Should People that live in the Countries Vote Leave the UN

[timetraveller]

What would happen if people started calling for a referendum in the Countries live in .. by asking

Giving people a chance to vote to leave Comical Outfit ..

Because what good does the UN really do ?

[AroundTheCorner]

Except delivering aid and watching how people kill each other, the UN doesn't do much.

[ex Strathcona]

it's about as useful as the League of Nations was at this point.

[little icebear]

The UN works as efficiently as its memberstates allow it. So what is this stupid UN bashing good for?

[ex Strathcona]

The UN works as efficiently as its memberstates allow it. So what is this stupid UN bashing good for?

it works as effectively as a few of its members allow, or did you sleep through the Security Councils latest debacle over the North Korean missile launch?

[budgie]

What would happen if people started calling for a referendum in the Countries live in .. by asking

Giving people a chance to vote to leave Comical Outfit ..

Because what good does the UN really do ?


You know it's not a bad idea to let countries have a referendum. Despite conservative fantasies, even in America you'd probably find a majority want to stay in.

[seraosha]

You know it's not a bad idea to let countries have a referendum. Despite conservative fantasies, even in America you'd probably find a majority want to stay in.

I'd be willing to take that bet. A campaign pointing out the hijinks that diplomat's kids, wives, husbands, mistresses, and whatnot alone would be a good place to start.
Point out how much money we'd save by leaving as well, then move on to some of the more reviled UN practices. You know, like listing the policies that make up the Human Rights council, and what they choose to "enforce".

[budgie]

I still charge most Americans would vote to stay in despite its faults. The idea of an international diplomatic forum is too compatible with western democratic ideals to abandon altogether. Nobody is happy with the failings of the UN but the world without it might be an even worse place.

[HellToupee]

I still charge most Americans would vote to stay in despite its faults. The idea of an international diplomatic forum is too compatible with western democratic ideals to abandon altogether. Nobody is happy with the failings of the UN but the world without it might be an even worse place.

The world would be a worse place without it IMO, world stability would go down the toilet.

The most effective results have come from economic sanctions, not invasions.

[Connaught Ranger]

Not another bash the U.N. thread :roll:

Because as bad as you believe it to be, its better than nothing.

[LineDoggie]

UN & The League of Nations before it were started with the best of intentions, the same thing the road to hell is paved with. I would be quite happy if they got the hell out of My City.

USA Withdraw from it? I'm kinda saying sure, as it seems all we do is get shafted on the Political side. They do good work like UNICEF though so I kinda middle ground about it

[MaverickCowboy]

I would vote to leave, i dont like how they want to tax countries over global warming bull****.

[Player]

I want to ask those who bash the U.N.:

Will the world be a better place without the U.N.?

The world in which nobody would struggle for global stability and global co-operation?

The world in which those who suffer would lose their last hope?

The world without the useless and annoying U.N. where nobody at least tries to solve international disputes and conflicts?

The world without rules?

I don't think so.

[Player]

Because as bad as you believe it to be, its better than nothing.

Couldn't have said it better.

[MaverickCowboy]

I want to ask those who bash the U.N.:

Will the world be a better place without the U.N.?

The world in which nobody would struggle for global stability and global co-operation?

The world in which those who suffer would lose their last hope?

The world without the useless and annoying U.N. where nobody at least tries to solve international disputes and conflicts?

The world without rules?

I don't think so.


The problem is, you believe that the U.N. is the only place that countries can have dialogue. This is not true. if we get out of the U.N. it does not mean that countries would not speak with each other and jump into chaos. the fact is. the U.N. has caused intended or unintended negative consequences throughout the world, some which could've been avoided altogether. there is very much room to bash don't you mistake that.

[budgie]

Again though a global poll seems silly. In every country that allows such a vote the majority would vote to remain. US included. For all its faults the UN has become a vital forum for international diplomacy. Not the only channel of course but perhaps the main conduit for reaching detente among nations.

This whole thread is a silly rightist fantasy. Seriously does anyone think that the same electorate who voted in this 'lefty' congress and administration would suddenly swing hard to the right? It wouldn't even be a big split along party lines, I'd bet practically every Red State would go in favour of staying as well, even if by smaller majorities.

[MaverickCowboy]

Again though a global poll seems silly. In every country that allows such a vote the majority would vote to remain. US included. Seriously does anyone think that the same electorate who voted in this 'lefty' congress and administration would suddenly swing hard to the right? It wouldn't even be a big split along party lines, I'd bet practically every Red State would go in favour of staying as well.

This whole threat is a silly rightist fantasy. For all its faults the UN has become a vital forum for international diplomacy. Not the only channel of course but perhaps the main conduit for reaching detente among nations.

Still isn't winning my favor friend.

[MostlyHarmless]

A lot of things the UN does are so incredibly incompetent you want to rip your eyes out. But the UN is not an enforcer, the UN is a diplomatic agency. It was never engineered to deploy blue helmets, its a place for nations to come together and discuss important global issues. The UN wasn't built to stop Darfur, or step in in Rwanda. The UN does wonderful things. Refugee camps, food, water, medical aid. The UN provides invaluable help to people all over the world. I would not vote to leave the UN, even though its power and competence is most certianly questionable.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

First of all, no I do not think the nations of the world should have a referendum on whether or not to stay in the United Nations. This is because it will be all too easy for elements within countries, especially those with less-than-honest voting practices, to get their countries out of the UN. The concept that democratic populism always leads to the best option is flawed. It’s tremendously easy to manipulate people, and it becomes easier when they are in huge groups, just ask any popular demagogue ever. If enough, or important enough nations announced their withdrawal from the UN I doubt the organization would be able to remain relevant for long. This would be bad, the UN, for all of its many faults, does have a few success stories under its belt, and its existence as an international forum is better than worse.

Simply because the UN is not the only forum for international cooperation, does not mean that its use can be easily circumvented by other diplomatic channels. Smaller groups of countries meet, and conferences are held without the auspices of the UN, but that doesn’t mean that the UN is redundant or irrelevant. The idea of an international forum for all nations to air their grievances is a powerful one. It is an important one as well, it’s the best shot we’ve had at global peace since the Roman Empire.

@Mostly Harmless, I don’t know what kind of parallel UN you understand but the very purpose of the UN is as a global enforcer of peace and security, read the Charter Chapter 1 Article 1 Sec 1.
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;” After the Preamble this is the first part of the UN charter, I think its pretty clear where the UN stands on simply being a diplomatic organization. In fact the UN is supposed to have its own army, (Chapter VII Article 43) which is to be made up of forces given by ALL member states. Problem is, no one does. The Security Council has never negotiated the “agreement.” The UN was designed to deploy Blue Helmets; it was engineered specifically to combat genocide, and injustice, just like Rwanda, and Darfur. The best example of a successful UN operation is the 1991 Gulf War. There Iraq posed a threat to security by invading its neighbor, after deliberation on the Security Council a multinational force under the UN drove Iraq back across the border, restored peace, and then left. Also see the Korean War.

Yes, the UN is inefficient and at worst ineffective, but so is every government ever. We live in an untidy, imperfect world, The UN is not immune to the trends of global politics and it will be affected by them, sometimes negatively. None of these are good reasons to retreat into a neo-isolationist fantasy by rejecting the UN. The world has changed, and I don’t mean the post Cold War or post September 11th world, the UN could have been relevant nearly a hundred years ago, when the League of Nations project failed.

[Atlantic Friend]

the fact is. the U.N. has caused intended or unintended negative consequences throughout the world, some which could've been avoided altogether.

Such as ? What are these UN-created problems that wouldn't have popped up if the UN hadn't been there ?

[MaverickCowboy]

Such as ? What are these UN-created problems that wouldn't have popped up if the UN hadn't been there ?

When disarming villages in Africa, said villages would be left defenseless and another group of warring villagers exterminated them since UN disarmed them and left them sitting ducks with no protection. amazing policy.

[Atlantic Friend]

When disarming villages in south Africa, said villages would be left defenseless and another group of warring villagers exterminated them since UN disarmed them and left them sitting ducks with no protection. amazing policy.

Disarming villages in South Africa ? Would you have a precise reference by any chance ?

[MaverickCowboy]

Disarming villages in South Africa ? Would you have a precise reference by any chance ?

Sorry. my bad. i meant just "Africa." south africa was on my mind. Freudian slip.

just in the case of genocidal villagers. id have to hunt the ref.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Failed Humanitarian missions are not a reason the UN should be disbanded. As anyone who works in the field for a humanitarian NGO will tell you, Humanitarian missions have a terrible track record. They rarely alleviate suffering in a meaningful way and often times they do cause more problems, such as the UNHCR actions in Sarajevo, where they effectively kept the Bosnians in the city to be shot at by Serbs. Why? because none of the UN member states wanted to deal with the inevitable refugee problem that would result if the Bosnians were allowed to leave.

That’s the real problem, oftentimes the failure of humanitarian missions are not the fault of the UN but the simple fact that its member nations want anything to do with the problem, UN organizations do not have their own standing armies, they depend entirely on support given by the member states, (the aid that did arrive in Sarajevo would have been impossible without the NATO airlift). UNHCR was in Bosnia specifically so that none of the major nations “committed” to stopping war had to do anything about it. In fact the UNHCR tried to leave, on account that they were doing phuckall, but they were prevented by member states who realized that if UNHCR wasn’t there, the international outcry would force them to get involved, as it did a few years later.

Humanitarian missions are nearly always run on taunt shoestrings without clear objectives beyond, “alleviating suffering.” Ask a soldier what chance an operation has if it has little or no support, does not have a clear objective, is already viewed as unnecessecary by many of the top brass, and has ROE protocols that effectively amount to “no shooting unless you are in mortal danger and have already been shot.” He will respond: “zero.” The problem is that these constraints are not applied by the UN itself, but by the nations donating the forces required to run the humanitarian mission. As soon as peacekeepers start dying the media goes nuts and the troops head home, all of these things are effectively beyond the control of the UN. But incredibly it always takes all of the flak.

[Atlantic Friend]

Nah, don't sweat it, it struck me afterward that I had probably misunderstood.

To be fair, this is the kind of problem you find during every peace-keeping mission, be that organized by a single nation, the UN, or some local alliance. The British had the same trouble in Palestine, the French in Algeria, look at every such operation and you'll find tragedies of the same kind.

I think the UN is a convenient scapegoat for failures in international relationships, or failures of national statesmanship. How ready exactly are its members to have a MORE powerful UN ? One that COULD barge in and tell individual nations that they can't do this or that ? How willing are they to commit the means to that end, and to accept UN arbitrage even if it's not favorable to them ?

IMHO, complaining that the UN is useless and that nation X or Y should leave it for that reason is, beyond a catchy rhetoric, doubly hypocritical, as the last thing nations X, Y and Z want is a powerful institution looking above their shoulders, and since most of those who complain about the uselessness of the UN complain in the same breath that the UN prevents nation X from doing this, and nation Y from doing that and causes endless tragedies. An interesting paradox, that useless UN who nevertheless seems all-powerful.

The problem of the UN today, as I see it, is that it's NOT the League of Nations, which was a democratic club dictatorships did not want any part of - ironically, among the same cries of obstructions and impotence, that today's UN critics use. In the UN, dictatorships outnumber democracies ten to one, and even among democracies national interests and power plays trump noble motives 9 times out of 10.

So is the UN perfect ? Hell, no, it isn't. But last time I checked, neither were our individual nation-states, and yet we don't say it's time to ditch them along with Western society because they did not work - obviously they don't, look at all the crime, the poverty, the lay-offs, the corrupt politicians, the foul weather. A useful state and a working society would have solved all that long ago. So no, the UN, imperfect association of imperfect states, is not perfect. Still, the UN does useful work, and I think disregarding it tarnishes the honor of those who devote their lives to others, from Blue Helmets to those who run the food programs or the demining programs or the educational programs.

Now, to cut a potentially long debate short, I know I won't convince you, and you won't convince me either. I'll tell you about useful work and a place to gain support to advance a common agenda, and you'll tell me about useless diplomats' mistresses and corruption.

[MaverickCowboy]

Nah, don't sweat it, it struck me afterward that I had probably misunderstood.

To be fair, this is the kind of problem you find during every peace-keeping mission, be that organized by a single nation, the UN, or some local alliance. The British had the same trouble in Palestine, the French in Algeria, look at every such operation and you'll find tragedies of the same kind.

I think the UN is a convenient scapegoat for failures in international relationships, or failures of national statesmanship. How ready exactly are its members to have a MORE powerful UN ? One that COULD barge in and tell individual nations that they can't do this or that ? How willing are they to commit the means to that end, and to accept UN arbitrage even if it's not favorable to them ?

IMHO, complaining that the UN is useless and that nation X or Y should leave it for that reason is, beyond a catchy rhetoric, doubly hypocritical, as the last thing nations X, Y and Z want is a powerful institution looking above their shoulders, and since most of those who complain about the uselessness of the UN complain in the same breath that the UN prevents nation X from doing this, and nation Y from doing that and causes endless tragedies. An interesting paradox, that useless UN who nevertheless seems all-powerful.

The problem of the UN today, as I see it, is that it's NOT the League of Nations, which was a democratic club dictatorships did not want any part of - ironically, among the same cries of obstructions and impotence, that today's UN critics use. In the UN, dictatorships outnumber democracies ten to one, and even among democracies national interests and power plays trump noble motives 9 times out of 10.

So is the UN perfect ? Hell, no, it isn't. But last time I checked, neither were our individual nation-states, and yet we don't say it's time to ditch them along with Western society because they did not work - obviously they don't, look at all the crime, the poverty, the lay-offs, the corrupt politicians, the foul weather. A useful state and a working society would have solved all that long ago. So no, the UN, imperfect association of imperfect states, is not perfect. Still, the UN does useful work, and I think disregarding it tarnishes the honor of those who devote their lives to others, from Blue Helmets to those who run the food programs or the demining programs or the educational programs.

Now, to cut a potentially long debate short, I know I won't convince you, and you won't convince me either. I'll tell you about useful work and a place to gain support to advance a common agenda, and you'll tell me about useless diplomats' mistresses and corruption.

The biggest reason i want out of the UN, is that i don't want my country going under cap n trade of "Climate change" theories. i don't want the agendas of the lunatics in power to TAX us to death for our industry and spread the wealth to developing countries. i don't want to work for a 3rd world countries gain and a loss of mine.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

The biggest reason i want out of the UN, is that i don't want my country going under cap n trade of "Climate change" theories. i don't want the agendas of the lunatics in power to TAX us to death for our industry and spread the wealth to developing countries. i don't want to work for a 3rd world countries gain and a loss of mine.

What? so if you were in power you would doom the most important forum for international peace and stability because you disagree with the majority stance on climate change? You have got to get your priorities straight

[MaverickCowboy]

What? so if you were in power you would doom the most important forum for international peace and stability because you disagree with the majority stance on climate change? You have got to get your priorities straight

i also like popcorn.

and its not a stance. its a scheme to leech tax dollars off countries to poorer ones.

which is a bit overstepping their bounds as acting as a type of government. which would be a threat to sovriengty.

[Soldat_Américain]

Please either stop this banter or...run for parliament or congress; or write your MP or Representative/Senator because as much as you think we live in "democracies," we actually live in representative democracies and therefore we do not have the ability or the right to vote on the subject. The reason why as people we don't have the right, is that as the common man/woman we do not hold office.

[MaverickCowboy]

Please either stop this banter or...run for parliament or congress; or write your MP or Representative/Senator because as much as you think we live in "democracies," we actually live in representative democracies and therefore we do not have the ability or the right to vote on the subject. The reason why as people we don't have the right, is that as the common man/woman we do not hold office.

going by the logic of people here. thats useless.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I mean that there are reasonable arguments for wanting to leave the UN, supreme state sovereignty, anti-globalization and all that. But.. climate change..?

Even with the existing caps no one cares about climate change. the only countries that are going to meet their Kyoto standards are Russia and the former Soviet Bloc, and the only reason they can meet their claims is because their factory system collapsed along with Soviet life support. Even Canada, which as we all know is made of ice, trees, and friendly people will fail to meet its 6% reduction, despite spending billions of dollars on industry programs. Kyoto now merely exists as a cudgel with which Europe and other countries can bash the US for "not doing enough on climate change" despite the fact that their own programs have met with almost no success.

In short, don't worry about climate change caps, the UN has almost no enforcement powers against major nations anyway so our factories are perfectly safe.

[MaverickCowboy]

I mean that there are reasonable arguments for wanting to leave the UN, supreme state sovereignty, anti-globalization and all that. But.. climate change..?

Even with the existing caps no one cares about climate change. the only countries that are going to meet their Kyoto standards are Russia and the former Soviet Bloc, and the only reason they can meet their claims is because their factory system collapsed along with Soviet life support. Even Canada, which as we all know is made of ice, trees, and friendly people will fail to meet its 6% reduction, despite spending billions of dollars on industry programs. Kyoto now merely exists as a cudgel with which Europe and other countries can bash the US for "not doing enough on climate change" despite the fact that their own programs have met with almost no success.

In short, don't worry about climate change caps, the UN has almost no enforcement powers against major nations anyway so our factories are perfectly safe.

I'm under the impression that there are people, extremists marxist types up on top who want to use the UN as a tool for revenue from the industrial nations such as Europeans and Americans with extreme taxes using those funds to overeach their power to enforce laws passed in the UN.

Kind of like the New World Order comspiracy, but there are actually Al Gore types as the wheel trying to get this rolling. more restrictive caps and taxes that would hurt our economy.

[gustav]

In the same time that people bash the UN, it gets bigger, has to be in charge of even more failed countries, and is given even more responsibilties....by the same countries which criticize its efficiency.



As of March 2008, 113 countries were contributing a total 88,862 military observers, police, and troops


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#Participation

The UN could one day top the US for the amount of troops that are currently deployed overseas. World police!!

[MaverickCowboy]

In the same time that people bash the UN, it gets bigger, has to be in charge of even more failed countries, and is given even more responsibilties....by the same countries which criticize its efficiency.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#Participation

The UN could one day top the US for the amount of troops that are currently deployed overseas. World police!!

thats a scary thought. makes you wonder about conspiracy theories.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I'm under the impression that there are people, extremists marxist types up on top who want to use the UN as a tool for revenue from the industrial nations such as Europeans and Americans with extreme taxes using those funds to overeach their power to enforce laws passed in the UN.

Kind of like the New World Order comspiracy, but there are actually Al Gore types as the wheel trying to get this rolling. more restrictive caps and taxes that would hurt our economy.

If your worried about international redistribution of wealth scams what you should be criticizing is the International Monetary Fund. Even then you don't really have to worry about high-level marxist redistribution, (all the top guys in the IMF are firmly capitalist) but really just clever people using IMF funds for improper uses.

For instance, the EU supports using the IMF, (rather than its own financial support structures) to lend to newer EU members with weaker economies, particularly in the eastern sphere. This is because if the EU supported their economies, which it should since the states in question are member states, it would be Europe's stronger western economies footing the bill. However, if they use the IMF then the US, China, pretty much every country, would also be supporting the eastern European economies. Clever no?

Why should secretive international Marxists resort to hijacking the UN's climate policies, when there are much easier methods of greedy capitalists supporting their nefarious socialist schemes?

[MaverickCowboy]

If your worried about international redistribution of wealth scams what you should be criticizing is the International Monetary Fund. Even then you don't really have to worry about high-level marxist redistribution, (all the top guys in the IMF are firmly capitalist) but really just clever people using IMF funds for improper uses.

For instance, the EU supports using the IMF, (rather than its own financial support structures) to lend to newer EU members with weaker economies, particularly in the eastern sphere. This is because if the EU supported their economies, which it should since the states in question are member states, it would be Europe's stronger western economies footing the bill. However, if they use the IMF then the US, China, pretty much every country, would also be supporting the eastern European economies. Clever no?

Why should secretive international Marxists resort to hijacking the UN's climate policies, when there are much easier methods of greedy capitalists supporting their nefarious socialist schemes?

I know about the IMF i had a thread a few days ago on them. : P also.......


Fine, they just give me BAD VIBES bro. ya get me? To many a-holes unable to get their own countries together trying to dictate free speech and things.
They are just funky nonsense. the further we get away form collaborated shenanigans and deal with other countries personally, the better. i think we should be able to deal with other countries without am middle man.

[gustav]

thats a scary thought. makes you wonder about conspiracy theories.

If theres a conspiracy your governement is in it since every UN mission is submitted to a vote by the Security Council.

[MaverickCowboy]

If theres a conspiracy your governement is in it since every UN mission is submitted to a vote by the Security Council.

i know this.

we distrust our government very much so.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

In the same time that people bash the UN, it gets bigger, has to be in charge of even more failed countries, and is given even more responsibilties....by the same countries which criticize its efficiency.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#Participation

The UN could one day top the US for the amount of troops that are currently deployed overseas. World police!!

That is, quite frankly, ridiculous for a lot of reasons. First, all of the soldiers in those list will be double, or even triple hatting. This is where soldiers run allegiance to more than one organization at a time. Bolivian troops that are being loaned to the UN are not suddenly going to agree to a UN operation to invade Bolivia. Actually they are probably not going to agree to anything beyond simple police actions, and the Bolivian government reserves the right to withdraw them.

Second, Any global conspiracy would require the involvement of all member countries, or at least several powerful ones. This is just not going to happen. These are governments that can't even agree on a good definition of "terrorism" or agree to stamp out international tax fraud (which would help all of them). There is just no way you're going to get them to universally agree to give up their own sovereign power to a world state. Its practically impossible.

third, The UN is a massive bureaucracy, this sort of plan (a global uprising using UN peacekeepers) would require an insane amount of coordination and collaboration between factions that exist on opposite sides of the world. Not only would it take years to set up, it would all have to be done in total secrecy, and every single person who was involved, (of which their would be thousands) would have to not reveal the process, either by accident or design.

fourth, the troops on deployment by the UN are not under any sort of unified command structure, there is no such thing as a UN Military Force. these troops all use different command structures and supply chains. Theres just no way the UN could easily order thousands of peace keepers from Sierra Leone to redeploy to London to crush resistance there. So even if there was an uprising, the UN troops would be stranded all over the globe, usually in backwards areas, the supply chains needed just to keep them operational (and not moving) would quickly descend into logistical hell.

fifth, you mentioned 88,862 deployed troops (which is actually a combined force of 11,000 police and 2,700 military observers and 74,000 troops) there are about 138,000 US troops in Iraq alone. There are easily over 250,000 US troops deployed Overseas (i couldn't find any recent numbers in 5 minutes of online research), which is roughly 3 times the number of ALL UN peacekeeping troops abroad. So yes, the UN could top US troop deployments overseas, this will occur about the same time the dollar collapses, and Osama admits he didn't do 9/11 in the far, distant, and terrifying future.

sixth, all of this global peace conspiracy might be possible if it wasn't for one problem. All historical precedents are of powerful nations taking power away from the UN Thats right, the nations that support giving more power to the UN are typically smaller nations that are not powerful enough to stand on their own, they need the UN to have power, it makes their lack of power more relevant, becuase in the UN they have a voice in the Global Assembly and at least a chance of appearing on the Security Council. Powerful nations, The US, China, Russia, Britain, France, rarely support increases in UN power especially in regards to military or sovereignty matters. Therefore a global UN conspiracy, which would require the participation of at least some major states, would require a sudden and complete reversal of policy in those countries. Again, this simply isn't going to happen.

Seventh and finally, most of this thread has been about how the UN is totally ineffective, inefficient, incoherent, and just generally useless. Even the people who support it all grudgingly admit that "its not perfect." Yet you expect me to believe that suddenly, this useless bureaucracy that can't even wipe its own ass without deliberating for weeks, is actually capable of an extremely complex and difficult operation of World Domination!

[MaverickCowboy]

Yet you expect me to believe that suddenly, this useless bureaucracy that can't even wipe its own ass without deliberating for weeks, is actually capable of an extremely complex and difficult operation of World Domination!

Absofvckinglutely my friend! rofl

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I know about the IMF i had a thread a few days ago on them. : P also.......


Fine, they just give me BAD VIBES bro. ya get me? To many a-holes unable to get their own countries together trying to dictate free speech and things.
They are just funky nonsense. the further we get away form collaborated shenanigans and deal with other countries personally, the better. i think we should be able to deal with other countries without am middle man.

Im assuming the “dictate free speech” thing you’re referring to is the recent UNHRC resolution about the whole defamation of religion being equivalent to discrimination. You will no doubt be glad to know then that the resolution is totally non binding, and strongly opposed by western member states. Meaning, that this isn’t the decision of the UN as some sort of overlord, but is instead contested within the UN itself, and your country is on your side. I’m sure that you know that the UNHRC has no power except to advise the General Assembly, which advises the Security Council. So, basically the UN isn’t dictating anything about free speech. Its just a sub organization within a large organization taking an approach that has been consistently criticized by other members of the organization. Without anyone doing anything of real consequence.

Just so you know, the system of one on one diplomacy has already been tried. It was called the concert of Europe and it led to World War I. The whole point of the UN is democratize and de-mystify the diplomacy process. Secret diplomacy and secret alliances create a culture of fear and uncertainty between nations. The UN helps to eliminate that by putting the diplomacy process in the open, by giving a forum where all countries can converse on more or less equal ground. This doesn’t mean an end to secret diplomacy, far from it, but it means that some of the process is transparent and that some states can be held accountable. this is an evolution from the secret diplomacy system, these states chose it, instead of the other system because the other system didn’t work. The Un is not a middle man, it is a forum.

[MaverickCowboy]

I still don't like it :D

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I still don't like it :D

It doesn't matter, you haven't got anything better, actually your only alternative has already been proven to lead to global war

[MaverickCowboy]

It doesn't matter, you haven't got anything better, actually your only alternative has already been proven to lead to global war

but Global war is so fun. sarcasm/

[Hobbesian Penguin]

but Global war is so fun. sarcasm/

Whatever, its clear this discussion is over now. My only regret is that nobody probably learned anything from it, far from changing your opinion on the merits of the UN it seems my arguments have had no effect.

The very least i could have hoped for would be that you educated yourself on the subject instead of easily retreating into neo-isolationism. But that wish seems dashed as well. You will continue on, learning nothing, but glad to educate everyone you meet.

[MaverickCowboy]

Whatever, its clear this discussion is over now. My only regret is that nobody probably learned anything from it, far from changing your opinion on the merits of the UN it seems my arguments have had no effect.

The very least i could have hoped for would be that you educated yourself on the subject instead of easily retreating into neo-isolationism. But that wish seems dashed as well. You will continue on, learning nothing, but glad to educate everyone you meet.

I'm not an isolationist. on the contrary. i just rather talk with nations outside the UN. and im not talking about secret diplomacy either.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

I'm not an isolationist. on the contrary. i just rather talk with nations outside the UN. and im not talking about secret diplomacy either.

We already do that, frequently. The US is a member to several international organizations and has ties with countries all over the world, I think it was you who mentioned that the UN was not the only avenue for diplomatic discussion

[MaverickCowboy]

Whatever, its clear this discussion is over now. My only regret is that nobody probably learned anything from it, far from changing your opinion on the merits of the UN it seems my arguments have had no effect.

The very least i could have hoped for would be that you educated yourself on the subject instead of easily retreating into neo-isolationism. But that wish seems dashed as well. You will continue on, learning nothing, but glad to educate everyone you meet.

i never retreated to any of the sort you see.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

i never retreated to any of the sort you see.

Yes actually, you have


They are just funky nonsense. the further we get away form collaborated shenanigans and deal with other countries personally, the better. i think we should be able to deal with other countries without am middle man.

and here


I'm under the impression that there are people, extremists marxist types up on top who want to use the UN as a tool for revenue from the industrial nations such as Europeans and Americans with extreme taxes using those funds to overeach their power to enforce laws passed in the UN.

Kind of like the New World Order comspiracy, but there are actually Al Gore types as the wheel trying to get this rolling. more restrictive caps and taxes that would hurt our economy.

and again here


I would vote to leave, i dont like how they want to tax countries over global warming bull****.
(bolding added by me for emphasis)

[MaverickCowboy]

Yes actually, you have



and here



and again here


(bolding added by me for emphasis)

Thats not isolationism. thats avoiding special intrests.

[Hobbesian Penguin]

Thats not isolationism. thats avoiding special intrests.

Abandoning the UN is a strongly Isolationist move. It is exiting the most important existing international forum, that is isolationism at its core. Essentially declaring that the US doesn't need to deal with the globe, we'll just deal with everybody one on one. Withdrawing from the world stage is isolationism. The only way you could justify leaving the UN as a non-isolationist policy would be if you replaced it with a different international organization.

[budgie]

Kind of like the New World Order comspiracy, but there are actually Al Gore types as the wheel trying to get this rolling. more restrictive caps and taxes that would hurt our economy.

That's part of the Global Warming Conspiracy theory. It's tied closely to the world govt/world currency/black UN choppers one. Wiki it.

[Limeyfellow]

That's part of the Global Warming Conspiracy theory. It's tied closely to the world govt/world currency/black UN choppers one. Wiki it.

I would, but the secret Chinese armed UN army at Fort Hood that hides out there will come and take me away in the middle of the night to a UN reeducation camp.

It seems though many people seem to forget the UN have many different departments that have done a lot of good over the decades. I hate to see how bad the world would be now without the OCHA for instance, or the policing of the UN, or the hundreds of treaties and laws that have been mostly past for the advantage of the US, the assistance in banking and finance that have stopped many countries outright collapsing and turning into anarchy. I also believe the ICC could be a force for major good in the world and some crimes just can't be successfully tried in the country they committed. We also can't forget the WHO and UNICEF, IAEA and UNESCO and let us not also forget the food and agricultural association that it there to protect us from more incidents like the killer Chinese feed, if we would stop committing protectionisms of our allies in the name of making a quick profit.