a zone of peace" - From El Salvador to Lebanon, Sudan to former Yugoslavia, UNICEF pioneered the establishment of "Days of Tranquillity" and the opening of "Corridors of Peace" to provide vaccines and other assistance desperately needed by children caught in armed conflict.

Generating worldwide commitment in support of the needs of children - Through UNICEF's efforts, the Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force as international law in 1990 and has become law in 166 countries by the end of September 1994; following the 1990 World Summit for Children convened by UNICEF, more than 150 governments have committed to reaching over 20 specific measurable goals to radically improve children's lives by the year 2000.

Improving education in developing countries - As a direct result of the efforts of UN agencies, over 60 per cent of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 90 per cent of children in these countries attend school.

Improving literacy for women - Programmes aimed at promoting education and advancement for women helped raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 per cent in 1970 to 56 per cent in 1990.

Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites - Ancient monuments in 81 countries including Greece, Egypt, Italy, Indonesia and Cambodia, have been protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.

Facilitating academic and cultural exchanges - The United Nations, through UNESCO and the United Nations University (UNU), have encouraged scholarly and scientific cooperation, networking of institutions and promotion of cultural expressions, including those of minorities and indigenous people.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Surprise, surprise! Alan Caruba the guy who wrote CAG 147's post has a problem with the UN, he seems to have lots of issues that need to be worked out and thankfully for him there are plenty of second rate political web site's that will host his rants. :lol:

Edit: Oh yeah and Caruba keeps referring to the UK as England. :bash:

[Ian H]

I hate that too (says an Englishman living in Wales (for a few more days)).


CAG 147: You're not blind or stupid, the UN has f*cked up in the past, and no doubt will continue to do so, but the good it does to my mind far outweighs the bad. No one state or loose alliance could do what it does.

[Brzeczyszczykiewicz]

Wow, that is so much work done so far! I am surprised! Only ... maybe I am "a silly wanker and anti-UN basher" but ... I cannot find the column about solving world crisis, about quick reactions to the current wars, about Srebrenica and all Bosnia war, about millions people who died due to lack of UN interest. OK, maybe I am just blind and stupid! :cantbeli:

UN is made by representatives of different countries, with different interests, and conflicts.
It can do sh*t without the will of world's powers.
So, there's no such thing as 'lack of UN interest', theres only a lack of governments' interest.

[2RHPZ]

Wow, that is so much work done so far! I am surprised! Only ... maybe I am "a silly wanker and anti-UN basher" but ... I cannot find the column about solving world crisis, about quick reactions to the current wars, about Srebrenica and all Bosnia war, about millions people who died due to lack of UN interest. OK, maybe I am just blind and stupid! :cantbeli:

UN is made by representatives of different countries, with different interests, and conflicts.
It can do sh*t without the will of world's powers.
So, there's no such thing as 'lack of UN interest', theres only a lack of governments' interest.

Read book Srebrenica by Jan Willem Honig and Norbet Both.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[usa320]

The causes more problems than it fixes.

I think we should go back to the days of country-to-country talks and alliances. That seemed to pay off well in getting Ghadaffi to do what we told him...

The one thing the UN is good for is scamming food money from poor iraqis...

[GrimmyRX]

Wow, that is so much work done so far! I am surprised! Only ... maybe I am "a silly wanker and anti-UN basher" but ... I cannot find the column about solving world crisis, about quick reactions to the current wars, about Srebrenica and all Bosnia war, about millions people who died due to lack of UN interest. OK, maybe I am just blind and stupid! :cantbeli:

You won't find those columns because the UN does not have the MANDATE to deal with those problems.

You want the UN to do something about that? To have quick reactions to world crisis and other such wars? Then give the UN more POWER. Give it the ability to ENFORCE it's rules and resolutions. Give it the Military MIGHT to stop genocides and political murders in their tracks.

If you're not willing to agree to let them do that, then you're just wasting our time with your whining.

[GrimmyRX]

The causes more problems than it fixes.

I think we should go back to the days of country-to-country talks and alliances. That seemed to pay off well in getting Ghadaffi to do what we told him...

The one thing the UN is good for is scamming food money from poor iraqis...

Right, so, lets go back to the days of Pre-World War One. Lets see... what happened in the Pre-World War One days where there was only country to country talks and alliances... Hmm...

Oh... that's right, I remember what Happened.

World War One. Millions of people dead, Millions more hurt.

Yeah... that sounds great.

[GrimmyRX]

What's the United Nations good for?

Providing transportation services for Palestinian terrorists in the organization's own ambulances:

http://e.tln0.com/ame/archives/*******_UN_amblulances_11_may_04.wmv

Do you have a hardon for this particular incident? We get it, aight? UN Ambulances have been used to ferry around Pals.

Sheesh. some people. :backhand:

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

That seemed to pay off well in getting Ghadaffi to do what we told him...
If we means the USA then you are wrong, talks were initiated by Libya and were between the Libya and the UK.

[usa320]

I think the UN should concentrate on Humanitarian issues-which they seem decent at- and let nations worry about security, or NATO.

[GrimmyRX]

I think the UN should concentrate on Humanitarian issues-which they seem decent at- and let nations worry about security, or NATO.

Well, as your previous post in this thread fairly exemplifies, that would probably be not such a good idea.

[Aussie E]

They do have a good oil for "aid" program rofl

[Kilgor]

In 1974, the United Nations hosted a visit from Yasir Arafat, the chairman of
the Palestine Liberation Organization, who addressed the General Assembly
wearing a gun!

Never making any judgement between aggressor and victim, the United Nations
stood by while 250,000 died in Bosnia and 900,000 died in Rwanda. The current
Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who formerly was the UN director of the Rwandan
peacekeeping mission, praised Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, as a reasonable,
wise leader. He "negotiated" an end to United Nation's efforts to find and
destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is the same man and the same
organization that just won the Nobel Prize for Peace!

**** the UN!

:fork:

[GrimmyRX]

In 1974, the United Nations hosted a visit from Yasir Arafat, the chairman of
the Palestine Liberation Organization, who addressed the General Assembly
wearing a gun!

Never making any judgement between aggressor and victim, the United Nations
stood by while 250,000 died in Bosnia and 900,000 died in Rwanda. The current
Secretary General, Kofi Annan, who formerly was the UN director of the Rwandan
peacekeeping mission, praised Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, as a reasonable,
wise leader. He "negotiated" an end to United Nation's efforts to find and
destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is the same man and the same
organization that just won the Nobel Prize for Peace!

f*** the UN!

:fork:

by your same reasoning, we can say "f*** the US", "f*** the UK". "f*** Poland", "f*** Russia" and, hell, "f*** Canada", cause EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN one of these countries have done something similiar, or have stood by to watch the Rwandian Genocides. Hell, what country are you from? YOUR Gott weiß country ALSO stood by and watched Rwanda burn.

The PLO's own Yasir Arafat addressing the UN? So bloody what? As far as palestine's conserned, he IS their leader. And if you consider him some sort of war criminal, consider this, Both the Prime Ministers of England and Canada said that Hitler "was a man who we can do business with".

As for America, Saddam in the 1980's ring any bells?

Now, if you could consider adding anything USEFUL to the descussion, please, go on, if not, :backhand:

[Kilgor]

Im from Australia.

So please bring up something from our past.

And i'll say it again, **** the UN for letting a armed terrorist address the general assembly.

[GrimmyRX]

Im from Australia.

So please bring up something from our past.

And i'll say it again, f*** the UN for letting a armed terrorist address the general assembly.

Your country stood by to Watch Rwanda Burn. Every single damn country in the world did that.

[GrimmyRX]

Im from Australia.

So please bring up something from our past.

And i'll say it again, f*** the UN for letting a armed terrorist address the general assembly.

As for letting an armed terrorist address the general assembly, He does classify as a governmental leader, no matter HOW much of a lieing prick he is.

Him being Armed? Well, I really wouldn't know why that happened, nor the circumstances that allowed that to happen.

But hey, neither do you. Still not much of a reason to say "f*** the UN!"

[citizen-k]

What's the United Nations good for?

Providing transportation services for Palestinian terrorists in the organization's own ambulances:

http://e.tln0.com/ame/archives/*******_UN_amblulances_11_may_04.wmv

Do you have a hardon for this particular incident? We get it, aight? UN Ambulances have been used to ferry around Pals.

Sheesh. some people. :backhand:

Wrong.

UN Ambulances have been used to ferry around Pals Terrorists
so they will have a second chance to shoot another 2 year old girl from close range.

Is that what gives you (and cloud monkey) a hardon?

[W(M)D]

He does not understand cos it's not his 2 year old sister or daughter who is in the firing line.

[GrimmyRX]

What's the United Nations good for?

Providing transportation services for Palestinian terrorists in the organization's own ambulances:

http://e.tln0.com/ame/archives/*******_UN_amblulances_11_may_04.wmv

Do you have a hardon for this particular incident? We get it, aight? UN Ambulances have been used to ferry around Pals.

Sheesh. some people. :backhand:

Wrong.

UN Ambulances have been used to ferry around Pals Terrorists

so they will have a second chance to shoot another 2 year old girl from close range.

Is that what gives you (and cloud monkey) a hardon?

These ambulances, are they driven by local drivers? Do all the drivers of these Ambulances always totally in lock-step with every UN policy? I doubt it. I really, seriously, doubt it, because for an ambulance to ferry around armed, UNWOUNDED (if they WERE wounded then, at least, there was a marginal reason for the ambulance to be carrying them) it is a sign of local corruption of a mandate.

Or maybe the Terrorists took the ambulance from the driver/threatened the driver with death unless he took them where ever they wanted to go.

You never know after all.

Damn, I'm guilty of one thing though, when I said Pal, I ment pal Terrorists. When slip ups like that occur, it means one thing, you start to see a whole group of people the same way, ie: I've started to see all Pal's as terrorists. This is not a good thing.

No, it does not give me a hard on, and you're right, it's not my 2 year old sister that may or may not be on the fireing line. I would never proclaim that it is.

That it may be yours Citizen K means that you are very VERY close to the issue, and damn it, I would do anything possible to never have to be in your place.

But because you are so very close to the issue, because you see that your family and friends need to be protected, that you too, start to see every Palestinian as a terrorist.

Let me ask you, why do countries try to have non-partisan judges try cases? Why do judges have to recuse themselves from a case if they find that they have any previous connections with the people involved with the case?

Because justice systems that work have to TRY to remain unbiased.

You may be many things Citizen-K, but, on this issue, I do not believe you can say that you are not biased one way or the other.

That's why we need organizations LIKE the UN (like as in, not nessasairly the UN, but some organization that provides a non/less biased view, like maybe the World Court) to try and untangle the ratf*** that both the Pal's and the Israelis are in.

Edit: BTW, who is Cloud Monkey? It's my hope that your answer to this last question does NOT take up a large portion of your next post, but I don't see him in this thread, and I would hope that it wasn't a slur against something I may or may not stand for. Again, biggest hopes that your reply of this last question does not take up a large amount of space in your next responce better suited to countering my other points.

[citizen-k]

Cloud monkey is pure translation of "cofi anan" to hebrew.
(cofi=monkey, anan=cloud)

Those ambulances were taken by the terrorists...and the U.N. post in Lebanon was taken by the Hizbullah just before they kidnapped 3 soldiors?
No, I know! the camera was a member of the Hizbullah and it was taken the film on its own! yeah...and the soldiors in the post? oh...they were all...blind? some new U.N "lets help the blind" project? :cantbeli:

Those ambulances are used to move explosives & terrorists for years...it's not new, not to the IDF and not the the U.N...

I don't know what about you, but a person who carry a gun and is not a part of a regular army = terrorist, especialy if his "nation" has an army of it's own. (and the palestinians had one, until they started this war)

I don't think you need to be an outsider to understand that shooting 4 little girls from close range is WRONG no matter what - and the U.N shouldn't support such acts in any way - unlike what you see in that movie.

Those ambulances were driven by U.N workers - so it's the U.N's direct responsibility.
Every victim's blood of those man who used this U.N ambulance will be on every U.N soldior's hand, including cloud monkey and every blind folded U.N supporter.

It's not like we heared him apologize or saw him do something so stop it, right?

[GrimmyRX]

Cloud monkey is pure translation of "cofi anan" to hebrew.
(cofi=monkey, anan=cloud)

Ah, thank you for that explaination, lol.


Those ambulances were taken by the terrorists...and the U.N. post in Lebanon was taken by the Hizbullah just before they kidnapped 3 soldiors?
No, I know! the camera was a member of the Hizbullah and it was taken the film on its own! yeah...and the soldiors in the post? oh...they were all...blind? some new U.N "lets help the blind" project? :cantbeli:

When you're an unarmed civilain running a hospital in hostile territory, I hasten to say that you would probably take whatever protection that comes to you, also knowing that, if you didn't accept that protection, those self same style "protectors" could turn into the very thing that they promise to protect you from.

Of course, this does not excuse the fact that they ARE letting P.T's ride around armed in their ambulances. It is, however, somewhat less foul than the alternatives.

That is to say, UN aid workers help a lot of people regardness of nationality that otherwise wouldn't be helped. If, say, the P.T's started working AGAINST them, well...

In a cold calculation of JUST numbers, it would be worse. Picking the lesser hand of the devil if you will.

In no way does this excuse their actions at all, nor does it support their actions. But in pure bloody numbers, if the UN humanitarian agencies were suddenly unable to work in the middle east due to... certine forces, many more people would die than currently do.


I don't know what about you, but a person who carry a gun and is not a part of a regular army = terrorist, especialy if his "nation" has an army of it's own. (and the palestinians had one, until they started this war)

I'm almost certine that you'd like to refine this statement. There are many gun owners in the world that are not terrorists.

But you're right. They don't have a regular army, and if you were targeted by superior military might and your funds had to be carefully spent, would you go for a) Weapons + Bullets or b) Uniforms and identifying marks?

Again, this is not attempting to justify their murder of civilains et al, but instead, just a referance to stratigic thinking.


I don't think you need to be an outsider to understand that shooting 4 little girls from close range is WRONG no matter what - and the U.N shouldn't support such acts in any way - unlike what you see in that movie.

What movie are you refering to?

No, it's not right in the slightest, and it doesn't take an un-biased viewer to know that. However, it does take an un-biased person to determin cause, effect, solution, that is more satifying to both parties other than "Build a big ass wall and kill all those that try and f*** with us."

Yes, Israel has mucho rights to defend it's citizenry from physical harm, but where an Unbiased organization comes in is when people start saying "Yeah, enough with this killing, lets get down to Peace."

Of course, you'll need to get both parties to the table and an end to fighting first... and I will admit, I don't see that happening any time soon.


Those ambulances were driven by U.N workers - so it's the U.N's direct responsibility.
Every victim's blood of those man who used this U.N ambulance will be on every U.N soldior's hand, including cloud monkey and every blind folded U.N supporter.

The UN doesn't have any soldiers. They only have what other countries decide to give them, and that, my fellow being, is where the problem is.

If there UN were to finally aquire the men, meterals and power to finally do it's mandated job, then there would be a LOT of difference in how you see it operate.

However, it was never given the men, materals and powers because the Big powers that created it would not give it any real power.

That's the problem.

If the UN got the power and the people to carry out it's job, don't you think that those damn P.T's in Palestine would find themselves looking down readied barrels when they tried to enter a UN building?

Maybe a ceasefire line could actually be HELD come hell or high water by troops dedicated to the UN and it's principals, instead of their home countries that can pull them out whenever they feel their balls shrinking?

[Chef]

I have to agree with GrimmyRX. The United Nations is what the nations make of it. It has the powers and mandates given to it by it's member states. Some of the larger states have a power of veto and a power to starve it of resources. These states then have to have either been in favour of the UN resolutions or at least abstained on the votes.....which makes it a bit rich when they then attack the UN for carrying out is mandate. Sure, the system isn't perfect....but then, what national system of government is....and the national governments are what dictate the action or inaction of the UN. Just because a government makes a decision we dislike, doesn't mean we get to ditch them immediately....we try to change their decision democratically. The UN isn't a government. It is an organisation supposed to UNITE NATIONS in dealing with various problems around the world. Some people seem to think that if the UN doesn't think as they do on every issue, then they're going to take their ball back...notwithstanding that they have a veto....so sad, so childish.
To surmise, the UN is what we, the citizens of the participating nations, make it.

[martinexsquaddie]

good idea lousy implementation Soviets and USA used the UN as a football for forty odd years then soviet union fold. The US tries to own the UN Failed re gulf war two and decides to take the football home :( mind you was aided and abetted by france that seems to belive standing up to the US regardless of the arguement makes it look good :(.
The majority of the worlds population are not american so the UN is unlikely to share americas concern :(

[IDFM203]

I just skimmed this thread and I out of the many BS statements that I saw, these two immediately jumped out so I guess I'll just limit my responses in this thread to just those two :D

The UN is fair at at the moment it is stopping Israel doing to palestine what WW2 did to europe :roll: Totally one of the most absurd and stupid (and false) lines that I have ever seen on this board :roll:

And believe me on this board that is indeed an accomplishment to get to that level ;)

To me the comment is so stupid that it doesn’t even offend me that much for it’s so outlandish to not be taken seriously even though I know you meant it :roll:

Listen, first of all, we don’t commit ww2 on them for its against our values and ideals.

Secondly besides our values and morals, we are very restrained due to our own politics as a democracy we have full of them (from all political perspectives that are in our government) and that has nothing to do with the UN at all.

Indeed the UN loves to condemn us (and btw never the Arabs or Pali’s in regards to our conflict) but other then that, they don’t do much or have any effect on us in our actions or non-actions (due to us realizing a long while ago on how “fair” the UN really is :roll: ).



UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.
Or even better, it should never have been created in the first place! Would have saved us at least one middle east conflict! :roll:Wow and you as well :roll:

I repeat from a post of mine that I just did today………




lol if it weren't for all this international intervention there would be no Israel you are a creation of this system and call it hypocritical :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :roll:

How did international intervention cerate Israel???? :roll:

So let me see, the UN drew a line on a map, the Arabs then invaded right after and yet in a war we defeated them and then become a livable state and yet you say that international intervention created Israel?? :roll: rofl rofl rofl


Shalom :roll:

[cut]

lol if it weren't for all this international intervention there would be no Israel you are a creation of this system and call it hypocritical :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :roll:

How did international intervention cerate Israel???? :roll:

So let me see, the UN drew a line on a map, the Arabs then invaded right after and yet in a war we defeated them and then become a livable state and yet you say that international intervention created Israel?? :roll: rofl rofl rofl


If everyone stuck to their own business Israel would not have been able to start up because there would be countries in the middle east that would still be powerful. Before European colonisation of the world everyone stuck to their continent pretty much. But you don't have to rely on that.

International intervention keeps the world how the most powerful nations want it, and that means with a jewish state. The only reason we are all quite happy with the UN is because it safeguards freedom and way of the West, some would say the american way. But because the UN has to in someway be representative (because of western ideals- freedom) it doesn't always agree with the most powerful countries..which is a good thing. We get our way with the smaller countries of the world all the time, why not give a little.

Just because there is a problem which both sides exacerbate in the middle east is not a good enough reason to get rid of the UN.

As for right wing americans who think the UN is a waste of time, they don't appreaciate how much power it gives them, if the US still listens to the UN most of the time then no-one can accuse the US of being an empire or a controlling power. The UN does something NATO could never do an that is to give the US and her allies real power to intervene with authority and not unjust power.

With the UN, the West (well really the US, let's not kid ourselves) can control the world, without we will go back to the world of conflict we had for centuries. If you want to get rid of the international system suggest an alternative or replecement, don't be critical theorists.

[seruriermarshal]

lol if it weren't for all this international intervention there would be no Israel you are a creation of this system and call it hypocritical :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :roll:

How did international intervention cerate Israel???? :roll:

So let me see, the UN drew a line on a map, the Arabs then invaded right after and yet in a war we defeated them and then become a livable state and yet you say that international intervention created Israel?? :roll: rofl rofl rofl


If everyone stuck to their own business Israel would not have been able to start up because there would be countries in the middle east that would still be powerful. Before European colonisation of the world everyone stuck to their continent pretty much. But you don't have to rely on that.

International intervention keeps the world how the most powerful nations want it, and that means with a jewish state. The only reason we are all quite happy with the UN is because it safeguards freedom and way of the West, some would say the american way. But because the UN has to in someway be representative (because of western ideals- freedom) it doesn't always agree with the most powerful countries..which is a good thing. We get our way with the smaller countries of the world all the time, why not give a little.

Just because there is a problem which both sides exacerbate in the middle east is not a good enough reason to get rid of the UN.

As for right wing americans who think the UN is a waste of time, they don't appreaciate how much power it gives them, if the US still listens to the UN most of the time then no-one can accuse the US of being an empire or a controlling power. The UN does something NATO could never do an that is to give the US and her allies real power to intervene with authority and not unjust power.

With the UN, the West (well really the US, let's not kid ourselves) can control the world, without we will go back to the world of conflict we had for centuries. If you want to get rid of the international system suggest an alternative or replecement, don't be critical theorists.

Cut , glad see you .

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[cut]

lol if it weren't for all this international intervention there would be no Israel you are a creation of this system and call it hypocritical :cantbeli: :cantbeli: :roll:

How did international intervention cerate Israel???? :roll:

So let me see, the UN drew a line on a map, the Arabs then invaded right after and yet in a war we defeated them and then become a livable state and yet you say that international intervention created Israel?? :roll: rofl rofl rofl


If everyone stuck to their own business Israel would not have been able to start up because there would be countries in the middle east that would still be powerful. Before European colonisation of the world everyone stuck to their continent pretty much. But you don't have to rely on that.

International intervention keeps the world how the most powerful nations want it, and that means with a jewish state. The only reason we are all quite happy with the UN is because it safeguards freedom and way of the West, some would say the american way. But because the UN has to in someway be representative (because of western ideals- freedom) it doesn't always agree with the most powerful countries..which is a good thing. We get our way with the smaller countries of the world all the time, why not give a little.

Just because there is a problem which both sides exacerbate in the middle east is not a good enough reason to get rid of the UN.

As for right wing americans who think the UN is a waste of time, they don't appreaciate how much power it gives them, if the US still listens to the UN most of the time then no-one can accuse the US of being an empire or a controlling power. The UN does something NATO could never do an that is to give the US and her allies real power to intervene with authority and not unjust power.

With the UN, the West (well really the US, let's not kid ourselves) can control the world, without we will go back to the world of conflict we had for centuries. If you want to get rid of the international system suggest an alternative or replecement, don't be critical theorists.

Cut , glad see you .

:lol: :lol: :lol:

nice to see you too, sorry I don't have time to simplify my post for you ;)

[IDFM203]

My only intention was to respond directly to your insinuation that it was international intervention (ie the UN) that created Israel and that was the only thing I responded to....for the general concept of the UN or any other international system is not what I addressd at all in my post there and as such I wont respond to your other points about it in your response to me (even though I in fact can respond to all those points and do have plenty to say on them, though for now I will save them for a later date or just not get inot it ever on this forum)

I have also brought before in other posts in the past, detailed examinations of the UN and its clear and untruthful bias against Israel and also how the UN had been “hijacked” by the soviet and Arab blocks, but that too I will leave for other threads and posts.

Ok with regards to your comments that directly relate to my first reponse to you.......



If everyone stuck to their own business Israel would not have been able to start up because there would be countries in the middle east that would still be powerful. Before European colonisation of the world everyone stuck to their continent pretty much. But you don't have to rely on that. .That is such a stretch from your original commen but nonetheless I will address it anyways ;)

So lets see if I got this right, before when you meant "international intervention created Israel", you didn’t mean the oft repeated (and false, as I have shown you before) mantra that the UN created Israel because of the line it drew on a map, but rather because of international colonization of Arabic countries that kept them weak and it was because of that, that Israel was created?

Well to that as I understand you, well that is not international intervention to help create a state, but rather a few other nations on their own colonial agenda that went in for their own reasons, I don’t think that’s called international intervention at all and certainly not international intervention the way your first statement ("lol if it weren't for all this international intervention there would be no Israel" ) implied it was.


With your logic, I can even argue that while the Arabs might have been weaker because of other nations presence there, I can say we Jews were also weaker because of the Brit presence, that had quotas on are immigration (and manpower that was vital to our survival in the war) and a general prevention of allowing us to have arms, so when the war broke out, we too were weaker.


As such either way you look at it, I believe a fact is that , with or without any international presence in the middle east, Israel IMO would have came to being!!

But again, the international presence there, even if its a argument, was not a international intervention, not by any stretch of any sane imagination.

Shalom :D

[Moledet]

Do you even know what led to the UN vote? All the attacks on the Brits led to it, they just couldn't stop the attacks. Everytime they were embarrassed in the world media because of the attacks of the Jewish pioneers until one day they got sick of it and they decided to give up the Mandat on Israel (Palestine, South of Syria or however you call it). Thus, Israel gained international recognition in the UN but it was funded by Jewish pioneers.

[cut]

ok, I only meant I meant that Israel was a creation of the international system as some would say the EU is a creation of the US. That is to say not necessarily in the literary sense, i.e. it doesn't have to mean directly.
The international system allowed for the creation of israel, that much I know and was trying to say. So saying that "Israel is a creation of the international intervention", means that it would not have existed without international system.

the reason why I keep refferring back to the international system is quite simply because it is the topic and the thinking behing the original post that you disagreed with. So it is part of the argument.

As for this anti-israeli bias in the UN you talk about, I cannot see it, I read every allegation by israelis and israel-supporters about this. But I have come to conclusion that the UN is no different than me, I expect that some of the Israelis on here soemtimes box me in with as being anti-israel but if I was having a discussion with a palestian they would think the exact opposite. I believe it is the nature of the situation that the sides in the israeli/palestinian argument as so far apart that anyone who is neutral is believed to be on the other side by each side. I have no reason to support arabs over israelis, why should I?

The UN does not have an opinon for itself but it is the people that are in it that form that opinion and the people in it are the world. Getting rid of the UN does not get rid of the sentiment it only silences it. And I believe that knowing your enemy is always best.




cut wrote:


If everyone stuck to their own business Israel would not have been able to start up because there would be countries in the middle east that would still be powerful. Before European colonisation of the world everyone stuck to their continent pretty much. But you don't have to rely on that. .
That is such a stretch from your original commen but nonetheless I will address it anyways

So lets see if I got this right, before when you meant "international intervention created Israel", you didn’t mean the oft repeated (and false, as I have shown you before) mantra that the UN created Israel because of the line it drew on a map, but rather because of international colonization of Arabic countries that kept them weak and it was because of that, that Israel was created?

Well to that as I understand you, well that is not international intervention to help create a state, but rather a few other nations on their own colonial agenda that went in for their own reasons, I don’t think that’s called international intervention at all and certainly not international intervention the way your first statement ("lol if it weren't for all this international intervention there would be no Israel" ) implied it was.




I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to the UN at this point. The UN is to young for this. The international system pre-UN empires etc.. also had international intervention, but the UN has taken that up, in a more democratic less-autocratic type of way.





With your logic, I can even argue that while the Arabs might have been weaker because of other nations presence there, I can say we Jews were also weaker because of the Brit presence, that had quotas on are immigration (and manpower that was vital to our survival in the war) and a general prevention of allowing us to have arms, so when the war broke out, we too were weaker.

please tell me more about this..




As such either way you look at it, I believe a fact is that , with or without any international presence in the middle east, Israel IMO would have came to being!!

I still disagree on that point, the international system and climate is paramount when it comes to the creation of states.

[cut]

Do you even know what led to the UN vote? All the attacks on the Brits led to it, they just couldn't stop the attacks. Everytime they were embarrassed in the world media because of the attacks of the Jewish pioneers until one day they got sick of it and they decided to give up the Mandat on Israel (Palestine, South of Syria or however you call it). Thus, Israel gained international recognition in the UN but it was funded by Jewish pioneers.

The Brits were always stuck in this case through there own fault (I'll admit that) but that is something that dates back to when Britain was still attempting half the world on it's own and didn't have time to think about the consequences. Laying the seeds for future conflicts the same would happen to the US without the UN.

[Moledet]

Cut, a country does not need international recognition to be funded.
It's possible to declare a country if it fullfil the follwing conditions:
A. Boarders.
B. Population.
C. Regime.
D. Sovereignty.

The UN just helped us to get the trading agreements with other countries faster.

[cut]

tell that to the kurds

[citizen-k]

tell that to the kurds

Aren't they the ones who were gassed to death by Saddam?

(Europe's & U.N's best friend in the middle east up until US&UK took things in hand)

Saying "Europe" means Europe with out the UK ;)

I didn't see the U.N being so hard on Iraq for gassing the Kurds or on Syria/Jordan for killing thousands of Palestinians in one day...

But if Israel kills Rantisi who is a leader of a terror organization? now thats a threat to world peace!!! (its a threat form keeping the world being a piece of **** - which is what the U.N wants, maybe)


As for the U.N "approving" the state of Israel... Even if it wasn't approved the declaration would still be happaning, followed by the war which happened any way - which we won although the U.N did nothing to help us...

Maybe if it wasn't approved we could have keep what we achieved during that war, not that it stopped the Arab world to ask for more, and the U.N to support it ;)

(Yeah, I know - the U.N is not supporting anything...they just didn't see the kidnappers in Lebanon, the Ambulances used by "gunmens" or the tanks being deployed in Sayani...right)

[OB Kenobi]

UNtisemitics.

Yes, we all know, anyone who disagrees with or criticizes Israel is "antisemitic." Let's you get away with just about anything, doesn't it?

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

Btw, what's the UN good for? Lots of things that any aggressive nation would rather not have you know about.

[Javehn]

I am not shure how that movement of Neturey Karta (who btw are , genuine fanatics and minority ) connects to your point ??
Infact , what is your point ?

When an UN Ukrainian officer that serves in Lebanon , videotapes Hisballah attack and when he see an Saggeg impact in the outpost , he sais "Excellent . That Jids ****ers got what they deserved" . What would you say about that point ?

[IDFM203]

ok, I only meant I meant that Israel was a creation of the international system as some would say the EU is a creation of the US. That is to say not necessarily in the literary sense, i.e. it doesn't have to mean directly. ok in that respect, I would say almost every nation is a creation of the international system for that is the way the world is, for indeed the world is a collection of international nations that at all times, act in all sorts of ways mostly for their own interests and goals and sometimes those action lead to unintended consequences, and certainly by the time of Israel’s creation, most of the worlds actions were for their own interests and not for any international intervention to help create a state as your initial comment was seen as.


the reason why I keep refferring back to the international system is quite simply because it is the topic and the thinking behing the original post that you disagreed with. So it is part of the argument. well I don’t know about you, but I read the topic of the thread as “What's the United Nations good for?” but perhaps what I see is not what you see? ;)

Also the UN, and as well as any international intervention as a goal or system, is not what happened before the UN, and the Brit colonial expansion IMO do NOT constitute international intervention the way it is supposed to be implied.


As for this anti-israeli bias in the UN you talk about, I cannot see it, I read every allegation by israelis and israel-supporters about this. Boy I was trying not to get into it, but I guess you just want to drag me in, Ok I’ll play :D

I sincerely doubt you have read every allegation for even if you had read only my arguments before on it, you could not have possibly said that you don’t see it, so I will assume quite clearly that you have not read all or even a lot of them.


But I have come to conclusion that the UN is no different than me, I expect that some of the Israelis on here soemtimes box me in with as being anti-israel but if I was having a discussion with a palestian they would think the exact opposite. I believe it is the nature of the situation that the sides in the israeli/palestinian argument as so far apart that anyone who is neutral is believed to be on the other side by each side. You see I actually expected this answer ;) , for it’s a obvious answer to give when one is in a position that you are in against me, though the difference is that while indeed anyone from any perspective I guess can simply claim one is bias, I believe its on the strengths of the case that one makes to back up that claim that ultimately determines the validity of it, and before the case I have made on this forum and I guess we will see how this goes if I need to make it again in full detail, but I believe my case PROVES it without any shred of doubt as to the CLEAR bias against Israel.

Instead of bringing down reams of info now (which I warn you now, if you still disagree after this, well be prepared for I will get into this full steam), I will simply highlight some arguments of my case, and if you dispute it, then I will entertain (and enlighten) you in much more detail to each point that I now simply highlighted.

Ok here are just the highlights of my case……….

-Yet despite all the resolutions solely against Israel in the past fifty some years, there are no resolutions solely condemning or directed ay any Arab state either for its actions against Israel or its funding of terrorist groups that act against Israel or even terrorist groups themselves, with regards to the Israeli/Arab (and pali) conflict.

I guess they are all angles at all times :roll: , or perhaps bias against Israel? (IMO its one or the other)

-Out of all the conflicts in this world, where countless thousands and even millions have been slaughterd by various nations against other nations, Tiny Israel has the most resolutions against it then any other nation, hmm yeah even if we discount Israel's right of self defense and what Israel has faced and even if you claim all those accusations are true, yeah Israel has committed the most crimes, more so then anyone :roll:

I believe right there, those two statements of mine are indisputable fact of the large bias against Israel………..but lets add some more ;)

-Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies (as even the terrorists and human rights violation state, Syria is allowed to)

-The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."5

- Even in the Security Council which some claim its more fair then the heavily biased general assembly, well there too that’s not true, for there it has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State, but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel.

-Emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. For nearly two decades, these sessions have been called primarily to condemn Israel.

-Lastly to further PROVE the bias, Israel did something smart last year and decided even though it was pointless (and a reason why we don’t bother to do this often as we could), to just show further clearly how biased and the double standards that the UN uses against Israel whereas While the UN routinely adopts resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, it has never adopted a single resolution unequivocally condemning violence against Israeli citizens. IN 2003 Israel offered a draft resolution in the General Assembly for the first time in 27 years.
The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of dozens of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted by a UN committee (later adopted by the full Assembly) calling for the protection of Palestinian children from “Israeli aggression.” Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel :roll:

Fact is that the UN does not apply universal standards when it excessively and disproportionately condemns Israel and when it rarely condemns other nations or is actually outright silent, even when a lot of other nations commit much worse actions then what they accuse Israel of doing.

To me that is a bias against Israel!!!


The UN does not have an opinon for itself but it is the people that are in it that form that opinion and the people in it are the world. Getting rid of the UN does not get rid of the sentiment it only silences it. Yes indeed it does represent what the world feels and represents, though simply because a lot feel a certain way, do not make it right. I mean, just because our enemies, the Arab block, and their soviet bloc, the Arabs backers, wrote a lot of those resolutions, do not make that right or Israel wrong. Just because a hypocritical Europe votes a lot of times with that Arab block, for all sorts of reasons which I wont get into now, again does not make it right and Israel wrong. To me it’s a sad reality that the Jews never ever in history ever held a majority positive viewing, regardless of what we did or didn’t do.

And yes again especially with regards to the resolutions against Israel, when you have the large soviet and Arab blocs writing and making a lot of those resolutions, of course to expect tiny Israel to get a fair share at the UN would be absurd.

Listen, the idea of the UN is a positive idea and the prinisple of it I actualy support, however IMO it needs to be seriously overhauled and reformed in a major way. Now other then this one line, I will leave it at that for like I said before, my comments were only related to the UN and Israel and specifically to your previous comment of how Israel was created, for other then that, it’s a whole other topic and one which I am not inclined now to get into.



I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to the UN at this point. The UN is to young for this. The international system pre-UN empires etc.. also had international intervention, but the UN has taken that up, in a more democratic less-autocratic type of way. ok not the UN, but I still object to your word of “international intervention” for to me, nations that acted purely out of its own self colonial interests do NOT constitute any international intervention in any way or shape.

What the UN does or is supposed to do, is in no way similar to the Brits goal and actions with its colonizing enterprises in the mid east.


With your logic, I can even argue that while the Arabs might have been weaker because of other nations presence there, I can say we Jews were also weaker because of the Brit presence, that had quotas on are immigration (and manpower that was vital to our survival in the war) and a general prevention of allowing us to have arms, so when the war broke out, we too were weaker.”

please tell me more about this.. be specific, on what more do you want me to elaborate on?

On the fact that the Brits, had no quotas on Arab immigration, but had quotas on Jewish one?

Or the fact that the Brits at times helped and at times if not out right helped, encouraged or didn’t fight, the Arab terrorism against the Jewish civilians there that was supposed to be under Brit protection?

Or about the Brits active prevention of arms reaching the Jews that were defending themselves from numerous Arab attacks and the prevention of the much needed arms supply to the Jews for the impending war that everyone knew was going to happen against the Jews, once the Brits vacated the land.


Yes because of the Brits, we too were weaker against the Arab onslaught that immediately followed the UN vote.


As such either way you look at it, I believe a fact is that , with or without any international presence in the middle east, Israel IMO would have came to being!!

I still disagree on that point, the international system and climate is paramount when it comes to the creation of states. again, international system and international intervention are two different things.

Yes without international system, no nation would be in place today.


However there was no international intervention that created Israel.

Shalom :D

[Chef]

Folks, a lot of people seem to think the UN should have taken action against one side or another in various conflicts around the world. A lot more criticise the lack of decisions in some situations and the decisions taken in others. I think we should see the UN for what it is. It is a forum where the worlds states can come together to discuss and decide on their response to various events....humanitarian or political or conflict. The UN does not have a standing army or police force. It does not have the power to raise money from taxes. It does not have borders or a head of state as it isn't a state. The UN is absolutely dependant on it's member states to support and finance it and to supply troops or police where a decision is made to intervene in a conflict. If the UN does not intervene or appears to ignore events, it is because it's member states have chosen not to take action. This is the failing of the members...not the UN itself.
There have been many soldiers who have given their lives in the cause of carrying out UN mandated peacekeeping roles. There are always the exceptions to this, where individuals have disgraced the blue beret...but let us not dwell on some small minded assholes but rather on the actions and efforts of the majority of UN troops (on loan from their home states) who actively, and at no small risk, strive to keep the peace in a conflict torn area for the safety and security of the civilians.
I think that as we are talking about the one really global organisation here we should discuss the bigger picture instead of having our brains hobbled by the rights and wrongs of individual conflicts.

[cut]

tell that to the kurds

Aren't they the ones who were gassed to death by Saddam?

(Europe's & U.N's best friend in the middle east up until US&UK took things in hand)

Saying "Europe" means Europe with out the UK ;)

I didn't see the U.N being so hard on Iraq for gassing the Kurds or on Syria/Jordan for killing thousands of Palestinians in one day...

But if Israel kills Rantisi who is a leader of a terror organization? now thats a threat to world peace!!! (its a threat form keeping the world being a piece of **** - which is what the U.N wants, maybe)




Don't try and sweet talk me, I'm both British and European my passport says so too.

As for that wasn't it the kurds that were gassed by Saddam, yes but 15 years before we got rid of him an secondly now that the US and the UK are in there still is no and will not be a Kurdistan. At the time of the gassing of the Kurds, Iraq was still thought of as an american ally. Hence the UN which can't do much if the US and the Allies disagree with any country that might of had the balls to stand up against the US....So what do you expect.


But if Israel kills Rantisi who is a leader of a terror organization? now thats a threat to world peace!!! (its a threat form keeping the world being a piece of **** - which is what the U.N wants, maybe)

it's not the UN that believes that it is the world, if you have a problem with the UN you disagree with many countries in the world. In this case state assasinations can't be condoned because:

a) state assasinations are not acceptable in the western/democratic world, not specifically because of these cases but because of the principle. How can we criticise north Korea for killing political opponents when a country of the west does the same.

b)many countries don't accept capital punishement. And for a government to agree with this action israel takes in a country which is against capital punishment would be hypocritical.

nation against it ->government against it->UN member against it

repeat this enough times to get a majority and there you go how the UN stance on something like targeted assasinations is made.



As for the U.N "approving" the state of Israel... Even if it wasn't approved the declaration would still be happaning, followed by the war which happened any way - which we won although the U.N did nothing to help us...
who said anything about the UN approving Israel, it was well young at the time I would be surprised if it didn't. How many memebers did the UN have in 1948?[/quote]



Maybe if it wasn't approved we could have keep what we achieved during that war, not that it stopped the Arab world to ask for more, and the U.N to support it ;)
maybe..



(Yeah, I know - the U.N is not supporting anything...they just didn't see the kidnappers in Lebanon, the Ambulances used by "gunmens" or the tanks being deployed in Sayani...right)
you keep talking about the UN as if it is a seperate identity, it isn't both Israelis and Americans that want to get rid of the UN keep posting "why doesn't the UN send it's army in?" there is not UN army it is made up of memeber states. The UN is basically a forum for the world to discuss their problems if they come to agreement than they can take action together through the UN, it is not kofi annan making these decisions.

As for ambulances used by gunmen I'm quite happy for them to be there to help with israeli collateral damage that is to say palestinians that are not targets. If the Gunmen use them, well it's unfortunate but it is a necessary evil, besides Israel are not lacking in fire power.

[UoUo]

:cantbeli:
a) state assasinations are not acceptable in the western/democratic world, not specifically because of these cases but because of the principle. How can we criticise north Korea for killing political opponents when a country of the west does the same.



What about states invading countries for nothing?

[cut]

:cantbeli:
a) state assasinations are not acceptable in the western/democratic world, not specifically because of these cases but because of the principle. How can we criticise north Korea for killing political opponents when a country of the west does the same.



What about states invading countries for nothing?

exactly! hence the protests calling Tony Blair a hypocrite :P

[UoUo]

:cantbeli:
a) state assasinations are not acceptable in the western/democratic world, not specifically because of these cases but because of the principle. How can we criticise north Korea for killing political opponents when a country of the west does the same.



What about states invading countries for nothing?

exactly! hence the protests calling Tony Blair a hypocrite :P

So we agree that the world is hypocrite? right? :)

[Kitsune]

If the US is complaining they are paying too much for the UN:


UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001

USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %


Japan pays nearly as much as the US. Germany pays nearly as much as France and Great Britain combined. Japan and Germanys shares added, easily surpasses the one of the US...and both have zero seats in the permanent security council, in other words, nothing to say.
On the other hand Russia pays only 1,2 percent (one eigth of the German contribution, less than one sixteenth of the Japanese one all in all less than Australias), while China is not even on the list!

[cut]

ok, I only meant I meant that Israel was a creation of the international system as some would say the EU is a creation of the US. That is to say not necessarily in the literary sense, i.e. it doesn't have to mean directly. ok in that respect, I would say almost every nation is a creation of the international system for that is the way the world is, for indeed the world is a collection of international nations that at all times, act in all sorts of ways mostly for their own interests and goals and sometimes those action lead to unintended consequences, and certainly by the time of Israel’s creation, most of the worlds actions were for their own interests and not for any international intervention to help create a state as your initial comment was seen as.

Yes of course, I'm suggesting that Israel is like every other country in the world not an odd case. Every country is born of the international goings on. I'd got further to say that almost all countries are born out of war.




the reason why I keep refferring back to the international system is quite simply because it is the topic and the thinking behing the original post that you disagreed with. So it is part of the argument. well I don’t know about you, but I read the topic of the thread as “What's the United Nations good for?” but perhaps what I see is not what you see? ;)

Also the UN, and as well as any international intervention as a goal or system, is not what happened before the UN, and the Brit colonial expansion IMO do NOT constitute international intervention the way it is supposed to be implied.

Perhaps not in the exact same way but I'm convinced that they are not unrelated.






As for this anti-israeli bias in the UN you talk about, I cannot see it, I read every allegation by israelis and israel-supporters about this. Boy I was trying not to get into it, but I guess you just want to drag me in, Ok I’ll play :D

I sincerely doubt you have read every allegation for even if you had read only my arguments before on it, you could not have possibly said that you don’t see it, so I will assume quite clearly that you have not read all or even a lot of them.

I meant on the forum, sorry I do rush my responses a little sometimes.





But I have come to conclusion that the UN is no different than me, I expect that some of the Israelis on here soemtimes box me in with as being anti-israel but if I was having a discussion with a palestian they would think the exact opposite. I believe it is the nature of the situation that the sides in the israeli/palestinian argument as so far apart that anyone who is neutral is believed to be on the other side by each side. You see I actually expected this answer ;) , for it’s a obvious answer to give when one is in a position that you are in against me, though the difference is that while indeed anyone from any perspective I guess can simply claim one is bias, I believe its on the strengths of the case that one makes to back up that claim that ultimately determines the validity of it, and before the case I have made on this forum and I guess we will see how this goes if I need to make it again in full detail, but I believe my case PROVES it without any shred of doubt as to the CLEAR bias against Israel.

Instead of bringing down reams of info now (which I warn you now, if you still disagree after this, well be prepared for I will get into this full steam), I will simply highlight some arguments of my case, and if you dispute it, then I will entertain (and enlighten) you in much more detail to each point that I now simply highlighted.

Ok here are just the highlights of my case……….

-Yet despite all the resolutions solely against Israel in the past fifty some years, there are no resolutions solely condemning or directed ay any Arab state either for its actions against Israel or its funding of terrorist groups that act against Israel or even terrorist groups themselves, with regards to the Israeli/Arab (and pali) conflict.

I guess they are all angles at all times :roll: , or perhaps bias against Israel? (IMO its one or the other)

-Out of all the conflicts in this world, where countless thousands and even millions have been slaughterd by various nations against other nations, Tiny Israel has the most resolutions against it then any other nation, hmm yeah even if we discount Israel's right of self defense and what Israel has faced and even if you claim all those accusations are true, yeah Israel has committed the most crimes, more so then anyone :roll:

I believe right there, those two statements of mine are indisputable fact of the large bias against Israel………..but lets add some more ;)

-Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group. Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies (as even the terrorists and human rights violation state, Syria is allowed to)

-The UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets — including xenophobia — but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism. It was only on November 24, 1998, mor than 50 years after the UN's founding, that the word "anti-Semitism" was first mentioned in a UN resolution, appearing near the end of GA Res. A/53/623, "Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination."5

- Even in the Security Council which some claim its more fair then the heavily biased general assembly, well there too that’s not true, for there it has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State, but not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel.

-Emergency special sessions of the General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. For nearly two decades, these sessions have been called primarily to condemn Israel.

-Lastly to further PROVE the bias, Israel did something smart last year and decided even though it was pointless (and a reason why we don’t bother to do this often as we could), to just show further clearly how biased and the double standards that the UN uses against Israel whereas While the UN routinely adopts resolutions critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, it has never adopted a single resolution unequivocally condemning violence against Israeli citizens. IN 2003 Israel offered a draft resolution in the General Assembly for the first time in 27 years.
The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of dozens of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted by a UN committee (later adopted by the full Assembly) calling for the protection of Palestinian children from “Israeli aggression.” Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel :roll:

Fact is that the UN does not apply universal standards when it excessively and disproportionately condemns Israel and when it rarely condemns other nations or is actually outright silent, even when a lot of other nations commit much worse actions then what they accuse Israel of doing.

To me that is a bias against Israel!!!


Fair enough I don't want you to bring down more on me but if you'd be kind enough to debate a couple of points rather then bombarding me with more so that I can't respond. :P

There is without a doubt an element of bias in everything it's human nature. Part of the reason why the West (I believe) through the UN comes down on Israel harder because more is expected of Israel because Israel is really part of the West. Israel is a proper democratic state although this constant "war" dilutes that as it would anywhere. By contrast the arab countries are disconnected and reactive to the west a factor that has given israel's problems with palestinians, OBL/al qaeda etc..

Also Israel is going against the grain in the middle east, the problem is as the West converts arab culture it starts from the edges morrocco and turkey where as israel has been in the heartland the whole time, if Iraq was a total (westernised) success though that would help. Back to the point I was making the UN is forced to make begrugingly fit more with it's surroundings to create peace, this may just be for the time being until the anti-western Uma goes the way of the soviet union.

The priority of the UN is to create peace and it is unfortunately Israel that stands in the way of that more that the other countries simply because it is far easier to get a western country to care about peace in their region than it is to convert all the countries around isreal to real liberal democracy.





The UN does not have an opinon for itself but it is the people that are in it that form that opinion and the people in it are the world. Getting rid of the UN does not get rid of the sentiment it only silences it. Yes indeed it does represent what the world feels and represents, though simply because a lot feel a certain way, do not make it right. I mean, just because our enemies, the Arab block, and their soviet bloc, the Arabs backers, wrote a lot of those resolutions, do not make that right or Israel wrong. Just because a hypocritical Europe votes a lot of times with that Arab block, for all sorts of reasons which I wont get into now, again does not make it right and Israel wrong. To me it’s a sad reality that the Jews never ever in history ever held a majority positive viewing, regardless of what we did or didn’t do.

And yes again especially with regards to the resolutions against Israel, when you have the large soviet and Arab blocs writing and making a lot of those resolutions, of course to expect tiny Israel to get a fair share at the UN would be absurd.

Listen, the idea of the UN is a positive idea and the prinisple of it I actualy support, however IMO it needs to be seriously overhauled and reformed in a major way. Now other then this one line, I will leave it at that for like I said before, my comments were only related to the UN and Israel and specifically to your previous comment of how Israel was created, for other then that, it’s a whole other topic and one which I am not inclined now to get into.

That's exactly what should be done to the UN is waht I'm most intrested in hearing from you.

You are right the arab-bloc votes against israel (there is no longer a soviet bloc really or if you still think china is it is a lot less significant.)

But that Europe votes with the arabs is a false accusation. Europe votes against Israel and/or palestine for sound reasons but having said that not all the time.

Let me put it this way my society and mainland european society says that Israel is wrong (and palestine but let's ignore that atm) your society says that Europe is wrong does it occur to you that your society aswell as mine can be wrong much of the time. and however hard you try even in the west objectivity is nigh on impossible.

I don't take for granted that what I hear but I'm am naturally defensive of my country, but at the same time I do realise our wrong doings past and present (I'm sure you know of some) but I think you are the same with israel.






I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to the UN at this point. The UN is to young for this. The international system pre-UN empires etc.. also had international intervention, but the UN has taken that up, in a more democratic less-autocratic type of way. ok not the UN, but I still object to your word of “international intervention” for to me, nations that acted purely out of its own self colonial interests do NOT constitute any international intervention in any way or shape.

What the UN does or is supposed to do, is in no way similar to the Brits goal and actions with its colonizing enterprises in the mid east.

I would argue that with what the UN does for the West, but we'd have to start a new thread.




With your logic, I can even argue that while the Arabs might have been weaker because of other nations presence there, I can say we Jews were also weaker because of the Brit presence, that had quotas on are immigration (and manpower that was vital to our survival in the war) and a general prevention of allowing us to have arms, so when the war broke out, we too were weaker.”

please tell me more about this.. be specific, on what more do you want me to elaborate on?

On the fact that the Brits, had no quotas on Arab immigration, but had quotas on Jewish one?

Or the fact that the Brits at times helped and at times if not out right helped, encouraged or didn’t fight, the Arab terrorism against the Jewish civilians there that was supposed to be under Brit protection?

Or about the Brits active prevention of arms reaching the Jews that were defending themselves from numerous Arab attacks and the prevention of the much needed arms supply to the Jews for the impending war that everyone knew was going to happen against the Jews, once the Brits vacated the land.


Yes because of the Brits, we too were weaker against the Arab onslaught that immediately followed the UN vote.

much of this was in the early part of the 20th century right? when the Britain was busy fighting two world wars and trying to maintain an ailing empire. I think they had enough on their hands, yes we worried about you just about as much as the international community including israel cares about the Hmong people in laos at the moment.




As such either way you look at it, I believe a fact is that , with or without any international presence in the middle east, Israel IMO would have came to being!!

I still disagree on that point, the international system and climate is paramount when it comes to the creation of states. again, international system and international intervention are two different things.

Yes without international system, no nation would be in place today.


However there was no international intervention that created Israel.

Shalom :D[/quote]


without international intervention how could the international system have played a part in the creation of israel.

Even something as remote as the US going to war with nazi germany and the allies beating the nazis by 1945, counts as both international intervention and the affected the international system including israel. Tomorrow is the day that everyone in Europe things about how bad life could have been if it wasn't for the sacrefices of the D-day generation, one of those bad things would be no Israel.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[cut]

:cantbeli:
a) state assasinations are not acceptable in the western/democratic world, not specifically because of these cases but because of the principle. How can we criticise north Korea for killing political opponents when a country of the west does the same.



What about states invading countries for nothing?

exactly! hence the protests calling Tony Blair a hypocrite :P

So we agree that the world is hypocrite? right? :)

absolutely as long as we don't forget to include israel ;)

[cut]

If the US is complaining they are paying too much for the UN:


UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001

USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %


Japan pays nearly as much as the US. Germany pays nearly as much as France and Great Britain combined. Japan and Germanys shares added, easily surpasses the one of the US...and both have zero seats in the permanent security council, in other words, nothing to say.
On the other hand Russia pays only 1,2 percent (one eigth of the German contribution, less than one sixteenth of the Japanese one all in all less than Australias), while China is not even on the list!

yeah those who want to comment about that should see how much money these countries actually have, before anything is said about the size of the contribution.

[BlackRain]

oi, what you going on about...


The UN has grown from 1500 staff-members with a $20 million budget in 1945, to the present staff of over 50,000 and a budget exceeding $10 billion.

It has a reputation for lavish spending, waste, corruption, socialist goals, and a thirst for international power through New World Order sponsorship.

The US pays $4 billion of the yearly housekeeping costs and 25 % of peacekeeping costs, which have risen from $700 million in 1990, to $3.5 billion, today. Japan pays half of what we pay, and the United Kingdom half of that.

Of the remaining 185 members, 90 pay 0.01 % of the total and receive essentially the same privileges as the US.

Many of the 50,000-plus UN employees spy against our military and high technology communities while enjoying political immunity, in itself a compelling reason to end US participation and escort the UN legions to the airport.


The 104th Congress asked the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) to study the cost of U. N. peacekeeping. Their report of March 1996 was astonishing. It showed that from 1992-1995, taxpayers gave $6.6 billion to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations -—above and beyond our yearly U.N. dues. Of that extra spending, the U.N. reimbursed us only $1.8 billion, leaving a United Nations debt to the U.S. of $4.8 billion.


In 1995 alone, the United States provided 54% of the “voluntary” contributions for peacekeeping worldwide --despite the fact that we are only one of the 185 member nations of the U.N.


The U.S.A. also contributed $550 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Stop your ****ing bitching. This only scratches the surface on money, aid, donations, grants, loans, and assundry acts of charity the U.S.A. gives yearly.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

oi, what you going on about...


The UN has grown from 1500 staff-members with a $20 million budget in 1945, to the present staff of over 50,000 and a budget exceeding $10 billion.

It has a reputation for lavish spending, waste, corruption, socialist goals, and a thirst for international power through New World Order sponsorship.

The US pays $4 billion of the yearly housekeeping costs and 25 % of peacekeeping costs, which have risen from $700 million in 1990, to $3.5 billion, today. Japan pays half of what we pay, and the United Kingdom half of that.

Of the remaining 185 members, 90 pay 0.01 % of the total and receive essentially the same privileges as the US.

Many of the 50,000-plus UN employees spy against our military and high technology communities while enjoying political immunity, in itself a compelling reason to end US participation and escort the UN legions to the airport.
Gaylan King should stick to writing about developers building on his beloved beaches rather than taking a swipe at the UN, he is way out of his depth.

[cut]

oi, what you going on about...


The UN has grown from 1500 staff-members with a $20 million budget in 1945, to the present staff of over 50,000 and a budget exceeding $10 billion.

It has a reputation for lavish spending, waste, corruption, socialist goals, and a thirst for international power through New World Order sponsorship.

The US pays $4 billion of the yearly housekeeping costs and 25 % of peacekeeping costs, which have risen from $700 million in 1990, to $3.5 billion, today. Japan pays half of what we pay, and the United Kingdom half of that.

Of the remaining 185 members, 90 pay 0.01 % of the total and receive essentially the same privileges as the US.

Many of the 50,000-plus UN employees spy against our military and high technology communities while enjoying political immunity, in itself a compelling reason to end US participation and escort the UN legions to the airport.


The 104th Congress asked the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) to study the cost of U. N. peacekeeping. Their report of March 1996 was astonishing. It showed that from 1992-1995, taxpayers gave $6.6 billion to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations -—above and beyond our yearly U.N. dues. Of that extra spending, the U.N. reimbursed us only $1.8 billion, leaving a United Nations debt to the U.S. of $4.8 billion.


In 1995 alone, the United States provided 54% of the “voluntary” contributions for peacekeeping worldwide --despite the fact that we are only one of the 185 member nations of the U.N.


The U.S.A. also contributed $550 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

Stop your f*** bitching. This only scratches the surface on money, aid, donations, grants, loans, and assundry acts of charity the U.S.A. gives yearly.

all true but Europe gives out more aid then the US don't forget then, it's the only saving grace for those countries who barely bother with a military. Europe and Asia fund the US when it borrows money, where do you think the loans from your national deficit come from ;)

[OB Kenobi]

I am not shure how that movement of Neturey Karta (who btw are , genuine fanatics and minority ) connects to your point ??
Infact , what is your point ?

When an UN Ukrainian officer that serves in Lebanon , videotapes Hisballah attack and when he see an Saggeg impact in the outpost , he sais "Excellent . That Jids f*** got what they deserved" . What would you say about that point ?

I say if you stick your ass in a bee's nest, don't be surprised if you get stung.

You're going to tell us that those who resurrected Israel (with UN assistance, btw) had no idea they would be upsetting the natives? That they took the territory through peaceful, legal means alone and thought there wouldn't be repercussions?

The Zionists did pretty much what Bush did in Iraq. They refused to take no for an answer and dragged the rest of us into their quagmire, based on religious claims alone, rather than the facts.

I don't recognize Judeo-Christian religion of any kind, I see this as a social issue, and because of that, I will not take Israel's side. The only solution then is either capitulation by Israel, or the conquest of Palestine.

If you want to escalate it to that point, that is your choice, just as it was your choice to resurrect Israel in the first place.

[budanski]

If the US is complaining they are paying too much for the UN:


UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001

USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %


Japan pays nearly as much as the US. Germany pays nearly as much as France and Great Britain combined. Japan and Germanys shares added, easily surpasses the one of the US...and both have zero seats in the permanent security council, in other words, nothing to say.
On the other hand Russia pays only 1,2 percent (one eigth of the German contribution, less than one sixteenth of the Japanese one all in all less than Australias), while China is not even on the list!
We all know the UN was founded by communists, filled with terrorists, which unfortunately is also funded by us... Germany and Japan have no say? It sucks to be on the losing side (Axis circa 1945)

[IDFM203]

Sorry I am late here, but I was way for a while and also these days I am very busy in general so I cant respond to things as fast as I used to be able to do.


Yes of course, I'm suggesting that Israel is like every other country in the world not an odd case. Every country is born of the international goings on. I'd got further to say that almost all countries are born out of war. Yes of course all international going on’s throughout the ages have their effects (and usually unintended consequences), however just like the air we breath sustains life and then say if I go on and build a house and then it is attacked and then I defend that house, the building of the house and the defense of it is all MY doing, though of course without air I wouldn’t breath, but that has no bearing on what I did.

So yes international events and wars have all sorts of UNINTENMDED consequences and effect everything for indeed the actions of the pople of the wolrd will effect the people of the world, though the standard going on’s in the world is not the same as international intervention with the intention to help start a state as you first asserted.

Besides the UN drawing a line on a map, they did nothing else, and even that line was nothing to help start a state, for right after the Arabs attacked and if we hadn’t defeated them (which we did with almost no outside help from anyone) we would not have had a state, let alone none of us would have lived.

Also the British colonial expansions in the middle east for their own intentions was not any international intervention to help Israel and in fact as I explained before, the Brits worked against the Jews there from having their own state (they didn’t even vote for one in the UN)

So no, international actions as per normal acts of the way the world operates is NOT the same as international intervention to help start a state and certainly not the same as the goals of the UN or at least what’s it supposed to do at times.


Fair enough I don't want you to bring down more on me but if you'd be kind enough to debate a couple of points rather then bombarding me with more so that I can't respond. :P hehe well since you finally admit to my points of a gross and unfair UN bias against Israel, there is no need for me to bombard you (and like I said before, those were just the highlights for I was fully prepared to bombard, as what that term really entails).



There is without a doubt an element of bias in everything it's human nature. Part of the reason why the West (I believe) through the UN comes down on Israel harder because more is expected of Israel because Israel is really part of the West. Israel is a proper democratic state although this constant "war" dilutes that as it would anywhere. By contrast the arab countries are disconnected and reactive to the west a factor that has given israel's problems with palestinians, OBL/al qaeda etc.. while I certainly understand that view, I strongly disagree with its simplistic and wishful way of looking at it and I firmly believe there is more of a sinister side to why Israel gets this unfair treatment in the UN and yes I will call it anti Semitism for when there is clear double standards and for the most part the UN does not apply universal standards in the way it treats Israel and the way it treats others (its almost silent to others), well I have no choice but to call it for what it is.

I think its not only the Arabs, but also Europe actions and I believe there is hypocrisy and Israel gets condemned from Europe when it in its conflicts (and not only ww2 but also afterwards) has done actions that Israel has been condemned for and had resolutions written against it, but none were written against any European nations when it had committed the same actions (and with much less at stake to its vital national security as Israel faces on a daily bases)

Yes Israel is a democracy with western ideals and standards and I believe it has acted with western standards in what it has had to face, but this almost one sided condemnation against Israel even if you disagree with what I just wrote, is inexcusable regardless if you think Israel as a democracy deserves to get condemned more.


The priority of the UN is to create peace and it is unfortunately Israel that stands in the way of that more that the other countries simply because it is far easier to get a western country to care about peace in their region than it is to convert all the countries around isreal to real liberal democracy. what Israel stands in the way of it more then anyone??? :roll: I don’t think so!!…..listen Israel has tried for years to make peace and has even signed deals with Egypt and Jordan, and with the pali’s where we even in the 90’s pulled out of every pali city and town, but when you have the other side, where IMO most or a lot want to see Israel destroyed (even in Egypt and Jordan) to constantly fault Israel for the fact that the other side is never willing to make a real peace, regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, is wrong and is inexcusable!!

Also you say the UN is to create peace, well when as I have shown it is extremely biased on behalf of Israel’s enemies against Israel (and IMO is so willing to buy a lot of the outright lies against Israel), well regardless of what you claim their priory is, IMO their actions prove otherwise in the context of the realties of the middle east conflict.



That's exactly what should be done to the UN is waht I'm most intrested in hearing from you. well how to improve and refine the UN is a whole other topic and like I said before is not something I will get into now.

Perhaps if you start another thread on it, maybe there I will say a few things.

(Remember I only jumped in this thread at first to respond to the false notion that outside UN or a UN type intervention helped with the creation of Israel)


You are right the arab-bloc votes against israel (there is no longer a soviet bloc really or if you still think china is it is a lot less significant.) yes I know now there isn’t any soviet block, but I meant when most of the resolutions against Israel were enacted upon.


But that Europe votes with the arabs is a false accusation. Europe votes against Israel and/or palestine for sound reasons but having said that not all the time. Well we will agree to disagree here for besides the sinister side of why it votes that way, I see lots of Arab oil influence as a major factor as to why your (Europe) vote for the most part was and is consistent with the Arab block.

Btw “sound reasons” or not, again the lack of any resolutions against any Arab state or Arab organization by any European nation in regards to the Israeli/Arab conflict is also a unfair bias that Europe has showed against Israel and its another problem that we see with your continent.

You (generic) don’t for the most part apply universal standards in your almost constant condemnation of Israel and the almost constant silence to Israel enemies and their actions against Israel.



Let me put it this way my society and mainland european society says that Israel is wrong (and palestine but let's ignore that atm) your society says that Europe is wrong does it occur to you that your society aswell as mine can be wrong much of the time. and however hard you try even in the west objectivity is nigh on impossible. well firstly with regards to UN bias, I already proven to you the gross and unfair bias against Israel, so its not merely because of my view.

Secondly it goes further then mere objectivity, for regardless of who you or I think is right or wrong, this almost constant one sided condemnation aginst one side, is to me a clear cut case of Europe and others not applying universal standards in the way it constantly condemns Israel and is for the most part almost silent against Arab aggression that we have faced for years.





much of this was in the early part of the 20th century right? when the Britain was busy fighting two world wars and trying to maintain an ailing empire. I think they had enough on their hands, yes we worried about you just about as much as the international community including israel cares about the Hmong people in laos at the moment. ahh but if only you applied the same standards to the Arab inhabitants there..the fact is that you didn’t, for while you actively worked against the Jews there, you on the other hand helped the Arabs in their aggression against the Jews.

So no, I do not accept this that you weren’t worried or didn’t do anything to us, for in fact you did regardless of what you claim you had on your hands at that time.

Shalom :D

[pinkeye]

If the US is complaining they are paying too much for the UN:


UN scale of assessments (regular budget) in 2001

USA 22 %
Japan 19.628 %
Germany 9.493 %
France 6.283 %
United Kingdom 5.380 %
Italy 4.922 %
Canada 2.573 %
Spain 2.448 %
Brazil 1.702 %
Netherlands 1.688 %
Australia 1.604 %
Korea, Republic of 1.318 %
Russia 1.200 %
Belgium 1.098 %
Sweden 0.998 %


Japan pays nearly as much as the US. Germany pays nearly as much as France and Great Britain combined. Japan and Germanys shares added, easily surpasses the one of the US...and both have zero seats in the permanent security council, in other words, nothing to say.
On the other hand Russia pays only 1,2 percent (one eigth of the German contribution, less than one sixteenth of the Japanese one all in all less than Australias), while China is not even on the list!
We all know the UN was founded by communists, filled with terrorists, which unfortunately is also funded by us... Germany and Japan have no say? It sucks to be on the losing side (Axis circa 1945)

sheesh budanski, we all knew you adore mccarthy but it appears you have managed to transplant his decrepit brain into that noggin of yours.

my bad, humanitarian assistance, including providing critical medical care to millions of children, promoting environmental protection and human rights, supporting cultural development, in addition to peacekeeping and peacemaking, are all tools of a communist-created international origanisation, thus very bad!!! how dare the united nations help little kids in africa!!! how dare the un set up development programs in southeast asia!! how dare the un work to stop environmental degradation!! we cannot permit the world to be a better place!!!

[mlrs84]

Taken from my today's post in strictly photos and video...

http://www.bendib.com/democracy/statue-of-tyranny.jpg
Since when this became the neo nazis/KKK forum? You do know that it's an antisemitic caricature, right? This myth of controling america isn't diffrent then the myth about killing babies for Matzot.
Why is it that EVERY SINGLE TIME Israel or some jews meet opposition or get picked on in a discussion, they cry out about antisemitism and neo nazism? I don't have anything against jews myself, but this is a little paranoid... I mean, the cartoon wasn't even antisemitic. This is a real problem in the UN, a problem which this topic is based on. The reason why the UN cannot support many military operations is because of the veto rights of the members of the security counsel. The US, UK, Russia, China and France are pemanent members, each with their right to veto any suggest for a resolution by the others. So why do you think the UN couldn't help the US in military operations against socialist or communist states? Because China and the Soviet Union would veto it. This has nothing to do with the UN being a terrorist supporting organization. If the Soviet in the Cold War had proposed a resolution on attacking a wester country, they would have been vetoed by the US, UK and France. By your means that should make the CIA terrorist supportive by knowing about the plans of an airplane hijack and dismissing them as impossible.

Oh yes, another thing. You cannot expect all the 190+ members of the UN to split the expenses equally. The US is so rich compared to 80% of the members that you cannot measure what the African countries pay by looking at the US contributions. Another thing I read a while ago (I'm not sure if this is entirely correct anymore), the US owes the UN more than all other members combined.

And by the way, Molodet, you say that this is antisemitic. Take a look herehttp://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=403527&query=semitic&ct=
It says, for your information, that all people speaking the semite languages are semites. That also includes the ARABS. Whoops!
You're all in the same boat. By fighting the palestinians you are also being antisemitic.

[BlackRain]

all true but Europe gives out more aid then the US don't forget then, it's the only saving grace for those countries who barely bother with a military. Europe and Asia fund the US when it borrows money, where do you think the loans from your national deficit come from ;)


Let's see your sources for the "Europe gives out more aid then the US"!

Example: The United States will this year spend $2.4 billion, nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the world's donor governments combined despite the fact only 16,000 US citizens died from that disease last year.

Highlights of the FY-2004 US Budget
Foreign Operations and Related Agencies:



$4.7 billion in direct counter-terrorism and other assistance programs to countries that have joined us in the war on terrorism.
Over $2 billion in new programs for the war against poverty and despair:
$1.3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, which ties increased development assistance to performance.
$450 million to combat the AIDS pandemic, especially in Africa and the Caribbean. This combined with $1.55 billion will bring the overall FY 2004 total to $2 billion.
$200 million for emergency food or grant assistance to support dire famine needs on a case-by-case basis.
$100 million for an Emerging Crises Fund to allow swift responses to unforeseen complex foreign crises.
$731 million in narcotics funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, including $463 million for Colombia.
$2.84 billion in development and child survival and health assistance programs.
$235.5 million in disaster assistance and $55 million for transition initiatives.
$1.185 billion in food assistance to address emergencies and disasters.
$359 million for the Peace Corps to support 10,000 volunteers by the end of 2004.
$1.55 billion for Multilateral Development Banks, including $196 million for arrears.
$395 million in debt restructuring.


Highlights of the FY 2005 US Budget

Foreign Operations and Related Agencies:

-- Over $5.7 billion in counter-terrorism and other assistance programs to coalition partners that have joined us in the war on terrorism.

-- $5.3 billion for the President's bold initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS ($2.8 billion) and create the Millennium Challenge Corporation ($2.5 billion).

-- $2.75 billion in development and child survival and health assistance programs.

-- $1.5 billion for Multilateral Development Banks, including $59 million for arrears.

-- $1.2 billion in disaster, transition, famine, refugee and conflict victim's assistance.

-- $1.2 billion in food assistance to address emergencies and disasters.

-- $731 million in counter-narcotics funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, including $463 million for Colombia.

-- $401 million for the Peace Corps to meet the President's goal of reaching 14,000 volunteers by the end of 2007.

Let's see your facts on what Europe is doing!

[Cactuar]

Also, if I'm correct, doesn't the US (the people) give 3x as much foreign aid as does the government?

[abncougar]

nice post blackrain, way to fight with the facts!!!

hooah

[BlackRain]

Also, if I'm correct, doesn't the US (the people) give 3x as much foreign aid as does the government?

Very true.


Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:

International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year.

Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually.

American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.

$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students.

Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18
billion in 2000.

What did Europe give in private donations, Cut?

[ikurinturbiini]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

Hear, hear. Those countries would be USA and Israel.

The world would be a much better place.

[ikurinturbiini]

I know what the UN is good for. It is an excellent target of hate and contempt for the uneducated, ignorant and clueless. And they are many.

[cut]

all true but Europe gives out more aid then the US don't forget then, it's the only saving grace for those countries who barely bother with a military. Europe and Asia fund the US when it borrows money, where do you think the loans from your national deficit come from ;)


Let's see your sources for the "Europe gives out more aid then the US"!

Example: The United States will this year spend $2.4 billion, nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the world's donor governments combined despite the fact only 16,000 US citizens died from that disease last year.

Highlights of the FY-2004 US Budget
Foreign Operations and Related Agencies:







$4.7 billion in direct counter-terrorism and other assistance programs to countries that have joined us in the war on terrorism.
Over $2 billion in new programs for the war against poverty and despair:
$1.3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, which ties increased development assistance to performance.
$450 million to combat the AIDS pandemic, especially in Africa and the Caribbean. This combined with $1.55 billion will bring the overall FY 2004 total to $2 billion.
$200 million for emergency food or grant assistance to support dire famine needs on a case-by-case basis.
$100 million for an Emerging Crises Fund to allow swift responses to unforeseen complex foreign crises.
$731 million in narcotics funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, including $463 million for Colombia.
$2.84 billion in development and child survival and health assistance programs.
$235.5 million in disaster assistance and $55 million for transition initiatives.
$1.185 billion in food assistance to address emergencies and disasters.
$359 million for the Peace Corps to support 10,000 volunteers by the end of 2004.
$1.55 billion for Multilateral Development Banks, including $196 million for arrears.
$395 million in debt restructuring.


Highlights of the FY 2005 US Budget

Foreign Operations and Related Agencies:

-- Over $5.7 billion in counter-terrorism and other assistance programs to coalition partners that have joined us in the war on terrorism.

-- $5.3 billion for the President's bold initiatives to fight HIV/AIDS ($2.8 billion) and create the Millennium Challenge Corporation ($2.5 billion).

-- $2.75 billion in development and child survival and health assistance programs.

-- $1.5 billion for Multilateral Development Banks, including $59 million for arrears.

-- $1.2 billion in disaster, transition, famine, refugee and conflict victim's assistance.

-- $1.2 billion in food assistance to address emergencies and disasters.

-- $731 million in counter-narcotics funding for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, including $463 million for Colombia.

-- $401 million for the Peace Corps to meet the President's goal of reaching 14,000 volunteers by the end of 2007.

Let's see your facts on what Europe is doing!

France alone gives almost as much as the US, to help you understand I have added Aid per capita and per $ GDP.


Economic aid - donor

1. Japan $9.1 billion (1999)
2. United States $6.9 billion (1997)
3. France $6.3 billion (1997)
4. Germany $5.6 billion (1998)
5. United Kingdom $4.5 billion (2000)
6. Netherlands $3.5 billion (2000 est.)
7. Sweden $1.7 billion (1997)
8. Denmark $1.63 billion (1999)
9. Norway $1.4 billion (1998)
10. Spain $1.33 billion (1999)
11. Canada $1.3 billion (1999)
12. Switzerland $1.1 billion (1995)
13. Italy $1 billion (2002 est.)
14. Australia $894 million (FY 99/00)
15. Belgium $764 million (1997)
16. Austria $410 million (2000)
17. Finland $379 million (2001)
18. Ireland $283 million (2001)
19. Portugal $271 million (1995)
20. Luxembourg $160 million (1999)


Economic aid - donor (per capita)

1. Luxembourg $352.30 per person
2. Norway $307.95 per person
3. Denmark $302.72 per person
4. Netherlands $216.71 per person
5. Sweden $191.48 per person
6. Switzerland $150.30 per person
7. France $104.68 per person
8. United Kingdom $74.88 per person
9. Belgium $74.25 per person
10. Finland $73.01 per person
11. Ireland $72.11 per person
12. Japan $71.53 per person
13. Germany $67.96 per person
14. Austria $50.07 per person
15. Australia $45.30 per person
16. Canada $40.36 per person
17. Spain $33.07 per person
18. Portugal $26.82 per person
19. New Zealand $25.23 per person
20. United States $23.76 per person
21. Italy $17.24 per person


Economic aid - donor (per $ GDP)

1. Denmark $1.04 per $100
2. Norway $0.93 per $100
3. Netherlands $0.79 per $100
4. Sweden $0.73 per $100
5. Luxembourg $0.72 per $100
6. Switzerland $0.47 per $100
7. France $0.40 per $100
8. United Kingdom $0.29 per $100
9. Finland $0.28 per $100
10. Germany $0.25 per $100
11. Belgium $0.25 per $100
12. Japan $0.24 per $100
13. Ireland $0.24 per $100
14. Austria $0.18 per $100
15. Australia $0.17 per $100
16. Spain $0.15 per $100
17. Canada $0.13 per $100
18. Portugal $0.13 per $100
19. New Zealand $0.12 per $100
20. Italy $0.06 per $100
21. United States $0.06 per $100


sufficient yet?

[cut]

Also, if I'm correct, doesn't the US (the people) give 3x as much foreign aid as does the government?

Very true.


Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:

International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year.

Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually.

American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.

$1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students.

Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18
billion in 2000.

What did Europe give in private donations, Cut?

you're kinding me right? a continent of liberals and socialists? **** loads!

I'll find you some more stats for you

[DE_Six]

UNtisemitics.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/images/un_new_t.gif
The world need to destroy this organization and to create an organization that only Democratic countries will be allowed to be part of it.

Hear, hear. Those countries would be USA and Israel.

The world would be a much better place.

No, not just those countries, but I agree to an extent. What I personnally dislike the most about the UN is that it's fundamentally unbalanced and unfair. How exactly an organization that claims to be in favor of the promotion of human rights and international law gets away with giving an equal voice (one country, one vote) to peaceful democracies and oppressive dictatorships alike is beyond me. The most obvious negative consequence is that the UN has become a platform for some of the worst ideologies and diplomatic behaviors. By giving a voice to every tinpot dictators, the UN legitimizes them. This leads to shameful incidents, like the UN Conference on racism in Durban, which rapidly turned into an antisemitic rally (and I'm not talking about the opposition to the state of Israel, but to the openly racist speeches that took place)
Not to mention the hypocrisy created by the egalitarian mentality, such as Lybia heading the Human Rights Committee.

The UN isn't useless, it's ill-used and rotten. The only salvageable parts I see are the humanitarian and cultural branches (UNHCR, UNICEF, UNESCO, etc) which, by the way, get nowhere near their fair share of the budget since the Assembly's bureaucracy gobbles up a big part of it.

I won't even mention the failures of peacekeeping.

It was probably a good idea at the beginning, but Hell is paved with good intentions.

[cut]

who would determine which are the peaceful democracies? the US?

Israel find it hard enough to make themselves heard, if only peaceful democracies were allowed, Israel wouldn't be, they are at war... I suggest you rethink this. And make it as fair to all countries not just those you favour.

Most people agree that the UN needs updating, the world has moved on from the post war era the UN was set up for. But until you right-wing whingers come up with an alternative don't expect it to change. At the moment neo-conservatives are as bad as critical theorists, they are the people in the left who never get into power, always criticise and never come up with solutions.

If only peaceful democracies had a vote then there would be no point in the UN. The UN is there to prevent war, that is not possible if one side are not allowed to negociate.

[mlrs84]

[quote="BlackRain"][quote="cut"]
Example: The United States will this year spend $2.4 billion, nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the world's donor governments combined despite the fact only 16,000 US citizens died from that disease last year.

[cut]

Example: The United States will this year spend $2.4 billion, nearly twice as much to fight AIDS as the rest of the world's donor governments combined despite the fact only 16,000 US citizens died from that disease last year.

only 16 000 :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

the CIA factbook has HIV/AIDS deaths for all countries but from 2001

US: 15 000 (less then last year)
UK: 460 (considering we have more than 1/5th the population of the US you can see how bad things are in the US)
China: 30 000 (that's out of a population of 2 billion remember)
France: 800

check the other european countries if you want Blackrain, maybe your government should help the poor in your country too.

Overseas aid increased to £5.3bn

Gordon Brown pledged a total of £1.5bn to fight the "scourge" of HIV/Aids in the developing world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3887261.stm

[Siddar]

European goverments used to spend twice as much on aid as US but Bush has made major increases to US aid budgets over past few years.

When you count in one time aid packages to Iraq and Afghanistan over next few years US aid is well above Europes at moment.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[Sayeret]

A paper weight :lol:

[cut]

The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organisation, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency.

I don't think it's anywhere near that bad. Who elected those countries onto the Human rights commission, blaming the UN is rediculous they don't have a vote.

I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short.



Full article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/20/do2002.xml) - Sudan is getting away with murder by Mark Steyn

get that torygraph out of my face ;)

[gilgoul]

OK, the anti UN rant is a little exagerated, and even if I often join the rant for the security issues, where the UN is really a joke, let`s not forget it`s achievments.
Programs for the education, UNESCO, pragmatic AIDS programs (not the stupid don`t **** thing, rather promoting safe behaviour and educating), scholarships and environement programs, here I`m standing right against the "economic priority" mentality, this planet doesn`t have an infinite power of absorbtion, and hot house effect as well as overindustrialisation promise us a rather bleak future, especially with a globel population over 6 billion and raising.
The UN needs to be reformed, deeply, it`s AG rules, under the precept of one country one vote has fallen into the hands of countries that use it cynically.
The fact that a country like Syria could seat at the security council, and cuba at the human right comission are a sign that the UN is sick, so instead of killing the horse, let`s put it on a serious diet, overhaul treatment and new rules of life.
For instance, countries where general dmocratic elections are held on a regular basis could vote at the AG, while countries not respecting this basic criterion would have their power withold until proof is made that serious effort is made.
The UN made a joke of itself by becoming a tool of legitimization for all the dictatorships and corrupt regime of earth. By offering legitimization to terrorists groups, by making a show of it`s impotence in conflicts (look at yugoslavia, Somalia, Lebanon etc..)
So if it`s not good at that, let`s relieve it of this kind of mission, it is definitely better at putting up schools and vaccinating children, so let it focus on that part of global intervention.

[cut]

The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organisation, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency.

I don't think it's anywhere near that bad. Who elected those countries onto the Human rights commission, blaming the UN is rediculous they don't have a vote.

I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short.



Full article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/20/do2002.xml) - Sudan is getting away with murder by Mark Steyn

get that torygraph out of my face ;)

[Loco]

What is it the UN good for?
If the UN is bad, it´s mainly because the world, all of us, are bad. Thanks to the UN, most of Africa and Asia got their independence, or countries like South Korea or Kuwait kept their independence after being almost deleted of the map. I know that they are free thanks too to the military power of USA, but it´s with the agreements of UN that USA forces enjoyed an open and wide international support.

[Yosy]

When countries like Israel get angry at the UN, you know that that's a good organization.

[cut]

When countries like Israel get angry at the UN, you know that that's a good organization.

tut tut, there's no need to pick on Israel.

I suggest this:


When countries like Zimbabwe get angry at the UN, you know that that's a good organization.

[dacanadianbomb]

Just my personal thoughts about this whole subject.
1. Stop misusing this thread for a UN vs Israel vs Pal debate.
2. Stop misusing this thread for a US vs UN debate.
3. Start using this thread to debate the importance and efficiency of the UN

a.
The UN's aid programs are extremely important to the survival of millions of people. UN aid programs are vital to the education of millions of people.

b.
Lets figure it out here, the UN was never designed to be a military player.
It does not attack countries. It does not have soldiers. It cannot attack countries because the UN itself is supposed to be a neutral unbiased entity, guided by its member states.
Thats why the UN security council accepted the request for a coalition to liberate kuwait from Iraqi forces in Gulf war 1. The members states decided to sanction it. Member states soldiers fought the war, and were not under UN command. Or did you see a lot fo SOF wearing blue helmets?

c.
The problems faced by peacekeeping forces are numerous and are clearly visable. They have two chains of command, their own countries military ( since they are their own countries soldiers first, then Un peacekeepers last ) and the UN. The UN has done a terrible job at peacekeeping. They dont do peacebuilding either. They are not equipped nor are they supposed to be doing peacekeeping. They should organise the framework for peacekeeping, but not actively grab into the actions of the army personnel doing the work.

d.
The UN is a vastly ineffcient organisation. Its a typical wastefull NGO.Plagued by political and personal feuds, its amazing it even made it as far as it has.

Is the UN good for something ?
YES
I dont think I need to point it out, if you cant figure it out yourself, and dont have enough maturity to look past mistakes to look at the good stuff as well, then your just simply a loser.
Is the UN good for everything it is trying to do at the moment ?
God NO
Have they saved lives ?
YES
Have their actions cost lives
YES.

[Yosy]

^^^^excellent post

[BlackRain]

When countries like Israel get angry at the UN, you know that that's a good organization.

tut tut, there's no need to pick on Israel.

I suggest this:


When countries like Zimbabwe get angry at the UN, you know that that's a good organization.

Cut you are interfering with this thread degenerating into a anti-Israeli, French bashing thread like usual.



US to Regain Seat on UN Rights Panel: Diplomats See Presence on Commission as Vital
March 15, 2002

The United States will regain a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission next year, according to U.S. and European diplomats. A U.S. seat on the Geneva-based body was ensured this week after Spain and Italy withdrew their candidacies, averting the risk of another humiliating defeat for the Bush administration. The United States was voted off the commission in May for the first time since it was founded in 1947. The ouster reflected international irritation over the administration's disdain for international conventions on such issues as global warming and missile defenses.

Although some of those concerns remain, U.N. diplomats said they did not want to isolate the United States again this year, especially when the administration is mounting a global battle against terrorism. In addition, many of Washington's European allies say that a U.S. presence on the commission is essential for maintaining its long-term credibility. "I think everybody wanted the United States back on the Human Rights Commission because without the United States, it is diminished," a European diplomat said. U.S. diplomats told their counterparts earlier this year that they would not run in a contested race and insisted that a bloc of Western states that compete for U.N. positions guarantee Washington a seat as part of a pre-approved slate.

Having persuaded Italy and Spain to pull out of the race, the Bush administration formally declared its intention Wednesday to take one of four seats open to members of the 29-member Western European and Others Group. Germany, Australia and Ireland will get the remaining vacant slots. The voting on the four seats, which will be a formality, will be held next month. The election will not be in time for the United States to vote in this year's session of the commission, which opens Monday for six weeks. The commission recommends measures to protect human rights around the world, keeps track of violations and censures countries that trample basic freedoms. "It looks like there is a seat available," said Iceland's ambassador, Thorsteinn Ingolfsson, who helped broker the agreement with the United States over representation in the commission. "I think every member of the group will be relieved to see that this immediate problem seems now to be resolved."

Ingolfsson said Italy and Spain's action broke an impasse that had blocked his efforts to negotiate an agreement to prevent another U.S. defeat. His initial plan, which was backed by the United States, called for the adoption of a practice of rotation that has traditionally been used by Africa and Asia to select their candidates.

The procedure has often been criticized for ensuring that countries with poor human rights records -- including Cuba, Sudan and Syria -- are represented on the commission. But the proposal would have guaranteed an American seat on the commission for 18 of the next 20 years. The scheme ultimately failed because of opposition from smaller countries such as Portugal and Canada that stand a better chance of serving on the commission through open elections.

[achilles]

When countries like Israel get angry at the UN, you know that that's a good organization.

Yosy that was a cool way to put it, man! Although not explicitely justified, i tend to agree with it. Anyway the discussion is not about Israel but about the UN...is it good or not? First of all i am in line with 'dacanadianbomb' in the sense that there can be no absolute answer to that question.

UN usually plays a crucial role in placing peacekeeping forces and providing humanitarian aid where needed, but only in selected cases. Lets not forget the genocide in Rwanda back in 94. A slaughter, that could have been avoided with a use of a military force no bigger than 5-6000 troops, had UN acted on time. In any case its better to have an organization that takes some action, instead of doing nothing. I believe that universal intervention is not feasible, even if desired.

What i dont like about UN is that, in practice, is not an independent organization. It can be manipulated by strong countries like em....the United States and it can also well be ignored when the security council does not approve a war. I see a slight 'enforcement problem there...". Example? The war in Iraq.

The UN can potentially play an important role in global environmental protection. It could have been a supranational entity that could enforce international environmental agreements but unfortunately it doesnt have the strength to do so. UN can become a serious player in the global environmental protection game only after the global instutions change and nation states loose part of their sovereignty in terms of deciding how much to pollute.

On averege, its good to have UN. It can become even better once it gets a bit more independent and acquire greater enforcing power

[achilles]

Cut said:
"I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short."

Hey Cut, take it easy on the US and their machoness (which is true whatsoever) because the country you are currently in, fully supports and backs what US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will tend to do so in all future American wars. And you know...if US has justified 0.5% its attack on Iraq, UK has done it by a smaller percentage. Of course,Iraqi oil reserves and re building Iraq is a hell of a business and UK wouldnt miss the party by any means

[cut]

Cut said:
"I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short."

Hey Cut, take it easy on the US and their machoness (which is true whatsoever) because the country you are currently in, fully supports and backs what US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will tend to do so in all future American wars. And you know...if US has justified 0.5% its attack on Iraq, UK has done it by a smaller percentage. Of course,Iraqi oil reserves and re building Iraq is a hell of a business and UK wouldnt miss the party by any means

Learn what is going in the UK my friend, not only did Tony Blair make Bush take the root of the UN, but at all times more then half the population was against the war currently at 70%. Tony Blair would have been far happier to have gone with the UN and with Europe. It was in our intrests to go as it was in France and Germany's intrest not to. I don't know where you are from but I'm sure your country fully supports the War on Terror (Afghanistan) so don't even try to add that to your argument.

[achilles]

[quote=achilles]Cut said:
"I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short."

Hey Cut, take it easy on the US and their machoness (which is true whatsoever) because the country you are currently in, fully supports and backs what US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will tend to do so in all future American wars. And you know...if US has justified 0.5% its attack on Iraq, UK has done it by a smaller percentage. Of course,Iraqi oil reserves and re building Iraq is a hell of a business and UK wouldnt miss the party by any means

Learn what is going in the UK my friend, not only did Tony Blair make Bush take the root of the UN, but at all times more then half the population was against the war currently at 70%. Tony Blair would have been far happier to have gone with the UN and with Europe. It was in our intrests to go as it was in France and Germany's intrest not to. I don't know where you are from but I'm sure your country fully supports the War on Terror (Afghanistan) so don't even try to add that to your argument.[/quote>

First of all, i did not say that british people support Bush's war in Iraq. Tony Blair and his government did, and they still do and they will keep ondoing it as long as british troops are in Iraq. The paradox is that British people keep voting again and again a guy who always supports US foreign policy. (Tony is an, otherwise, charismatic leader)
Tony Blair MADE Bush take the root of the UN? Where did you see Bush in this war taking any legitimate UN roots? Wasnt there a debate on whether the war in Iraq is legal or not? And where did you see the UK telling USA what to do after world war II? In any case look at the facts. Was there a multilateral decision of the UN security council regarding Iraq that i am not aware of?

For your info, i am currently living in England so i have a slight idea of what is going on around here. By they way i am Greek. The last time Greece practically supported, and by practically i mean militarily, a US war was back in the 50s. (Korean war)

[cut]

Cut said:
"I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short."

Hey Cut, take it easy on the US and their machoness (which is true whatsoever) because the country you are currently in, fully supports and backs what US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will tend to do so in all future American wars. And you know...if US has justified 0.5% its attack on Iraq, UK has done it by a smaller percentage. Of course,Iraqi oil reserves and re building Iraq is a hell of a business and UK wouldnt miss the party by any means

Learn what is going in the UK my friend, not only did Tony Blair make Bush take the root of the UN, but at all times more then half the population was against the war currently at 70%. Tony Blair would have been far happier to have gone with the UN and with Europe. It was in our intrests to go as it was in France and Germany's intrest not to. I don't know where you are from but I'm sure your country fully supports the War on Terror (Afghanistan) so don't even try to add that to your argument.

First of all, i did not say that british people support Bush's war in Iraq. Tony Blair and his government did, and they still do and they will keep ondoing it as long as british troops are in Iraq. The paradox is that British people keep voting again and again a guy who always supports US foreign policy. (Tony is an, otherwise, charismatic leader)
Tony Blair MADE Bush take the root of the UN? Where did you see Bush in this war taking any legitimate UN roots? Wasnt there a debate on whether the war in Iraq is legal or not? And where did you see the UK telling USA what to do after world war II? In any case look at the facts. Was there a multilateral decision of the UN security council regarding Iraq that i am not aware of?

For your info, i am currently living in England so i have a slight idea of what is going on around here. By they way i am Greek. The last time Greece practically supported, and by practically i mean militarily, a US war was back in the 50s. (Korean war)

Tony Blair and his government did? go to the bbc website and look up Claire Short and Robin Cook.

They are supporting the the peace in Iraq, because leaving it now would be reckless. Tony Blair does not always support the US but has done recently for the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, he also happens to be the most Euro-phile PM we've ever had. The reason why people keep voting for him is because other then war most people are/were very happy with him, plus the Conservatives supported the war too and are miles behind Labour even now...

Yes it is widely believed/ known in international politics/relations that going to the UN first was something Blair was very keen on unlike Bush how ever fruitless it was. Before the War the coalition tried to get the military action backed by the UN, but failed. Don't you remember this? That's what caused the rift with France and Germany, which lead to freedom fries and, eventually, this very thread...

Blair pledged support for the cause, in return Bush tried the UN route. That is when the US did something for the UK. And since WW2 there have been many instances, such as during the Falklands war. You should read up on it.

The decision was refused by the UN, I hope you are aware of that, the coalition went anyway.

Back to the original reason that you posted, the fact that the UK went to war in Iraq, does not mean that we share the views of the Republican on the UN. In fact we are dead against them.

[achilles]

Cut said:
"I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short."

Hey Cut, take it easy on the US and their machoness (which is true whatsoever) because the country you are currently in, fully supports and backs what US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will tend to do so in all future American wars. And you know...if US has justified 0.5% its attack on Iraq, UK has done it by a smaller percentage. Of course,Iraqi oil reserves and re building Iraq is a hell of a business and UK wouldnt miss the party by any means

Learn what is going in the UK my friend, not only did Tony Blair make Bush take the root of the UN, but at all times more then half the population was against the war currently at 70%. Tony Blair would have been far happier to have gone with the UN and with Europe. It was in our intrests to go as it was in France and Germany's intrest not to. I don't know where you are from but I'm sure your country fully supports the War on Terror (Afghanistan) so don't even try to add that to your argument.

First of all, i did not say that british people support Bush's war in Iraq. Tony Blair and his government did, and they still do and they will keep ondoing it as long as british troops are in Iraq. The paradox is that British people keep voting again and again a guy who always supports US foreign policy. (Tony is an, otherwise, charismatic leader)
Tony Blair MADE Bush take the root of the UN? Where did you see Bush in this war taking any legitimate UN roots? Wasnt there a debate on whether the war in Iraq is legal or not? And where did you see the UK telling USA what to do after world war II? In any case look at the facts. Was there a multilateral decision of the UN security council regarding Iraq that i am not aware of?

For your info, i am currently living in England so i have a slight idea of what is going on around here. By they way i am Greek. The last time Greece practically supported, and by practically i mean militarily, a US war was back in the 50s. (Korean war)

Tony Blair and his government did? go to the bbc website and look up Claire Short and Robin Cook.

They are supporting the the peace in Iraq, because leaving it now would be reckless. Tony Blair does not always support the US but has done recently for the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, he also happens to be the most Euro-phile PM we've ever had. The reason why people keep voting for him is because other then war most people are/were very happy with him, plus the Conservatives supported the war too and are miles behind Labour even now...

Yes it is widely believed/ known in international politics/relations that going to the UN first was something Blair was very keen on unlike Bush how ever fruitless it was. Before the War the coalition tried to get the military action backed by the UN, but failed. Don't you remember this? That's what caused the rift with France and Germany, which lead to freedom fries and, eventually, this very thread...

Blair pledged support for the cause, in return Bush tried the UN route. That is when the US did something for the UK. And since WW2 there have been many instances, such as during the Falklands war. You should read up on it.

The decision was refused by the UN, I hope you are aware of that, the coalition went anyway.

Back to the original reason that you posted, the fact that the UK went to war in Iraq, does not mean that we share the views of the Republican on the UN. In fact we are dead against them.

Thanks for the 21st century history lesson mate! lol Sometimes asking does not mean ignorance but anyway...

Let me recapitulate and be as brief as i can. My point was the maybe you shouldnt be so 'strict' on the americans and their 'we-kick-ass' attitude for reasons i already explained.
Now, exceptions in history cannot refute the general pattern: the fact that it happened, eg in the Falkland Islands as you said, does not mean that UK is not a satelite state (no offense, Greece is one of the same) or at least it has been ever since WWII ended.
And yes, i fully agree with your last point.

[cut]

Cut said:
"I bet those who want to get rid of the UN altogether are the type of americans that would like to see WW3 because they reckon the US can kick the world's arse. I just hope their jingoistic pleasure at watching soldiers kill themselves on TV is cut short."

Hey Cut, take it easy on the US and their machoness (which is true whatsoever) because the country you are currently in, fully supports and backs what US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will tend to do so in all future American wars. And you know...if US has justified 0.5% its attack on Iraq, UK has done it by a smaller percentage. Of course,Iraqi oil reserves and re building Iraq is a hell of a business and UK wouldnt miss the party by any means

Learn what is going in the UK my friend, not only did Tony Blair make Bush take the root of the UN, but at all times more then half the population was against the war currently at 70%. Tony Blair would have been far happier to have gone with the UN and with Europe. It was in our intrests to go as it was in France and Germany's intrest not to. I don't know where you are from but I'm sure your country fully supports the War on Terror (Afghanistan) so don't even try to add that to your argument.

First of all, i did not say that british people support Bush's war in Iraq. Tony Blair and his government did, and they still do and they will keep ondoing it as long as british troops are in Iraq. The paradox is that British people keep voting again and again a guy who always supports US foreign policy. (Tony is an, otherwise, charismatic leader)
Tony Blair MADE Bush take the root of the UN? Where did you see Bush in this war taking any legitimate UN roots? Wasnt there a debate on whether the war in Iraq is legal or not? And where did you see the UK telling USA what to do after world war II? In any case look at the facts. Was there a multilateral decision of the UN security council regarding Iraq that i am not aware of?

For your info, i am currently living in England so i have a slight idea of what is going on around here. By they way i am Greek. The last time Greece practically supported, and by practically i mean militarily, a US war was back in the 50s. (Korean war)

Tony Blair and his government did? go to the bbc website and look up Claire Short and Robin Cook.

They are supporting the the peace in Iraq, because leaving it now would be reckless. Tony Blair does not always support the US but has done recently for the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, he also happens to be the most Euro-phile PM we've ever had. The reason why people keep voting for him is because other then war most people are/were very happy with him, plus the Conservatives supported the war too and are miles behind Labour even now...

Yes it is widely believed/ known in international politics/relations that going to the UN first was something Blair was very keen on unlike Bush how ever fruitless it was. Before the War the coalition tried to get the military action backed by the UN, but failed. Don't you remember this? That's what caused the rift with France and Germany, which lead to freedom fries and, eventually, this very thread...

Blair pledged support for the cause, in return Bush tried the UN route. That is when the US did something for the UK. And since WW2 there have been many instances, such as during the Falklands war. You should read up on it.

The decision was refused by the UN, I hope you are aware of that, the coalition went anyway.

Back to the original reason that you posted, the fact that the UK went to war in Iraq, does not mean that we share the views of the Republican on the UN. In fact we are dead against them.

Thanks for the 21st century history lesson mate! lol Sometimes asking does not mean ignorance but anyway...

Let me recapitulate and be as brief as i can. My point was the maybe you shouldnt be so 'strict' on the americans and their 'we-kick-ass' attitude for reasons i already explained.
Now, exceptions in history cannot refute the general pattern: the fact that it happened, eg in the Falkland Islands as you said, does not mean that UK is not a satelite state (no offense, Greece is one of the same) or at least it has been ever since WWII ended.
And yes, i fully agree with your last point.

I don't think you are ignorant at all, quite the contrary, you almost put me in a pickle.

I'm only as 'strict' on the americans (republicans) as they are with us (europeans).

I believe that Greece and the UK are no longer satelite states to the US especially with the strengthening of the EU. The UK could have chosen not to go to war in Iraq if the government decided not to. The fact that we did go does not make us the 51st state either.

At the moment the the UK is either in the 'orbit' of the US or of the EU, or in neither of them. Whichever way you look at it the UK and Greece can not be reffered to as satelites in the classic sense (i.e.: to one superpower)

[Deuterium]

http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/235/bernardjanvier1.jpg


+



http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/235/srebrenica.jpg



=



http://www.saray.net/slikeipo/b/srebrenica.jpg





The UN is an impotent force when push comes to shove. If your life EVER depends on the protection of the UN, you better run and run fast.

[achilles]

Cut: "I'm only as 'strict' on the americans (republicans) as they are with us (europeans).

I believe that Greece and the UK are no longer satelite states to the US especially with the strengthening of the EU. The UK could have chosen not to go to war in Iraq if the government decided not to. The fact that we did go does not make us the 51st state either.

At the moment the the UK is either in the 'orbit' of the US or of the EU, or in neither of them. Whichever way you look at it the UK and Greece can not be reffered to as satelites in the classic sense (i.e.: to one superpower)".

As far as the republicans are concerned you definitely have a point there.
Now regarding the EU i think this is a bit tricky. It might give European countries economic sovereignty(to some extent) but maybe not political, stritly speaking in terms of foreign policy, especially to small countries with a strategic geographic location like Greece. In any case i agree that we are not satellite states in the classic sense.
Regarding the classical '51st state'...i think its a groundless generalization. I would say that GB is in a mode of 'almost perfect compatibility' with the US, at the government level. Not necessarily because US 'forces' UK to do so, as most people tend to think, but because this is the choice of britain. It might well proove beneficiary, both politically and economically, for the UK to be aligned with the States.

Perhaps UK and Greece are still satellite states but in a 'post-classic' sense if you like... ;)

[cut]

Cut: "I'm only as 'strict' on the americans (republicans) as they are with us (europeans).

I believe that Greece and the UK are no longer satelite states to the US especially with the strengthening of the EU. The UK could have chosen not to go to war in Iraq if the government decided not to. The fact that we did go does not make us the 51st state either.

At the moment the the UK is either in the 'orbit' of the US or of the EU, or in neither of them. Whichever way you look at it the UK and Greece can not be reffered to as satelites in the classic sense (i.e.: to one superpower)".

As far as the republicans are concerned you definitely have a point there.
Now regarding the EU i think this is a bit tricky. It might give European countries economic sovereignty(to some extent) but maybe not political, stritly speaking in terms of foreign policy, especially to small countries with a strategic geographic location like Greece. In any case i agree that we are not satellite states in the classic sense.
Regarding the classical '51st state'...i think its a groundless generalization. I would say that GB is in a mode of 'almost perfect compatibility' with the US, at the government level. Not necessarily because US 'forces' UK to do so, as most people tend to think, but because this is the choice of britain. It might well proove beneficiary, both politically and economically, for the UK to be aligned with the States.

Perhaps UK and Greece are still satellite states but in a 'post-classic' sense if you like... ;)

If we are this new 'post-classic' satellite states then surely the same can be said for the whole world, except "rogue" states and classical sattelite states such as Puerto Rico.

I think the term "satellite state", classic or not, is inapropriate, it suggests some kind of subserviance on our part to the US. The world is not a periphery to the US' centre.

Relations between EU countries and the US, political and economic, are reciprocal, even simbiotic, isolationism is no longer an option. This the attraction and you could even say the purpose of the EU now that peace between the European powers has been restored and the cold war is over.

[achilles]

Cut: "I'm only as 'strict' on the americans (republicans) as they are with us (europeans).

I believe that Greece and the UK are no longer satelite states to the US especially with the strengthening of the EU. The UK could have chosen not to go to war in Iraq if the government decided not to. The fact that we did go does not make us the 51st state either.

At the moment the the UK is either in the 'orbit' of the US or of the EU, or in neither of them. Whichever way you look at it the UK and Greece can not be reffered to as satelites in the classic sense (i.e.: to one superpower)".

As far as the republicans are concerned you definitely have a point there.
Now regarding the EU i think this is a bit tricky. It might give European countries economic sovereignty(to some extent) but maybe not political, stritly speaking in terms of foreign policy, especially to small countries with a strategic geographic location like Greece. In any case i agree that we are not satellite states in the classic sense.
Regarding the classical '51st state'...i think its a groundless generalization. I would say that GB is in a mode of 'almost perfect compatibility' with the US, at the government level. Not necessarily because US 'forces' UK to do so, as most people tend to think, but because this is the choice of britain. It might well proove beneficiary, both politically and economically, for the UK to be aligned with the States.

Perhaps UK and Greece are still satellite states but in a 'post-classic' sense if you like... ;)

If we are this new 'post-classic' satellite states then surely the same can be said for the whole world, except "rogue" states and classical sattelite states such as Puerto Rico.

I think the term "satellite state", classic or not, is inapropriate, it suggests some kind of subserviance on our part to the US. The world is not a periphery to the US' centre.

Relations between EU countries and the US, political and economic, are reciprocal, even simbiotic, isolationism is no longer an option. This the attraction and you could even say the purpose of the EU now that peace between the European powers has been restored and the cold war is over.

lol ok lets settle the terminology issue and agree that 'satellite' is inappropriate. No doubt that relations between EU and US are as you described them. I wouldnt say that they are equitable. EU as a whole politico-economic entity could perhaps stand on its own in front of the US giant. The thing is that its not integrated enough, neither economically nor politically and definitely not insitutionally, in order for us to be able to speak of a homogeneous whole. Individual states, therefore, may well be subject to external influences.
And i must tell you that in general i worry about this 'partial central planning' experiment which we call European Union.

[cut]

It's easy to worry about the future of the EU, it's uncharted territory..

I agree, I don't think the EU is anywhere near countering the US yet. But at the same time the events leading up to the war in Iraq prooved that; the EU, even when it isn't united in agreement, can stand up to the most intense US pressure and come out on top. This suggest that European countries are in somewhere between cold-war satellite states and wherever the EU intergration will end up.

[DE_Six]

who would determine which are the peaceful democracies? the US?

Israel find it hard enough to make themselves heard, if only peaceful democracies were allowed, Israel wouldn't be, they are at war... I suggest you rethink this. And make it as fair to all countries not just those you favour.


I believe in justice more than fairness. If all crimes were to be punished by the same penalty, it would be fair. But would it be justice? Well, the UN pretends to stand for international law, universal rights and diplomacy, all of which rest on justice. Instead, they're playing fair.

It's not about making things fair. It shouldn't be. What is NOT fair is to give an equal voice to a democracy, like Sweden, or the UK, and to a religious dictatorship, like Iran, or a tinpot tyranny like North Korea. And no one in particular needs to be appointed to make the call, it's pretty obvious which is which. Include elected government and a certain degree of respect for human rights as requirements in the Charter, that's all.

The current system is fair but not just, and it doesn't work as far as international conflict resolution goes. It's more of an international forum than a solution to problems. So why not stop pretending, cut the bollocks and stick to humanitarian programs, concerned with health, education, culture, and so on. It's the only thing the UN does right anyway, so it would be nice if this aspect could receive a larger portion of the budget.

[achilles]

who would determine which are the peaceful democracies? the US?

Israel find it hard enough to make themselves heard, if only peaceful democracies were allowed, Israel wouldn't be, they are at war... I suggest you rethink this. And make it as fair to all countries not just those you favour.


I believe in justice more than fairness. If all crimes were to be punished by the same penalty, it would be fair. But would it be justice? Well, the UN pretends to stand for international law, universal rights and diplomacy, all of which rest on justice. Instead, they're playing fair.

It's not about making things fair. It shouldn't be. What is NOT fair is to give an equal voice to a democracy, like Sweden, or the UK, and to a religious dictatorship, like Iran, or a tinpot tyranny like North Korea. And no one in particular needs to be appointed to make the call, it's pretty obvious which is which. Include elected government and a certain degree of respect for human rights as requirements in the Charter, that's all.

The current system is fair but not just, and it doesn't work as far as international conflict resolution goes. It's more of an international forum than a solution to problems. So why not stop pretending, cut the bollocks and stick to humanitarian programs, concerned with health, education, culture, and so on. It's the only thing the UN does right anyway, so it would be nice if this aspect could receive a larger portion of the budget.

Have you been reading John Rawls lately? ;)

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[achilles]

This is an overstretched and i would say biased article...smells like hard core propaganda :|

[scott]

I agree,
I actually find this almost militaristic dislike of the UN someone concerning as well.

Ah well, to each his/her own

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[Pandy]

United Nations can't do ****, they said "Don't attack Iraq."

Hell, i didn't see no UN French, German and Russian peacekeepers deployed to Iraq in March 2003... :oops:


Please don't spam me, I am sorry.

[scott]

This is an overstretched and i would say biased article...smells like hard core propaganda :|

I´m sorry, you´re wrong. Propaganda means lies, this article is based on the truth. Propaganda comes from Brusel and UN HQ at these days. The evidence is turn about of the Czech goverment. Last week PM signed (some) another "anti-wall" resolution ... after many years of supporting Israel ... just after Czech republic joined EU ... Weird? I don´t think so ... :|

I'm not getting into a fight over semantics but in the interest of moving the discussion along...

propaganda [Show phonetics]
noun [U] MAINLY DISAPPROVING
information, ideas, opinions or images, often only giving one part of an argument, which are broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63437&dict=CALD

[achilles]

This is an overstretched and i would say biased article...smells like hard core propaganda :|

I´m sorry, you´re wrong. Propaganda means lies, this article is based on the truth. Propaganda comes from Brusel and UN HQ at these days. The evidence is turn about of the Czech goverment. Last week PM signed (some) another "anti-wall" resolution ... after many years of supporting Israel ... just after Czech republic joined EU ... Weird? I don´t think so ... :|

I'm not getting into a fight over semantics but in the interest of moving the discussion along...

propaganda [Show phonetics]
noun [U] MAINLY DISAPPROVING
information, ideas, opinions or images, often only giving one part of an argument, which are broadcast, published or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=63437&dict=CALD

Having placed 'propaganda' within the proper linguistic context, there is not much left for me to say except that any written document ending as follows:"At that rate, let's hope the UN digs its own grave before it digs one for the rest of us" can only appeal to emotion/ignorance and as such can never be taken seriously.

PS: thank you Scott for that indirect, succinct and largely cathartic intervention ;)

[scott]

I guess there's a little UN in all of us :)