But it's always the USA who tends to the needs of those in the far more difficult situations. Did we not liberate the Iraqis from the evil tyrant who gassed his own people? Come back to me with some real and meaningful achievements....apollo_fi wrote:
The U.N. does do more than just 'pretend'. It has a solid track record in nation-building:ATG wrote:
The difference is that the U.S. gets things done. The U.N. just pretends.apollo_fi wrote:
That's a valid point, of course. But then, if you deem every inefficient and corrupt organisation unnecessary, you're not left with much, are you?
For instance, let's compare the efficiency of UN peacekeeping vs. US peacekeeping from a fiscal point of view:
According to a recent study, a US-run peacekeeping operation is twice as expensive as a UN-run operation.
Getting things done is more expensive than expoiting the situation, which is a lot of what the U.N. is all about.
Namibia 1989–1990
El Salvador 1991–1996
Mozambique 1992–1994
Eastern Slavonia 1995–1998
East Timor 1999–present
These are examples of UN-led peacekeeping and nation-building efforts that have been successful. Read more in the source document.
Really?ATG wrote:
The difference is that the U.S. gets things done. The U.N. just pretends.apollo_fi wrote:
That's a valid point, of course. But then, if you deem every inefficient and corrupt organisation unnecessary, you're not left with much, are you?Stingray24 wrote:
If it's inefficient and corrupt it become unnecessary in my opinion.
For instance, let's compare the efficiency of UN peacekeeping vs. US peacekeeping from a fiscal point of view:
According to a recent study, a US-run peacekeeping operation is twice as expensive as a UN-run operation.
Getting things done is more expensive than expoiting the situation, which is a lot of what the U.N. is all about.
I hadn't noticed US peacekeeping troops getting much done. From what I remember the UN have a far better peacekeeping record than the US, whose recent successes in Iraq and Afghanistan have been most impressive.
It is a example of a democracy thats full of politicians who only think of them selfs. That is why a republic works better then a democracy. UN FTL.
The UN is FAR FAR FAR from a democracy. Ever heard of the security council? Ever heard of the power of veto? The UN is bullshit.Commie Killer wrote:
It is a example of a democracy thats full of politicians who only think of them selfs. That is why a republic works better then a democracy. UN FTL.
You just summed up all forms of governmentapollo_fi wrote:
How touchingly UNanimous...
But I disagree with y'all. Inefficient? Yes. Corrupt? Yes.
Necessary? You betcha.
And i agree, it is a necessity, every large body is going to have some kind of corruption and inefficiency, especially when it is a conglomerate of not just government bodies as an example, but of nations, I think that simply saying "omg UN sucks" is a pretty narrow viewpoint, as is writing off all the good that the organization has done, sure its got problems but it also has its uses, aka peacekeeping
Last edited by Barney_T_Dinosaur (2007-01-16 14:48:42)
Real & meaningful stuff? OK...CyrusTheVirus wrote:
But it's always the USA who tends to the needs of those in the far more difficult situations. Did we not liberate the Iraqis from the evil tyrant who gassed his own people? Come back to me with some real and meaningful achievements....apollo_fi wrote:
The U.N. does do more than just 'pretend'. It has a solid track record in nation-building:ATG wrote:
The difference is that the U.S. gets things done. The U.N. just pretends.
Getting things done is more expensive than expoiting the situation, which is a lot of what the U.N. is all about.
Namibia 1989–1990
El Salvador 1991–1996
Mozambique 1992–1994
Eastern Slavonia 1995–1998
East Timor 1999–present
These are examples of UN-led peacekeeping and nation-building efforts that have been successful. Read more in the source document.
Does the U.N. 1966 moon landing ring a bell?
Thought so. The UN beat the US to the moon by three years. This historic event was first ridiculed by the US, and later all traces of the news were systematically erased. Full details of the landing and the cover-up have been recovered only recently.
Caveat: if the link above doesn't work, try again regularly. The NSA keeps removing this from Wikipedia, but brave individuals risk life and limb putting it back up again. The important part is to keep clicking the link.
...
Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-01-16 15:51:28)
Yet you wished for its intervention in Iraq?? Hmmm if it is so bullshit, then the USA did the right thing and attack without its consent Afghanistan/Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
The UN is FAR FAR FAR from a democracy. Ever heard of the security council? Ever heard of the power of veto? The UN is bullshit.Commie Killer wrote:
It is a example of a democracy thats full of politicians who only think of them selfs. That is why a republic works better then a democracy. UN FTL.
I agree with you Cameron the UN IS BULLSHIT, and has been for years!!
The UN dragged its heals in Iraq because France and Germany had huge oil contracts with Saddam, and didnt want them voided if he was taken out of power. . . .
The UN couldn't decide what take out food they wanted at lunch time. . . not too mention what tip to leave! They do know one thing, and thats know who to charge the lunch bill to. . . .the American public.
Its a shameful, ineffective, corrupt, bullshit organization that I hope gets disbanded for another system of global cooperation.
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-01-17 02:03:18)
Right, like investigating the very incident they've been charged over.ATG wrote:
The difference is that the U.S. gets things done. The U.N. just pretends.apollo_fi wrote:
That's a valid point, of course. But then, if you deem every inefficient and corrupt organisation unnecessary, you're not left with much, are you?Stingray24 wrote:
If it's inefficient and corrupt it become unnecessary in my opinion.
For instance, let's compare the efficiency of UN peacekeeping vs. US peacekeeping from a fiscal point of view:
According to a recent study, a US-run peacekeeping operation is twice as expensive as a UN-run operation.
Getting things done is more expensive than expoiting the situation, which is a lot of what the U.N. is all about.
Oh, wait..................
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yes, your right... 2 of the most corrupt governments on the planet are perment members on the security counselSpark wrote:
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
Oh right! the US, UK and France are squeeky clean?SgtHeihn wrote:
Yes, your right... 2 of the most corrupt governments on the planet are perment members on the security counselSpark wrote:
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
No, just a little better at covering their tracks!!m3thod wrote:
Oh right! the US, UK and France are squeeky clean?SgtHeihn wrote:
Yes, your right... 2 of the most corrupt governments on the planet are perment members on the security counselSpark wrote:
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
Here is a thought, how can we improve the UN...debate this please since comments for the most part here have been "the UN is the suck"....well how can it be better.
I think we get the idea that for the most part people here don't like the UN.
I think we get the idea that for the most part people here don't like the UN.
remove the security council.Fen321 wrote:
Here is a thought, how can we improve the UN...debate this please since comments for the most part here have been "the UN is the suck"....well how can it be better.
I think we get the idea that for the most part people here don't like the UN.
No vetos.
Those that take unilateral action are punished.
If that doesn't work, Tomahawk Missles here 40°44′58″N, 73°58′5″W
Last edited by m3thod (2007-01-17 07:35:48)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Point of order! I never wished for its intervention in Iraq!fadedsteve wrote:
Yet you wished for its intervention in Iraq?? Hmmm if it is so bullshit, then the USA did the right thing and attack without its consent Afghanistan/Iraq.
I think the only UN success I can think of was the creation of the coalition forces during the first Gulf War. If the UN operated like that all the damn time, I wouldn't have a problem.
The USA is by far and away the leader at vetoing motions followed by the UK and then France. Yes the UN is bloody useless these days because succesive US governments have set about undermining and destroying the UN from the inside.SgtHeihn wrote:
Yes, your right... 2 of the most corrupt governments on the planet are perment members on the security counselSpark wrote:
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
Its interesting though that someone mentioned East Timor as an example of UN forces doing good. After all they were cleaning up the mess left by General Suharto, a US backed dictator who killed 100,000 of his own people. Lets not forget the US's old friend, the late Saddam Hussein either while we are about it. The idea of the US keeping the world a safer place is insane. They are the most selfish nation in the world when it comes to foreign policy and global politics.
As for my sources try reading 'Rogue States' by Noam Chomsky
fuckin' AElamdri wrote:
I think the only UN success I can think of was the creation of the coalition forces during the first Gulf War. If the UN operated like that all the damn time, I wouldn't have a problem.
Noam Chomsky is a left wing hack activist. . . give me a break! He hates the US. . .fuck him!
Thats like saying all my literary sources are from Michael Savage. . . .give me a break!
Thats like saying all my literary sources are from Michael Savage. . . .give me a break!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-01-17 17:13:07)
Well, The Russians do have arms to sell to the countries that are often up for sanctions.Spark wrote:
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The US sells to Israel and they have more sanctions against them than anyone else...Kmarion wrote:
Well, The Russians do have arms to sell to the countries that are often up for sanctions.Spark wrote:
I find it interesting that everyone blames the UN for the recent stagnation, when every time a controversial resolution is brought up these days it seems to be:
"China vetoes..."
"Russia vetoes..."
"China raises concerns..."
"Russia raises concerns..."
I think the UN would get a lot more done if these two nations weren't so protective of their trading partners.