In this link here:
http://www.getusout.org/
Its claimed that the U.N. is bad, and will make Americans lose lots of its rights, including that of being able to try citizens in our own courts, etc.
What exactly has the U.N. done since its inception?
Has it done good for world peace?
Whats bad about it?
thank you.
The UN has provided a forum for nations to try and voice their disputes with other nations without the necessity of going to war.
It has given a voice to smaller or less powerful countries.
It has facillitated multilateral dialogue on such varied issues as Development, Disarmament, Human Rights, and Security conerns.
It holds countries accountable to their own people and to the international community for their actions.
Yup, I’d say that it’s pretty good.
The bullshit on that site is amazing. Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to believe any of it.
ummmm. ok… . whatever.
The UN was founded with the best of intentions. IMHO it was good when it began, but it has deteriorated a lot. A clique of totalitarian nations wields more and more power. Ulimately it’s hard for the UN to be any better than it’s member countries, but it’s easy for it to be worse. It’s hard for me to think of any actions taken by the General Assembly or Security Council that have actually done any good in the last 10 years.
Some of the sub-agencies are good. The World Health Organization does an exellent job and UNICEF does many good things. OTOH UNESCO has long done more harm than good, and it’s now worse than ever.
Aside from not doing much useful good, the UN is inefficient and wasteful and corrupt in small ways.
I wish there were some way to re-structure the UN to make it more effective, but that’s not in the cards. Given that the UN cannot be improved or replaced, I think it’s worth keeping, but just barely.
Really, what clique is that, december old man? And what substantive facts do you have to support this? Please do note in advance substantive facts should include a full contexualization (e.g. 3 bad acts should be weighted according to the number of overall actions. But then you should know this.)
Well, the phrase begins accurately enough, but one does have to question the basis of your “thoughts” – might I suggest your evaluation of http://www.un.org/Docs/scinfo.htm especially in regards to the specific actions cited therin?
I’m afraid I can’t shake the impression that yours is an argument from ignorance.
With all due respect, this explains more about your memory and biases than it reveals about the UN.
Just four months ago, free elections were held in Sierra Leone after ten years of astoundingly brutal civil war. These elections were made possible by the arrival of a multilateral UN peacekeeping force two years ago, which systematically destroyed the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) and jailed its insane leader, Foday Sankoh. Now Sierra Leone houses the UN’s largest peacekeeping operation anywhere.
The UN’s success in Sierra Leone is almost completely unqualified. Nearly 2 million Sierra Leoneans voted freely in the last election, and UN officers are actually restoring stability to this nearly annihilated country.
This is the first example I could think of off the top of my head. I am sure others will chime in with more.
While I don’t disagree with you in principle, december, I think it is incorrect to argue that the UN has not performed multilateral “good deeds.”
The UN does a lot of good work – Sierra Leone is a good example, and the World Health Organization has also done tremendous amounts of good all over the world.
They also have a lot of bureaucratic infighting and politicking, as well as a reputation for not paying parking tickets. Well, nobody’s perfect, and there’s certainly room for improvement.
But taking information from a site that claims the UN is trying to take away “the God-given rights of Americans” seems a bit unwise.
East Timor.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/08/14/timor.soares.trial/index.html
Botswana. Nothing dramatic, just “help”.
http://www.bw.undp.org/the_un_in.html
And the Security Council was keeping busy back in 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/08/millennium.summit/index.html
And, er, I couldn’t help noticing the lack of any “clique of totalitarian nations” in this action. Who exactly are you referring to, anyway? Here is the list of current Security Council members. Please be so kind as to indicate which of them constitute the Clique, who have the coolest clothes and always get everything “their” way…
<<Its claimed that the U.N. is bad, and will make Americans lose lots of its rights, including that of being able to try citizens in our own courts, etc. >>
In fairness to the obnoxious site mentioned in the OP, there are some UN treaties that would permit the trial of Amercans in international courts or that would restrict some normal Americna civil liberties. The US has resisted signing these treaties. However, when that site says, “take aim at the God-given rights” they entirely lose me. It makes the UN sound like the enemy of God and as if it is intentionally trying to reduce our rights.
There may be some sane anti-UN sites somewhere on the web. I wouldn’t trust this one.
DDG, I didn’t say the clique was on the Security Council. I was thinking of e.g., the African nations which recently voted to have Libya as the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission and the Arab nations that led to the passage of the many ridiculous anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian-terrorist resolutions.
Was it the UN that was trying to sue US corportations for not paying what they believed to be a fair amount of taxes, and thus “stealing” away foreign investors? Or was that the EU? If it was the UN, I would classify that as trying to take away the rights of Americans, namely the right to structure our tax system however we damn well please.
I also find it a bit hypocritical that the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights “atoricities”, yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others.
I think overall the UN is probably more good than bad, but that doesn’t keep them from frequently annoying me.
Jeff
I am so frequently impressed by the depth of understanding displayed here of international institutions, foreign affaires, foreign commerce and international exchanges. The sophistication in which posters are able to discern the differing institutions, their effects and the complex relationships.
No. I’m sorry, I am lying. Please reverse all of the above.
This muddle of uncomprehension refers to the action brought by the EU in the context of the WTO in re the United States Government’s illegal export subsidies via tax policy (two holdings on this matter and recent judgement on level of damage, see FT articles in past week).
Always encouraging to see how people get their facts straight. At least you managed the EU.
Note, the mechanism applied is one which the US makes frequent recourse to also.
Two way street and all that, this free trade thing.
Further note, the WTO is not a UN organization.
When one undertakes treaty obligations, one undertakes to make compromises in the interest of large mutual benefits.
Childish playgroundesque fits of pique by the misinformed, the ignorant not withstanding.
I find it rather hypocritical that posters such as yourself make such assertions, arguments from ignorance.
Vanilla, honey, that’s a classic Conspiracy Theory website. What were you looking for when you found them? 
Typical of all Conspiracy Theory websites, they put up a lot of jingoist buzz words and catch phrases, all of which are calculated to get you upset, but none of which are supported by any facts.
I will debunk one thing, as that’s all I have the patience for, with this sort of thing. In bright blue letters it proclaims, “The United Nations Wants Control of YOUR Child!” and then below it says, in much tinier, gray print, “Every child is our child - Motto of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)” Well, sheesh, that’s dumb enough (twist the UNICEF motto to make it seem sinister? :rolleyes: ), but there’s more.
If you click on that link, it says:
It’s just stupid and paranoid. It’s a gross (and bizarre) misrepresentation of what UNESCO stands for. And it’s also, quite simply, 100% wrong. UNESCO wasn’t founded “with the announced intent to usurp parents’ rights to educate and train their children”. You can go and read the UNESCO constitution here, where Article I, “Purposes and Functions”, on page 8 (PDF document) talks about, um, their purposes and functions. It doesn’t say anything that even remotely sounds like “usurp parents’ rights”. It’s all about “education” and “cultural understanding”. Only a truly paranoid conspiracy theorist could twist this into something sinister.
And actually, it even says, at the end of Article I, in Paragraph 3:
Duh :rolleyes: This directly contradicts what the website wants you to think, which is that UNESCO somehow wants to indoctrinate the world’s children ("YOUR children! " :eek: " ). UNESCO doesn’t want anything of the kind.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
It’s incidents like this that make one want to take the UN and shake it. How anything but trouble come from an international meeting on world hunger that cheered Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is carrying out a policy of intentionally starving many of his own people through a policy of “selective starvation.” However, they jeered our Secretary of State, who was announcing a billion dollars of aid for developmental aid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/international/africa/06ZIMB.html
>>Was it the UN that was trying to sue US corportations for not paying what they believed to be a fair amount of taxes, and thus “stealing” away foreign investors? Or was that the EU? If it was the UN, I would classify that as trying to take away the rights of Americans, namely the right to structure our tax system however we damn well please.
So much ignorance in such a short paragraph. Now I begin to understand why web sites like the one linked in th OP have people who actually believe them. The EU sued the US in the WTO for breaking commitments it had voluntarily made. The WTO ruled in favor of the EU and said they were entitled to slap tariffs on US products. The US has admitted it was in the wrong and is just trying to get a lower settlement. The US can pull out of the WTO whenever it wants and become a pariah in isolation. Then it can do as it well damn pleases as far as subsidising exports although there will be few exports to subsidise.
>> I also find it a bit hypocritical that the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights “atoricities”, yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others.
Can you show me any evidence that “the UN constantly criticizes the US for its human rights “atoricities”, yet fawns over China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and others”? Of course you can’t. because you just made that up.
>> I think overall the UN is probably more good than bad, but that doesn’t keep them from frequently annoying me.
Maybe if you dealt with facts instead of with imaginary things you would be less annoyed.
I suppose that it might be too much to ask for you to be able to distinguish between attendees at a single conference and the UN per se?
The forum was for the attendees to express themselves… The UN as the institution is not to blame for anti-American feeling in certain quarters.
Decided to go look for this:
Well, right off the bat, no matter how much I Google, I don’t find anything that resembles a “pro-Palestinian terrorist” UN resolution, either in the General Assembly or in the Security Council. The UN, as far as I can tell, has never passed a resolution in favor of either terrorists or terrorism, whether Palestinian, Italian, Afghan, Chechen, Malaysian, or any other of the Baskin-Robbins 31 Flavors of Terrorism, and if you think otherwise, I’d like to see a cite, please.
Next I will look for the “Arab nation” clique, controlling the UN on behalf of their friends, the Palestinians, and working steadily against Israel, their enemy.
Ah ha! In 1998, the resolution to let Palestine at least join in the conversation at the UN.
http://www.palestine-un.org/news/jul98_res.html
Eureka! The Arab Clique appears!..Er…I was not aware that Vietnam and Cuba were “Arab nations”. Guinea? Bangladesh? Indonesia? Malaysia? Afghanistan?
Here is the membership list for the League of Arab Nations.
So, lemme see, take away 7 non-Arab nations from the “Arab Clique” that submitted the resolution, that leaves…Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen…that leaves 15 “Arab Nations”. So the “clique of Arab Nations” is evidently one-third non-Arab.
Well, gee, I think that’s mighty generous of the Arab Clique, to share power like that. Kudos to them for letting Wee Folks like Vietnam play on their Arab Clique team…
So, anyway, got any cites? I’d especially like to see the word “many”, as in “many resolutions”, illustrated.
I should have said an Arab and Muslim bloc. There have been many resolutions which criticized Israel but ignored or even endorsed Palestinian terrorism. This topic would be worth at least a full thread on its own. Here are some cites. I could easily find more.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html
http://www.adl.org/ads/israel_ad_042602.asp
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/4076_94.asp
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4074_62.asp
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/news_un.html
The last one appears to be the most comprehensive.
As far as pro-terrorism, there was a controversy when the General Assembly passed a resolution about a year ago, which criticized Israel and subtly endorsed Palistinian terrorism by reference to an earlier resolution by another UN committee, which had endorsed the use of terrorism by Palestinians.
It’s easy to find examples of UN resolutions that critcized or censured Israel while simply ignoring ongoing mass murder by Palestinian groups, even in cases where the Israel action was in reaction to a Palestinian attack. In fact, the US made news of a sort just a couple of weeks ago, by announcing that they would henceforth veto any such resolution.
Likewise, kudos to the Arab Clique for having such upstanding countries as Vietnam on their side. Or not. YMMV
Tee hee.