Worthless UN attempts to flex it's "muscle"

[5jumpchump]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3940547.stm

Here is why i think the UN is a worthless money making POS . I saw this show on TV where a private Army of ex-special forces( American ) took on a similar situation . They , all 200 soldiers , destroyed and pushed back 10,000 alone rebels and brought peace to the region in under 3 months with a total price tag of about 2 million dollars . more than half of wich was spent on two Russian helicopters . The UN basically realised they now look like **** kicked them out and took over operations . 3 months and 100$ million dollars later the rebels returned raping and pilliaging again also capturing 15 UN "peace keepers " tourturing them and burning thier bodies , some beheaded , and hung from a bridge . Where the hell was Jack Chirac when we needed him ?
I mean that fugger veto's everything that makes contact with his desk . Why didn't he opposse the UN going into this conflict . Oh that's right he needed the extra money . Cheers .

[American Patriot]

UN will fail miserably in Sudan

[Siddar]

A mission to sudan could work as long as peacekeeping forces dont leave the rebel areas where they would have a large amount of suport from locals.

The danger is that mulim terrorists would use any mission as a excuse to declare jihad on europe. Europe is a easy target for terrorists at moment and if Al Queda contiues to fail at being able to attack the US then takeing easy route of hitting europe becomes more and more atractive.

[tuckerhat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3940547.stm
The UN basically realised they now look like **** kicked them out and took over operations . 3 months and 100$ million dollars later the rebels returned raping and pilliaging again also capturing 15 UN "peace keepers " tourturing them and burning thier bodies , some beheaded , and hung from a bridge .

know a site where i can find more info on this?

[budanski]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3940547.stm

Here is why i think the UN is a worthless money making POS . I saw this show on TV where a private Army of ex-special forces( American ) took on a similar situation . They , all 200 soldiers , destroyed and pushed back 10,000 alone rebels and brought peace to the region in under 3 months with a total price tag of about 2 million dollars . more than half of wich was spent on two Russian helicopters . The UN basically realised they now look like **** kicked them out and took over operations . 3 months and 100$ million dollars later the rebels returned raping and pilliaging again also capturing 15 UN "peace keepers " tourturing them and burning thier bodies , some beheaded , and hung from a bridge . Where the hell was Jack Chirac when we needed him ?
I mean that fugger veto's everything that makes contact with his desk . Why didn't he opposse the UN going into this conflict . Oh that's right he needed the extra money . Cheers .
The PMC was called Executive Outcomes founded by South African ex-special forces members. They were successful with as few as 200 soldiers where the UN forces with 17,000 seemed to fail.


know a site where i can find more info on this?
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/executive_outcomes.htm

[Romulus]

I think it was on the discovery-times channel too. The group was Executive Outcomes out of South Africa.


Scratch that it was on History Channel show "Guns for hire".

[aartamen]

The only muscle it has is the rectal sphyncter.

[GrimmyRX]

UN will fail miserably in Sudan

IF I didn't know better, I'd say that you almost sounded Smug about that.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3940547.stm

Here is why i think the UN is a worthless money making POS . I saw this show on TV where a private Army of ex-special forces( American ) took on a similar situation . They , all 200 soldiers , destroyed and pushed back 10,000 alone rebels and brought peace to the region in under 3 months with a total price tag of about 2 million dollars . more than half of wich was spent on two Russian helicopters . The UN basically realised they now look like **** kicked them out and took over operations . 3 months and 100$ million dollars later the rebels returned raping and pilliaging again also capturing 15 UN "peace keepers " tourturing them and burning thier bodies , some beheaded , and hung from a bridge . Where the hell was Jack Chirac when we needed him ?
I mean that fugger veto's everything that makes contact with his desk . Why didn't he opposse the UN going into this conflict . Oh that's right he needed the extra money . Cheers .
The PMC was called Executive Outcomes founded by South African ex-special forces members. They were successful with as few as 200 soldiers where the UN forces with 17,000 seemed to fail.


know a site where i can find more info on this?
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/executive_outcomes.htm

You know what the difference between a UN mission and a PMC operation is?

About 500 miles of paperwork and 100 more restrictions.

Do you know why?

Because no country in the world wants to lose soldiers in a UN Stabilization Mission. NO country, period.

But hey, keep on blaming an organisation that keeps on trying instead of looking at your own country and wondering about what sort of objections and restrictions they put forward when asked the question: "What would it take for you to join the UN?"

When the UN fails, it means but one thing, YOU'VE failed. What is the UN but all of our countries?

So yes, when the UN attempts to do something and fails, it's because of every single member-state's lack of will and co-operation.

It is, after all, a multinational operation dependant apon the support of it's member states to allow it to achive either a degree of success or failure.

So when you say "the UN has failed" you're saying "Canada has failed, America has failed, Britian has failed, Russia has failed, Australia has failed, France has failed, Germany has failed, Norway has failed, Mexico has failed, Isreal has failed, etc."

[n4292936]

he's got a point. The Un is but a collection of all of our nation's wills. When it fails it is largely due to key members hamstringing operations with restrictive ROE. That it is moving on the Sudan issue is nothing but good news. I only hope the outcome is as positive as the collective display of good intentions is self serving.

[Ichhabe]

GrimmyRX: What you said made so much sense that it hurts. But these UN-haters will never understand.

[fantassin]

Quote:

a private Army of ex-special forces( American ) took on a similar situation

In your dreams.... they were South Africans.

Read "Bloodsong" by Jim Hooper you will get good infos on that subject.

[Ichhabe]

...

[Ichhabe]

Quote:

a private Army of ex-special forces( American ) took on a similar situation

In your dreams.... they were South Africans.

Read "Bloodsong" by Jim Hooper you will get good infos on that subject.

I saw that too, but didn't care commenting on it. For some, all ex-SF's are Americans. No matter what the truth is. ;)

[Roger Rabbit]

Perhaps if everyone was to give more support to the UN, instead of wanting the UN to fail so they could be right ,then there might be some progress made in the Sudan.

[gilgoul]

With restrictive ROE and civilians in charge, not a single UN mission fullfills it`s mission.
As for the will of countries, they had a lot of will in yougoslavia, but still no balls and stupidly defined mission purposes, and hundreds of young and valuable soldiers in this stupid mission died for the sake of it.
The same thing hapened in Lebanon, where the UNIFIL mission is barely a "relief" operation and a intelligence advanced post for the Hizaballah.
Still, I don`t think that the soldiers in mission there are worse (well, the ghanean are), they simply are working in a mission that doen`t really know what it is and wants.
As long as those peace keeping mission will remain under the suprem comand of the GA and civilians, those missions will lamentably fail.
The GA and SC should define the operational and political purposes , and then givingg command to officers who wouldn`t have to do some diplomacy permanently, but actually do their job, and them defining the ROE, needs in man power and equipement according to the budget they have been allocated. Not the other way around, sending UN missions that are forced to beg money from their origin countries and UN in permanence.

[fantassin]

Quote

not a single UN mission fullfills it`s mission.


Tell it to the Cambodians and to those who took part in the A****UC.

[n4292936]

Actually there have been quite a few UN peacekeeping and monitoring missions, as well as UN sanctioned military actions that have been succesful
gulf war 1
Korean War
East Timor
Cambodia
Cyprus peacekeeping misison
and several others in Africa

[alscho]

They might have failed over and over again, but they are still trying over and over again. Nice to see someone actually doing something. If they don't help, who will?

[moughoun]

Have you noticed the UN hater's (mostly American's) have not responded,since it was pointed out that it's the countrie's that make it up that are the problem, they might not like the look in the mirror now ;)

[BlackRain]

I think American's are just tired of nonsense like this that occurs in the United Nations.


WASHINGTON - In an unexpected slap by a 53-nation council at the United Nations, the United States on Thursday was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission for the first time since it was established in 1947.

Singapore's delegate, Kishore Mahbubani, called the vote, taken by the Economic and Social Council, the umbrella group for the rights commission, "a stunning development," ******* reported from New York.

The embarrassing setback for the United States, which has long considered itself a leading defender of global human rights, apparently came partly at the hands of countries that have been frequent targets of U.S. rights criticism, such as China and Cuba.

But the balance apparently was tipped by European allies, in a first angry backlash against what some consider high-handed and unilateral actions by the administration of President George W. Bush and its predecessor.




Also, when America's alleged allies in Europe consistently vote against the USA in the UN Security Council; we wonder if it is just to obstruct for the sake of obstructing or due to more sinster motives.


According to the State Department's Voting Practices in the United Nations 2002, on votes important to U.S. interests, France and the U.K. voted with us just 50 percent of the time, Russia 22 percent, and China 20 percent. Overall, the General Assembly voted the U.S. position only 32 percent of the time on important issues.



Interesting Article by a US Congressman:


U.N. Freeloaders
Congressman J.D. Hayworth

In the run-up to the war against Saddam Hussein, we saw all too clearly the real goal of France in obstructing and sabotaging U.S. policy - to challenge U.S. global leadership and set itself up as the leader of a competing coalition.

By itself, France is incapable of countering or competing with the U.S. militarily or economically, and that situation will only grow worse as France faces a demographically-driven decline. The key to France’s strategic ambition is therefore based solely on its permanent membership on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and, most importantly, the veto power that goes with it. Without its veto, France would lose its chief claim to geopolitical relevance, which is why it attaches so much prestige to its leading position at the U.N. (On its U.N. web page, the French government states that its “prominent role [in the world body] places important responsibilities on France.”)

But France was added as a permanent UNSC member not because that country played a leading role defeating Nazi Germany (it didn’t), but as a sop to Charles DeGaulle. (George Will <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/archive.shtml> called France’s post-war admission to the U.N.’s veto club, “psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.”) France’s permanent UNSC membership gives it power it did not earn and does not merit. It is an anachronism. But it’s not going away.

I don’t mean to pick on France, but its recent actions make it an easy target. The truth is, the entire Security Council regularly obstructs our foreign policy goals and permanent members regularly vote the opposite of the U.S.

According to the State Department’s Voting Practices in the United Nations 2002, on votes important to U.S. interests, France and the U.K. voted with us just 50 percent of the time, Russia 22 percent, and China 20 percent. Overall, the General Assembly voted the U.S. position only 32 percent of the time on important issues. Areas of specific disagreement include the Middle East, nuclear disarmament, some human rights issues, and the International Criminal Court.

Perhaps most revealing is the fact that even at a paltry 50 percent, the U.K. and France are among the top ten in voting coincidence with the U. S. And the trend is going down, not up. Who are our biggest supporters at the U.N.? Palau (100 percent), the Marshall Islands (89 percent), and Israel (85 percent).

What makes all this even more galling is that even though the U.S. has no more power on the Security Council than any of the other four permanent members, it pays the lion’s share of the U.N. budget.

Indeed, even though the combined GDP of the other permanent members nearly equals that of the U.S., the U.S. contributes about $115 million dollars more to the U.N. regular budget than those four countries combined.

What’s more, U.N. dues are supposed to be based on ability to pay. Yet there are a dozen countries that in 2003 will pay more in dues than China’s $24 million even though it now has the world’s second largest economy. The Chinese are clearly getting a lot of bang for their U.N. buck. So are the Russians. Their 2003 assessment is a paltry $19 million, less than Canada, Holland, Australia, and tiny Switzerland.
I am therefore introducing legislation in the House that would limit the U.S. contribution to the regular U.N. budget to no more than the highest amount paid by any other permanent UNSC member. The rationale is simple: Our veto power should cost us no more than what China, France, Russia, or the U.K. pay for theirs.

The U.S.’s 2003 assessment for the U.N. regular budget is $341 million. Under my bill, we would pay no more than France, which has been assessed the second-highest amount, or $100 million. This proposal would not affect U.S. payments to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations, voluntary programs, or membership organizations. It would only affect the U.N. regular budget. Even at this reduced amount the U.S. would still contribute over $1.4 billion to various U.N. programs, far more than any other country.

Aside from simple equity, enactment of my bill would hopefully lead to a reconsideration of how U.N. dues are assessed among permanent members. China and Russia are now essentially getting a free ride at our expense. The solution would be for all permanent members to pay equal amounts of the regular budget because of their veto power. France and the U.K. would have to pay a little more, Russia and China a lot more, the U.S. a lot less.

A debate over dues could also prompt a broader discussion on U.N. reform. The outrages are not limited to the meltdown over Iraq. Cuba began its recent crackdown on dissidents as the U.N.’s Human Rights Commission was holding its annual meeting in Geneva. It promptly elected Cuba to another three-year term, an act author Carl Hiaasen wrote was “a little like naming a necktie after the Boston Strangler.” The commission is headed by Libya and includes some of the worst abusers of human rights in the world, including Vietnam, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

If the U.N. does not reform itself, it risks becoming, in the words of Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, another “Red Cross.” The U.N. can become relevant again, but whether it does so will ultimately rest on the goodwill and magnanimity of the five permanent UNSC members who can block any reform with a veto.

As we have learned, U.N. reform takes time. Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, in 1984. It took 18 years for UNESCO to implement sufficient reforms for the U.S. to return (some even question whether the reforms were enough). More fundamental reform could take even longer.

In the meantime, if the French aspire to greatness, let them pay a little more for it.

[moughoun]

We obstruct because it's fun, and we like to see people die :roll: , where exactly does it say the US has a God given right to sit on any council, you were voted off, like every one else can be

[budanski]

You know what the difference between a UN mission and a PMC operation is?

About 500 miles of paperwork and 100 more restrictions.

Do you know why?

Because no country in the world wants to lose soldiers in a UN Stabilization Mission. NO country, period.

But hey, keep on blaming an organisation that keeps on trying instead of looking at your own country and wondering about what sort of objections and restrictions they put forward when asked the question: "What would it take for you to join the UN?"

When the UN fails, it means but one thing, YOU'VE failed. What is the UN but all of our countries?

So yes, when the UN attempts to do something and fails, it's because of every single member-state's lack of will and co-operation.

It is, after all, a multinational operation dependant apon the support of it's member states to allow it to achive either a degree of success or failure.

So when you say "the UN has failed" you're saying "Canada has failed, America has failed, Britian has failed, Russia has failed, Australia has failed, France has failed, Germany has failed, Norway has failed, Mexico has failed, Isreal has failed, etc."
Lets blame everyone except the leadership. It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries. If it were as you said up to the member nations that were responsible sending in peacekeepers, wouldnt you think they would've been in Iraq today keeping the peace on the request of two of its permanent members?

The UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were a conglomeration of African and Asian troops on foreign territory who couldn't communicate with each other. They not only failed to keep the peace but managed to get 500 of themselves taken hostage. Perhaps it was better for them to just turn tail than to send an inadequate force.

Given into this idea of an international force, Annan sent troops with too little experience, too little in common in terms of culture or training, and too little equipment and preparation.

Instead of resolving conflicts in some cases, the UN aggravates them.

[fantassin]

Nothing like Budanski's old work horse of bashing France...go back and play with DGPLAW or what's his name, you make a fine pair.


Tough **** isn't it ?

Part of the Security Council and nothing you can do about it....Charles de Gaulle owed a big one to Sir Winston on this one.

When I think roosevelt wanted to give this seat to Brazil or India....

Must be heart breaking to see all the effort the Bush clique is currently putting into sneakily trying to turn the american mess called Iraq into an international mess so the NATO and rest of the world can pay for Uncle Sam's bill and bone-headedness blocked by the "insignificant" France.

It is SO insignificant that it has been the cause of a few hundred miles of such hatred fueled reports in the past couple of years....

[ibstolidude]

Nothing like Budanski's old work horse of bashing France...go back and play with DGPLAW or what's his name, you make a fine pair.


Tough **** isn't it ?

Part of the Security Council and nothing you can do about it....Charles de Gaulle owed a big one to Sir Winston on this one.

When I think roosevelt wanted to give this seat to Brazil or India....

Must be heart breaking to see all the effort the Bush clique is currently putting into sneakily trying to turn the american mess called Iraq into an international mess so the NATO and rest of the world can pay for Uncle Sam's bill and bone-headedness blocked by the "insignificant" France.

It is SO insignificant that it has been the cause of a few hundred miles of such hatred fueled reports in the past couple of years....
I must have read something different - which part was the bashing France part?

[fantassin]

Quote:

The key to France’s strategic ambition is therefore based solely on its permanent membership on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and, most importantly, the veto power that goes with it. Without its veto, France would lose its chief claim to geopolitical relevance, which is why it attaches so much prestige to its leading position at the U.N. (On its U.N. web page, the French government states that its “prominent role [in the world body] places important responsibilities on France.”)

But France was added as a permanent UNSC member not because that country played a leading role defeating Nazi Germany (it didn’t), but as a sop to Charles DeGaulle. (George Will <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/archive.shtml> called France’s post-war admission to the U.N.’s veto club, “psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.”) France’s permanent UNSC membership gives it power it did not earn and does not merit. It is an anachronism. But it’s not going away.


I suppose I should take that as glaring praises...?

[Tane Angle]

I have to be fair, budanski might not care for SG Annan much (I don't know how much I do myself), but the stoli is right, there isn't much in the way of France bashing in there, is there?

Edit: Ok, but budanski didn't say that on this thread, now did he?


When I think roosevelt wanted to give this seat to Brazil or India....
Just for the sake of the conversation - India does have something like 1/6th of the world's population, maybe they should get a slot? ;)

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[ibstolidude]

Quote:

The key to France’s strategic ambition is therefore based solely on its permanent membership on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and, most importantly, the veto power that goes with it. Without its veto, France would lose its chief claim to geopolitical relevance, which is why it attaches so much prestige to its leading position at the U.N. (On its U.N. web page, the French government states that its “prominent role [in the world body] places important responsibilities on France.”)

But France was added as a permanent UNSC member not because that country played a leading role defeating Nazi Germany (it didn’t), but as a sop to Charles DeGaulle. (George Will <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/archive.shtml> called France’s post-war admission to the U.N.’s veto club, “psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.”) France’s permanent UNSC membership gives it power it did not earn and does not merit. It is an anachronism. But it’s not going away.


I suppose I should take that as glaring praises...? Perhaps what you should understand is the differences between peoples usernames.

[fantassin]

If only India had not been under UK domination then, it could have happened....matter of a few years.

[moughoun]

I have to be fair, budanski might not care for SG Annan much (I don't know how much I do myself), but the stoli is right, there isn't much in the way of France bashing in there, is there?


When I think roosevelt wanted to give this seat to Brazil or India....
Just for the sake of the conversation - India does have something like 1/6th of the world's population, maybe they should get a slot? ;)

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

India will probably get one when the UNSC expands in I think 2 year's, but by then who'll care what the UNSC has to say about anything :|

[budanski]

If the Europeans believe so much in the European Union and United Nations, lets put your money where your mouth is. Seeing that two members of the Union holds a veto and UN mandates that each permanent member can only have one veto... who is willing to give up their veto and seat for the whole of the union?

[Tane Angle]

Ooh, that's a good point. I don't know about Great Britain being a full-fledged EU member, but will France's veto and slot go to the EU?

[budanski]

Stop it Tane, you're making me look bad among my peers by agreeing with me... ;)

[Tane Angle]

:oops: Oh, sorry bud. "President Bush smells bad." There, that should save us both some face. p-)

[moughoun]

If the Europeans believe so much in the European Union and United Nations, lets put your money where your mouth is. Seeing that two members of the Union holds a veto and UN mandates that each permanent member can only have one veto... who is willing to give up their veto and seat for the whole of the union?

Neither, and the German's might get a third...................for all it's worth :roll:

[alscho]

I have to be fair, budanski might not care for SG Annan much (I don't know how much I do myself), but the stoli is right, there isn't much in the way of France bashing in there, is there?

Edit: Ok, but budanski didn't say that on this thread, now did he?


When I think roosevelt wanted to give this seat to Brazil or India....
Just for the sake of the conversation - India does have something like 1/6th of the world's population, maybe they should get a slot? ;)

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

If poplation should determine who gets the veto on UNSC, the world would be breeding like mad.

[GrimmyRX]

I think American's are just tired of nonsense like this that occurs in the United Nations.


WASHINGTON - In an unexpected slap by a 53-nation council at the United Nations, the United States on Thursday was voted off the UN Human Rights Commission for the first time since it was established in 1947.

Singapore's delegate, Kishore Mahbubani, called the vote, taken by the Economic and Social Council, the umbrella group for the rights commission, "a stunning development," ******* reported from New York.

The embarrassing setback for the United States, which has long considered itself a leading defender of global human rights, apparently came partly at the hands of countries that have been frequent targets of U.S. rights criticism, such as China and Cuba.

But the balance apparently was tipped by European allies, in a first angry backlash against what some consider high-handed and unilateral actions by the administration of President George W. Bush and its predecessor.




Also, when America's alleged allies in Europe consistently vote against the USA in the UN Security Council; we wonder if it is just to obstruct for the sake of obstructing or due to more sinster motives.


According to the State Department's Voting Practices in the United Nations 2002, on votes important to U.S. interests, France and the U.K. voted with us just 50 percent of the time, Russia 22 percent, and China 20 percent. Overall, the General Assembly voted the U.S. position only 32 percent of the time on important issues.



Interesting Article by a US Congressman:


U.N. Freeloaders
Congressman J.D. Hayworth

In the run-up to the war against Saddam Hussein, we saw all too clearly the real goal of France in obstructing and sabotaging U.S. policy - to challenge U.S. global leadership and set itself up as the leader of a competing coalition.

By itself, France is incapable of countering or competing with the U.S. militarily or economically, and that situation will only grow worse as France faces a demographically-driven decline. The key to France’s strategic ambition is therefore based solely on its permanent membership on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and, most importantly, the veto power that goes with it. Without its veto, France would lose its chief claim to geopolitical relevance, which is why it attaches so much prestige to its leading position at the U.N. (On its U.N. web page, the French government states that its “prominent role [in the world body] places important responsibilities on France.”)

But France was added as a permanent UNSC member not because that country played a leading role defeating Nazi Germany (it didn’t), but as a sop to Charles DeGaulle. (George Will <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/archive.shtml> called France’s post-war admission to the U.N.’s veto club, “psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior.”) France’s permanent UNSC membership gives it power it did not earn and does not merit. It is an anachronism. But it’s not going away.

I don’t mean to pick on France, but its recent actions make it an easy target. The truth is, the entire Security Council regularly obstructs our foreign policy goals and permanent members regularly vote the opposite of the U.S.

According to the State Department’s Voting Practices in the United Nations 2002, on votes important to U.S. interests, France and the U.K. voted with us just 50 percent of the time, Russia 22 percent, and China 20 percent. Overall, the General Assembly voted the U.S. position only 32 percent of the time on important issues. Areas of specific disagreement include the Middle East, nuclear disarmament, some human rights issues, and the International Criminal Court.

Perhaps most revealing is the fact that even at a paltry 50 percent, the U.K. and France are among the top ten in voting coincidence with the U. S. And the trend is going down, not up. Who are our biggest supporters at the U.N.? Palau (100 percent), the Marshall Islands (89 percent), and Israel (85 percent).

What makes all this even more galling is that even though the U.S. has no more power on the Security Council than any of the other four permanent members, it pays the lion’s share of the U.N. budget.

Indeed, even though the combined GDP of the other permanent members nearly equals that of the U.S., the U.S. contributes about $115 million dollars more to the U.N. regular budget than those four countries combined.

What’s more, U.N. dues are supposed to be based on ability to pay. Yet there are a dozen countries that in 2003 will pay more in dues than China’s $24 million even though it now has the world’s second largest economy. The Chinese are clearly getting a lot of bang for their U.N. buck. So are the Russians. Their 2003 assessment is a paltry $19 million, less than Canada, Holland, Australia, and tiny Switzerland.
I am therefore introducing legislation in the House that would limit the U.S. contribution to the regular U.N. budget to no more than the highest amount paid by any other permanent UNSC member. The rationale is simple: Our veto power should cost us no more than what China, France, Russia, or the U.K. pay for theirs.

The U.S.’s 2003 assessment for the U.N. regular budget is $341 million. Under my bill, we would pay no more than France, which has been assessed the second-highest amount, or $100 million. This proposal would not affect U.S. payments to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations, voluntary programs, or membership organizations. It would only affect the U.N. regular budget. Even at this reduced amount the U.S. would still contribute over $1.4 billion to various U.N. programs, far more than any other country.

Aside from simple equity, enactment of my bill would hopefully lead to a reconsideration of how U.N. dues are assessed among permanent members. China and Russia are now essentially getting a free ride at our expense. The solution would be for all permanent members to pay equal amounts of the regular budget because of their veto power. France and the U.K. would have to pay a little more, Russia and China a lot more, the U.S. a lot less.

A debate over dues could also prompt a broader discussion on U.N. reform. The outrages are not limited to the meltdown over Iraq. Cuba began its recent crackdown on dissidents as the U.N.’s Human Rights Commission was holding its annual meeting in Geneva. It promptly elected Cuba to another three-year term, an act author Carl Hiaasen wrote was “a little like naming a necktie after the Boston Strangler.” The commission is headed by Libya and includes some of the worst abusers of human rights in the world, including Vietnam, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

If the U.N. does not reform itself, it risks becoming, in the words of Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, another “Red Cross.” The U.N. can become relevant again, but whether it does so will ultimately rest on the goodwill and magnanimity of the five permanent UNSC members who can block any reform with a veto.

As we have learned, U.N. reform takes time. Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, in 1984. It took 18 years for UNESCO to implement sufficient reforms for the U.S. to return (some even question whether the reforms were enough). More fundamental reform could take even longer.

In the meantime, if the French aspire to greatness, let them pay a little more for it.

Of course their tired of it, EVERYONE is tired of stuff like that. But that kind of thing happens in every single beaurocrasy.

[GrimmyRX]

You know what the difference between a UN mission and a PMC operation is?

About 500 miles of paperwork and 100 more restrictions.

Do you know why?

Because no country in the world wants to lose soldiers in a UN Stabilization Mission. NO country, period.

But hey, keep on blaming an organisation that keeps on trying instead of looking at your own country and wondering about what sort of objections and restrictions they put forward when asked the question: "What would it take for you to join the UN?"

When the UN fails, it means but one thing, YOU'VE failed. What is the UN but all of our countries?

So yes, when the UN attempts to do something and fails, it's because of every single member-state's lack of will and co-operation.

It is, after all, a multinational operation dependant apon the support of it's member states to allow it to achive either a degree of success or failure.

So when you say "the UN has failed" you're saying "Canada has failed, America has failed, Britian has failed, Russia has failed, Australia has failed, France has failed, Germany has failed, Norway has failed, Mexico has failed, Isreal has failed, etc."
Lets blame everyone except the leadership. It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries. If it were as you said up to the member nations that were responsible sending in peacekeepers, wouldnt you think they would've been in Iraq today keeping the peace on the request of two of its permanent members?

No, I don't believe that there would have been, as Russia, France and China would have probably said no. It's NIMBY all over again.. although, I suppose NOMSDIOPW ( :lol: ) (None of MY soldiers dieing in other people's war) would be more appropreate.


It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries.

Again, the UN fails when it is met by a lack of support from it's member countries. Thank you for arguing my point for me.


The UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were a conglomeration of African and Asian troops on foreign territory who couldn't communicate with each other. They not only failed to keep the peace but managed to get 500 of themselves taken hostage. Perhaps it was better for them to just turn tail than to send an inadequate force.

Given into this idea of an international force, Annan sent troops with too little experience, too little in common in terms of culture or training, and too little equipment and preparation.

Ok, so, who else was willing to go? Me thinks that if Canada, Britian, et al, were willing to go, Mr. Annan would have sent them, eh?

Since we were not, or not able to, he had to send SOMETHING. Better to try and to fail and be condemned, than to do nothing, fail, and be condemned.


Instead of resolving conflicts in some cases, the UN aggravates them.

Give me some cases of this so I can look it up and get back to you on it.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Better to try and to fail and be condemned, than to do nothing, fail, and be condemned.


Isnt that the arguement used for justification of Iraq?

[Deuterium]

You know what the difference between a UN mission and a PMC operation is?

About 500 miles of paperwork and 100 more restrictions.

Do you know why?

Because no country in the world wants to lose soldiers in a UN Stabilization Mission. NO country, period.

But hey, keep on blaming an organisation that keeps on trying instead of looking at your own country and wondering about what sort of objections and restrictions they put forward when asked the question: "What would it take for you to join the UN?"

When the UN fails, it means but one thing, YOU'VE failed. What is the UN but all of our countries?

So yes, when the UN attempts to do something and fails, it's because of every single member-state's lack of will and co-operation.

It is, after all, a multinational operation dependant apon the support of it's member states to allow it to achive either a degree of success or failure.

So when you say "the UN has failed" you're saying "Canada has failed, America has failed, Britian has failed, Russia has failed, Australia has failed, France has failed, Germany has failed, Norway has failed, Mexico has failed, Isreal has failed, etc."
Lets blame everyone except the leadership. It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries. If it were as you said up to the member nations that were responsible sending in peacekeepers, wouldnt you think they would've been in Iraq today keeping the peace on the request of two of its permanent members?

No, I don't believe that there would have been, as Russia, France and China would have probably said no. It's NIMBY all over again.. although, I suppose NOMSDIOPW ( :lol: ) (None of MY soldiers dieing in other people's war) would be more appropreate.


It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries.

Again, the UN fails when it is met by a lack of support from it's member countries. Thank you for arguing my point for me.


The UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were a conglomeration of African and Asian troops on foreign territory who couldn't communicate with each other. They not only failed to keep the peace but managed to get 500 of themselves taken hostage. Perhaps it was better for them to just turn tail than to send an inadequate force.

Given into this idea of an international force, Annan sent troops with too little experience, too little in common in terms of culture or training, and too little equipment and preparation.

Ok, so, who else was willing to go? Me thinks that if Canada, Britian, et al, were willing to go, Mr. Annan would have sent them, eh?

Since we were not, or not able to, he had to send SOMETHING. Better to try and to fail and be condemned, than to do nothing, fail, and be condemned.


Instead of resolving conflicts in some cases, the UN aggravates them.

Give me some cases of this so I can look it up and get back to you on it.

UN troops allowed the slaughter at Srebrenica. That kind of aggravated the situation a little bit.

The ONLY time the UN does a good job is when the waring factions have already decided they would like to end the conflict. In those cases the UN does an admirable job. The UN does a horrible job when they are tasked to end a conflict or step in between two or three factions that want to continue fighting.

[Secret Squirrel]

UN troops allowed the slaughter at Srebrenica. That kind of aggravated the situation a little bit.

The ONLY time the UN does a good job is when the waring factions have already decided they would like to end the conflict. In those cases the UN does an admirable job. The UN does a horrible job when they are tasked to end a conflict or step in between two or three factions that want to continue fighting.

Theres a short piece about Srebrenica here...
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/peacekeepers.html

[Deuterium]

Thanks for the backup.

[GrimmyRX]

Better to try and to fail and be condemned, than to do nothing, fail, and be condemned.


Isnt that the arguement used for justification of Iraq?

*Shrug* the words "Lies" and "WMD" make no place in that sentance, :lol: (Yes yes, before some monkey jumps on my back, I t'was making a joke.)

[GrimmyRX]

You know what the difference between a UN mission and a PMC operation is?

About 500 miles of paperwork and 100 more restrictions.

Do you know why?

Because no country in the world wants to lose soldiers in a UN Stabilization Mission. NO country, period.

But hey, keep on blaming an organisation that keeps on trying instead of looking at your own country and wondering about what sort of objections and restrictions they put forward when asked the question: "What would it take for you to join the UN?"

When the UN fails, it means but one thing, YOU'VE failed. What is the UN but all of our countries?

So yes, when the UN attempts to do something and fails, it's because of every single member-state's lack of will and co-operation.

It is, after all, a multinational operation dependant apon the support of it's member states to allow it to achive either a degree of success or failure.

So when you say "the UN has failed" you're saying "Canada has failed, America has failed, Britian has failed, Russia has failed, Australia has failed, France has failed, Germany has failed, Norway has failed, Mexico has failed, Isreal has failed, etc."
Lets blame everyone except the leadership. It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries. If it were as you said up to the member nations that were responsible sending in peacekeepers, wouldnt you think they would've been in Iraq today keeping the peace on the request of two of its permanent members?

No, I don't believe that there would have been, as Russia, France and China would have probably said no. It's NIMBY all over again.. although, I suppose NOMSDIOPW ( :lol: ) (None of MY soldiers dieing in other people's war) would be more appropreate.


It is the Secretariat who was muzzling itself and for approving missions that don't have enough support from member countries.

Again, the UN fails when it is met by a lack of support from it's member countries. Thank you for arguing my point for me.


The UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were a conglomeration of African and Asian troops on foreign territory who couldn't communicate with each other. They not only failed to keep the peace but managed to get 500 of themselves taken hostage. Perhaps it was better for them to just turn tail than to send an inadequate force.

Given into this idea of an international force, Annan sent troops with too little experience, too little in common in terms of culture or training, and too little equipment and preparation.

Ok, so, who else was willing to go? Me thinks that if Canada, Britian, et al, were willing to go, Mr. Annan would have sent them, eh?

Since we were not, or not able to, he had to send SOMETHING. Better to try and to fail and be condemned, than to do nothing, fail, and be condemned.


Instead of resolving conflicts in some cases, the UN aggravates them.

Give me some cases of this so I can look it up and get back to you on it.

UN troops allowed the slaughter at Srebrenica. That kind of aggravated the situation a little bit.

The ONLY time the UN does a good job is when the waring factions have already decided they would like to end the conflict. In those cases the UN does an admirable job. The UN does a horrible job when they are tasked to end a conflict or step in between two or three factions that want to continue fighting.

Again, this only emphasises the lack of willpower that some countries have when acting under the UN.

Of course, that French UN commander shoulders a lot of the blame as well for his refusal to let the airstrikes go foward.

But hey, when the National troops have the will, things sometimes turn out alittle better (ie: the Medak Pocket, yes yes, not the best example of a UN mission gone totally right, but it's not a totally bad example either).

[tuckerhat]

Perhaps if everyone was to give more support to the UN, instead of wanting the UN to fail so they could be right ,then there might be some progress made in the Sudan.

I see where you're coming from... but in the end the UN will never work. Its vision of an international forum is too idyllic. ~equality (minus sec. council veto) between G8 nations and developing nations. Not to mention its inability to enforce its resolutions.

But you're right, people don't support the UN enough. One only has to look at the %GDP each member state contributes.

[Deuterium]

Again, this only emphasises the lack of willpower that some countries have when acting under the UN.

Of course, that French UN commander shoulders a lot of the blame as well for his refusal to let the airstrikes go foward.

But hey, when the National troops have the will, things sometimes turn out alittle better (ie: the Medak Pocket, yes yes, not the best example of a UN mission gone totally right, but it's not a totally bad example either).

And that is why the UN can't work in it's current configuration.

[Roger Rabbit]

Again, this only emphasises the lack of willpower that some countries have when acting under the UN.

Of course, that French UN commander shoulders a lot of the blame as well for his refusal to let the airstrikes go foward.

But hey, when the National troops have the will, things sometimes turn out alittle better (ie: the Medak Pocket, yes yes, not the best example of a UN mission gone totally right, but it's not a totally bad example either).

And that is why the UN can't work in it's current configuration.

How do you think the UN should be changed to make it more effective?

[GrimmyRX]

Give it it's own Military force that answers to no one but the SC. (There would be checks and balances of course, to make sure this force wouldn't be misused) and give it more reasources.

Also, give it a lot more power inside it's member states.

Blacky Al-Redneck over in Buttfukastan decides to start a genocide on the other side of the political specturm and all those that support it inside his country; have it so that the SC can send in (Insert name of UN Special forces unit here) and stop him cold.

Also, maybe lessen the power of the SC over the UN.