UNOD
United Nations of Democracies.
Despots and Dictators need not apply. They can still play and talk over in the big, unfunded U.N. (of everybody).
...or maybe Jesus will do it as his first item of business upon his second coming... LMAO!
I was going to suggest that it relocate to Paris or geneva, and stop efing up the traffic in midtown.
But I was beaten to the punch by GOPGeezer! Damn, now THAT's ignominious [LOL].
bribe taking, arrogant SOBs... who are now so lazy that they let those with absolutely NO human rights or democratic achievements run what? the world? sheese... what a bloated festering mess.... Yea, I have the perfect place for the UN.... Baghdad or Sarajavo - or even better... Addis Ababa.... let them see first hand how their inept activities harm folks...
Why should these thugs be treated to the good life in the US... while most of their fellow third world friends deal with less than human treatment?
get them out. make them walk the walk.
The UN wasn't too powerless or corrupt till the US stopped paying its dues.
So, now are we happier with the UN, or with the world?
The reason we quit was because of the corruption! more money was NOT nor has MORE MONEY EVER made a corrupt organization honest EVER! in the ever lovin history of mankind.
While no love for the UN, the reason we "quit" was, for a period of about 30 years [appx 1960-90], the poolitical alliances at the UN [Soviet bloc, third world, and the Arabs] effectively kept the US from gettings it's way, and pretty much all we could do was veto stuff in the Security Council. To further pile on, and to further shoot itself in both feet, the perception that the UN was devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy and resources to "ganging up" on Israel [a pursuit beloved second only to denouncing the US] was tailor-made to play into the hands of those US political types who never cared for the UN or any other multilateral org the US could not dominate. This launched/sustained more than a few misbegotten electoral careers in the US. Zin metions Jesse Helms, I would add the late Danuel Moynihan to that list.
Here's an example of the difference. Have you EVER heard a demand that the US withdraw from the IMF? Nope, never. And here's why : IMF voting is weighted, with 85% approval necessary to do anything. The US vote, last time I looked, accounted for 17.11%, giving our enlightened gov't an absolute veto over anything and everything the IMF might want to do.
The main prob, methinks, was that the UN was oversold way back in 1945. The poor saps in our country really believed that this was an organization able to prevent war and other int'l political ugliness. Ah, time to head to the library and check our a few books on int'l politics.
All that said, I still would not be heartbroken to see the UN decamp to friendlier climes. But for the US to continue to play as active a role as posssible. I mentioned Paris and Geneva as two obvious possibilities. What the hell, I suspect the quality of life in those two burgs far surpasses anything in NYC. At the very least, notions of proper public deportment and consideation for strangers with whom you temporarily share a public space remain far superiodr to the benighted and invincible ignorance holding swy, unfortunately, in the Big Apple.
it was poorly set up and established. If you want to really delve into origins... let's go back to early 1920s and the "League of Nations." Many of the problems that are inherent in the UN were also a part of the league. However, notable was the failure of such an organization to do the very thing it was designed to do, namely to prevent war on a global scale. Mostly, the League and the UN are headed and staffed by folks who have good intentions, but are led by corrupt or inept politicians.
I am NOT stating that the US is a bastion of right, but really - would you wish to live in 3/4 of the world? There are countries that I have visited that I truly love - but would I wish to live there? These places are pretty much as free as are we, but there are subtle differences... we have so much freedom - if you travel and work in another country, you see it.
I would say that the UN SHOULD move to less hospitable environs... (by the way, I do agree with you about Geneva - but not about Paris). Let them proclaim that as the FIRST place to improve. And as I offer, it should be an area of strife (in fact, the HQ of the UN should rotate by where it is needed most!)
And as you say, in 1945 the world was a very different place. just think... the soviets were our friends.... yea- right.
as to the IMF... well, I have issues with that as well. and the Hague... and other such orgs. but what the hey!
so back to your point... let's face it, the UN became more and more hostile to the US - and as you point out more and more anti-Israel (a state that the UN established ironically!). And while I would be OK without an Israel, I know that granting the militant Muslims the abolition of Israel would no more quench their thirst for the extermination of the infidels than would a ban on handguns make it safe to go hunting with Dick Cheney. Lets face it, a whole lot of people find it more gratifying to hate and destroy that love and build. What those that embrace the UN and a leftist lean fail to realize is that those people exploit the good in others. They use organizations such as the UN as their pulpit to say to the world – “see, we’re not the bad dudes… the US is….” And why do they do that? To buy time, to grow stronger… much as tyrants have done since the cave dudes clobbered each other.
Sad, we are chastised by the UN for the slightest offense... and yet - many of the members of the UN do stuff - like cut off hands as a punishment - or worse with no outcry for accountability from our media… the loudest trumpet on the planet. Why the silence? Why is it ok to piss on a crucifix, but ya can’t even have a cartoon of the Prophet? Why is that? Cause the chicken-shits that they are – they are afraid. And they have no sense of fairness…. Only prejudice.
But there I go again. Sad, sad, sad, little racist and tiresome maggot that so many have labeled me! Ironic, I am often attacked by the right just as oft as the left. In the late 60s, I was part of a military student organization. We requested a meeting with Nixon. We were rejected because we were too polar…. Young officers in the military… and the pres wouldn’t even give us the time of day…. Yea, I love this country, but our leaders? What leaders? I see opportunists who only want to grab with both hands… sorry, call em as I see em… but as bad as our guys are – look elsewhere, look at the bribery and thievery at the UN! They have elevated that to an art form.
So XI, yea, there was a bit of that, but there was a bit of corruption and the US having to slog out all over the world to clean up the mess… kinda like we are doing now… just don’t think we need the public degradation of being associated with such a corrupt organization… you know corruption is contagious.
Now, maybe it would have failed anyway. . . but let's face it, it was too weak.
The UN was set up for the world of the Cold War. I would say like NATO, it's pretty much of a dinosaur. Unless you recognize that, set up a different body with different rules, and disband the old body, it's not going to function well in a with globalization. I think a functional world organization is essential. Until we put that together, I'm afraid we have to hobble along
The problem you give about evil people is true of any legislative body. Remember, that for 80 years of this Republic, there were the slave states. And it was against the rules of Congress to even discuss slavery on a Congressional floor. Moreover, due to the 3/5s rule, white southerners had a disproportionate voice in House-- which was then the most important branch of government.
And then we had the years of lynchings, and still the neo-confederates had control of most every committee in Congress, while they bandied about some very unkind words for the North.
When I point this out, I'm not arguing that the US is wrong, I'm just stating that there's a certain problem inherent in representative organizations-- and there's no scientific test for evil, but there are absolutely concrete beliefs about it. Generally, though, the evil people suffer the delusion that they are good people. If you're going to declare somebody "evil" in such an organization, you have to put together a coalition. Now that's frustrating.
Aside from the communist countries, the fact that other countries criticized the US and not say, Libya or Bangladesh, mostly showed higher expectations. Just like with Wall Street, if investors expect 8 percent profits and the company comes in with 5 percent, the company gets punished. Why, what did it do wrong? Nothing. People just expected better.
It's when our country does terrible things and nobody notices anymore that we should worry.
Now about your statement about Israel not quenching militant Muslim's thirst for violence, but that's not the point I see. Does it gain the militants' in recruitment? You bet it does. If their recruitment falls and stays low. You can isolate them.
UNOD
United Nations of Democracies.
Despots and Dictators need not apply. They can still play and talk over in the big, unfunded U.N. (of everybody).
Why are we all being so impatient with Iraq?
It looks like it's probably going to be 80 years, if ever. We don't have the resources in terms of soldiers, material and money for that kind project. That is going to cost much more than the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program put together. In terms of dead soldiers and ruined lives, it will be much higher than Vietnam.
At the end, we will get nothing out of it.
which would be worth 80 yrs. or 300 years... to see through.... but this is not one of them.. at least NOT the way that we are going about it...
Maybe if there HAD been more shooting going on here, or more conflict about slavery, it wouldn't have had to end the way it did in the 1860's?
Certainly we can't and won't support what is going on in Iraq for 80 years, but to end it now (the way the left proposes) is very premature.
We DID end slavery. And it was a southern demo who got the civil rights bill enacted (Johnson). Most southern cities have had or have a black mayor. Can the same be said for Minneapolis? or Boston?
no? then shut up about the South. That part is over. and for the record, I am a southerner. But my family was composed of coal miners... the next best thing to a slave. That's right... we owned NO SLAVES! got it! Not everyone in the south is or was a slave owner. But while we are on the topic of slavery - why do you suppose it was tolerated for as long as it was in the US? because it gave us an economic advantage. that is why.
as far as unkind words for the north- ever hear of CARPETBAGGERS!???????? guess not. guess they don't teach that in SoCal... too truthful and real. Most of the unkind words I hear uttered are about the south... about how stupid and ignorant they ALL are (black or white).
WRT to the UN... remember it was set up - as I posted previously when the soviets were our buddies... we had just defeated the Nazis.... and all was hugs and kisses... or did you forget that little period of history? You know - the part where we GAVE THEM FRICKIN EASTERN your-a-peeings
WRT higher expectations? you really believe that? get over it... they don't have higher expectations... governments the world over cheer when we screw up. people actually chant in the streets when an american is killed. Get over your aroma thearpy induced haze - wake up - and smell the coffee - they are out to get us. lots of em. they hate freedom.
How much insulting ignorance should I fairly assume for readers here then? You're just being prickly, Bizzaro. As you have been continually about my posts recently.
Moreover, as I thought I made clear, and perhaps clearer if you had given it a more careful reading, (but perhaps it just pisses you off anyway) the purpose wasn't to say America is/was bad. It was just to illustrate how extreme compromises can get in any deliberative body. I might have named instead the pre-Imperial Roman Republic or Poland of the 17th Century. Yeah, I'm certain that would have been clear to other readers here.
But now that you've rudely told me to shut up about the South, thus pissing me off: It took some 87 years to end slavery. If you then count Jim Crow/Lynching era, that's about another one, that's a hundred more years. So, 187 out of 230 years of US history in which our principal deliberative body tolerated "evil." So, to judge by years alone, how deep does our "color blind" heritage really go? If we've truly now accomplished a racially neutral culture, how and where did people change their thinking? Perhaps in the worst school system in the industrialized world?
Quit turning what should have been a simple convenient example understood by everyone into a personal and regional insult. What I gave you there was fair-game: history.
About Carpetbaggers: no, the South had some very unkind words for Northerners long before that. That predates the Civil War. That goes back entirely through the 19th century. Either way, you can't say that the North's occupation of the South was inhumane. Not by any standards before or since. It definitely wasn't nearly equal the treatment the South gave to slaves. No way.
Moreover, the main response Southerners had to Carpetbaggers was to take it out on the former slaves in the form beatings and lynchings.
My ancestors on my fathers side fought for the Confederacy under Nathan Bedford Forest-- who was a remarkable soldier. Forest was also the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. If you go back earlier, my ancestors were on the original ship of colonists who founded Maryland. Not that one should have to give credentials to be allowed to talk about the South. I'll speak about the South however I want, whenever I want.
As for the Soviets being friends: No way did Truman or Churchill think that way about it. Maybe Roosevelt took action to create the UN (while his brain was dying) but the leaders afterward were the ones who enacted it. It could have been modified then.
However, no worldwide deliberative body then could have excluded the Soviet Union. Period. No way shape or form. Forming it that way was a compromise with evil. WW2 itself was a compromise with evil to kill a greater evil. However, the first major UN action was against a communist country.
You're right, some countries in the world do cheer when we screw up. That's not the full story, though. I think most have high expectations. So, it gets magnified. That's an exact expression of what I believe about it.
About coal miners: terrible work. I'm surprised you came from that heritage to become a conservative. You embrace the South but become a conservative? So what are you conserving?
For this one I won't get into the situation my parents and grandparents lived in. They didn't thrive in the late industrial age either.
-- Modified on 4/16/2007 8:47:52 PM
We didn't like the way they were voting, and the South, especially thought it was too much of a sacrifice of sovereignty. That's what I remember from the time. The argument about corruption came in much later.
I will note that one thing that very much contributes to corruption is demoralization. No more money, no more successes, later loss of impartiality = demoralization.
Corruption came in many forms. Remember H C Lodge at the UN - with the US seal that was given to the US embassy in Moscow - with a bug in it? remember the globalization of nuclear weapons (in Cuba)? Remember the Berlin air lift? these were all things done inspite of the UN in the 40s, late 50s... and early 60s....
These were all acts of a corrupt organization that turned its head when certain parties did specific things. So sorry, but it was corrupt to begin with - why? because it was hoped that when put together it would be a way for the You're-a-peeings to hold on to their colonial empires... no mistake of the security councils permanant occupants....
And by the way... Why should we pay, when other nations don't! oh, so sorry, we're supposed to feed the world, free the slaves, clean up the environment, cure diseases and do all this good stuff... while what? the rest of the world lets us pay? What? we on a civie date here?
sheese...
And I should mention sexual exploitation as well.
I could only say, your expectations are too fucking high, and your thoughts about corruption are too general. To me, espionage is not corruption. It sounds like you're putting anything objectionable in that category.
About Berlin, with Europe still a crumbling ruin, what would a UN Resolution have done? Who else could have done anything anyway?
Now, I don't have good information here so I'm just guessing, but I don't believe the French asked for UN help keeping Algeria or South East Asia. Nor did Britain ask for help in India. Belgium left the Congo despite anything the UN said. If it was meant for Europeans to keep their colonies, it seems to have not been used for that purpose. Not like, say, the League of Nations, who didn't have that as its Charter but was definitely used for that purpose.
-- Modified on 4/16/2007 9:31:40 PM
they are so focused on the wrong things... and they are easily bought off.
The cry of the hurt and harmed... is deafening. and folks in this country who suppor the UN - just really do not have a clue... it is a corrupt organization that provides minimal to no benefit to those who need it most. it is false hope.
I pray every night that it will be moved out of the US. It comes as close to evil as I can conceive an organization coming. How could it have stood by while Saddam tortured his people... and raped his women? and now you wish to criticize us for not paying more to look even further away?
-- Modified on 4/15/2007 11:18:00 PM