Does anybody happen to recall why the United Nations was founded in the first place?
Hint: It has to do with why I’m an only child, and why Coldfire wrote a thread a few years ago that keeps being brought back active.
But I never realized he was talking about Dopers! :sigh:
Poly, I know why the UN was formed. I also know that even if it was ever capable of stopping another world war - which I doubt - it lost that capability a long time ago. The UN is not a force for justice or peace in the world, because no nation is willing to inconvenience itself for the sake of justice or peace. Any time the UN actually seemed to do something over the past 50 years, it only acted as a context for actions that would have been carried out regardless.
Nation building? Britain and France did that in the 1830’s with Belgium, without the help of the UN. Alliances against agressor nations? Europe did that just fine against Napoleon without the UN. Nations were condemming each others’ actions without a General assembly; disenfranchiesed groups had less opportunities to be ignored. As for peacekeepers… show me where they ever made a difference, and why they’re better off with blue helmets.
That’s not to say that the UN is useless. It can be very beneficial, having repreentatives from all nations in one place, talking, dealing, learning about each other. If the UN served only as that - a place of meeting - then I would be all for it. What it is now, a quasi-Great Power with delusions of sovreignty, is what I refuse to accept.
Look, I’m very cynical about the UN; most Israelis are. The UN abandoned us to our fate, doing nothing to prevent a massive armed invasion the day after we declared independance. When Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq crossed our borders without any international approval, did the UN try to send an armed force to enforce its own resolution? No, The why should I count on the UN for anything? It’s just a group of nations, most of them non-democratic, all of them voting on the basis of prestiege, popularity and self-interest. If Hitler rose to power today, he’d get himself some allies, pass around some money, and the UN would do nothing to stop him.
Pardon me for channeling the spirit of Sam Waterson
You are not a sovereign nation, either. Half-arsed allegories do not suffice as clear arguments with me.
A Security Council member. Remember what that gives us…
Since they have been doing this for 50 years, I’d say its a proven fact that they can, do, and get away with doing. The UN is like the Geneva convention -> they both have value only so long as everyone plays fair. If some sides cheat, it ruins the game for everyone and no one has a reason to play. I’m saying the UN has already devolved into nothing more than a PR tool for corrupt regimes.
[quote]
and that no international body has the authority to do anything about it militarily, economically or otherwise.
[/quote[
No international authority has the moral, legal, or military authority to do anything today. International bodies have consistently failed, failed, and failed again to provide any leadership except in lining their own pockets and serving as PR tools. Its impossible and always has been to force nations with dissimilar interests to cooperate in anything except name.
UN resolutions had no power because it chose not to have any power. The US attack was not illegal because UN law was not binding, and in any even the UN had already granted authorization.
I’m saying no nation abides by the UN charter now. And I refuse to allow cowards to pretend to the moral high ground of form of smoke and shadow while ignoring real issues. The UN is and was a body for nothing more than discussion and debate, not an enforcement authority. The fact is, it is like a democracy where the majority power is held by a group of vicious thugs, caring nothing for the world. Who then insult and legslate against the good citizens and become outraged when the good refuse to accepot the moral authority of the evil.
I’m sure their ancestors would have been happier if the western world had never met them. But like today, they don’t have that choice. I want the rest of the world to stop bothering us. It won’t, regardles of what I want. I any event, this is total non-sequiter. The actions of people who died long before my time do not justify or invalidate my opinions on a subject that is at best vaguely related.
Unintended consequences, road to hell, and all that.
Based on an Associated Press story I saw today, it wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing if Britain ceased trading with the United States.
*" Britain is acknowledged as the world leader of Orwellian surveillance – perhaps because it has the experience of Irish terrorism, and is on guard for even worse today.
The authorities claim the cameras deter crime, and despite some claims to the contrary and the outrage of civil libertarians, the public generally seems comfortable with being monitored…Cameras loom over city centers, shopping malls, train stations, university grounds, public parks, beaches, car parks, airports, offices and schools.
“Britain, almost without anyone noticing, has become the surveillance capital possibly of the world, certainly of Europe,” said Barry Hugill, a spokesman for rights group Liberty.
In London, train stations have 1,800 CCTV cameras, the biggest such system in Europe, according to the British Transport Police. There are more than 6,000 cameras in the London Underground and 260 around Parliament.
It’s estimated that the average Briton is scrutinized by 300 cameras a day.
“The uses are absolutely phenomenal. In some places, there are cameras in schools in the classroom so parents can be shown the footage if a child misbehaves,” said a satisfied Peter Fry, a spokesman for the CCTV industry…
Now Britain is beginning to export its expertise. Fry’s industry group has just incorporated in the United States, and reports particular interest from universities and schools."*
Uh, no thanks.
This is a gross mischaracterization of Kerry’s position, an logical fallacy known as a straw man. No one is advocating allowing the UN to have any sort of direct power over the U.S.'s ability to defend its own interests.
Kerry’s position is that Bush should have done much more to ensure the cooperation of the UN, not its “permission.” His present position is focused on recovering and strengething the alliances that Bush’s policies have badly damaged. If the Iraq War was truly so very necessary, the Bush adminsitration’s failure to engage the cooperation of the majority of our most capable allies was a major, major failure of diplomacy. Having Fiji and the Netherlands on our side was helpful, but having the support of France, Germany, Canada, and Russia might have helped a bit more.
As for reconstruction, Kerry has indicated more than once he would not cede control of any military operations to UN authority under any circumstances. He does, however, advocate direct UN collaboration is the civilian aspects of reconstruction.
On all these points, Kerry has been clear and consistent throughout the campaign.
My advice to you: try to learn something about Kerry from sources other than partisan, Bushco screed, which gleefully distorts Kerry’s actual position in an attempt to score cheap points with people who are paranoid about world government. I assume you are sufficiently intelligent and honest to see past this.
Therefore, there was no reason to attack Iraq because the resolutions they were supposedly violating were not valid. Either the resolutions are valid and the U.S. violated the UN Charter by attacking a sovereign nation before the UN processes were exhausted, or the resolutions are not valid and thus Iraq did nothing to warrant an attack. You can’t have it both ways.
At any rate, it still seems to me that you are saying that every country except the U.S. must abide by UN rules. If that’s not what you’re saying, then why shouldn’t the U.S. abide by its agreements and cooperate with other nations instead of attacking a sovereign nation on its own accord? If it is what you’re saying, then by how does the U.S. come by this right? “Might makes right”?
I would accuse you of being full of shit, but I have to keep reminding myself that you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
Article IV of the Constitution states, without any doubt whatsoever, that treaties signed by a President and ratified by the Senate are the law of the land, just like an act of Congress.
The UN Charter is a ratified treaty. The UN Charter has very clear and specific provisions regarding the use of force. Since the US has chosen to make the UN Charter part of the law of our land, our government is compelled to follow those provisions for however long we are a member of the UN.
If you want to disparage the UN, fine. If you want the US to pull out, fine. But learn what the hell you’re talking about, because at the moment, you just sound like a provincial idiot.
Jackmannii - So we’ve got a lot of cameras. I suppose having terrorists attack us for decades has done that. You have one attack and you’ve got the Patriot act. Yay for your civil liberties too.
We get ill and we don’t have to worry about how we’ll pay for treatment.
We lose our jobs and we know we’ll get unemployment benefit (granted it’s not a huge amount) until we get a new job.
We don’t have a ridiculous murder rate.
We don’t execute children, mentally handicapped people, or anyone in particular for that matter. If our justice system screws up, all we lose are years.
We can protest right outside our leaders door, not a couple of miles well out of sight.
We generally get 25+ days of holiday per year (not including Bank holidays).
I’m sure the US has advantages over the UK as well. Not sure what they are unless you’re wealthy, but hey.
Lord Bubbington-Smythe: I’m sold. How can I move there? 
Cherry pick much? You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention Great Britain (they’re easy to miss, being on par with Fiji and all), Spain and Italy. As for France, I think we can forget about them altogether. It’d be great to have them along, but surely you wouldn’t halt an action simply because the French disapprove. Germany and Canada, yes, but Russsia has too many interests that diverge from the US for us to worry too much about them either.
I’ll concede to having been sloppy in representing Kerry’s position, but when the US’s interests are at stake, I don’t want the UN in the loop one way or another. Frankly, I never thought it was in our interest to invade Iraq, and I wouldn’t have wanted us to do so even if the entire EU, Russia, China, and Japan had been behind us AND we had a unanimous vote form the UNSC. In the case of Afgahnistan, I sure as hell would have wanted us to what we did even if that entire group of countries had been against it.
The UN can best play a role in a humanitarian situation like what is going on in the Sudan, and where it really isn’t in anyone’s interest to get involved. Yet here that entity has shown just how impotent it is.
If the United States withdraws from the UN, it will became the same type of joke organization that the League of Nations was from start to finish. It might still exist in some form with countries sending diplomats to pointless meetings but it will have no power. Lacking the military and financial assistance of the United States, what exactly will the UN do to deter the next Rwanda or Kosovo? Want to read about the heroic actions of the UN to deter genocide? Here are a few tidbits:
*April 11, 1994
At the Don Bosco school, protected by Belgian UNAMIR soldiers, the number of civilians seeking refuge reaches 2,000. That afternoon, the U.N. soldiers are ordered to withdraw to the airport. Most of the civilians they abandon are killed.*
*April 21, 1994
The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.
The International Red Cross estimates that tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Rwandans are now dead*
Before ranting about the Unites States leaving the rest of the world alone, go reread the history of Yugoslavia. The United Nations and Europe did exactly jack shit to stop the carnage taking place until the United States became involved. Only after the United States entered the conflict did Europe develop the courage to take a stand and stop the slaughter.
You want us to leave you alone? I for one will be very happy if that happens. Enough Americans have died on foreign shores for the next thousand years. The problem is that when the next Hitler pops up in Europe, every nation on its border will be calling the US for help. The idea of “leave us alone” will be forgotten.
Johnny LA - Don’t move to Canada, it’s like the UK, only better
Back to the point in hand. It’s idiotic to suggest that the US could prosper (note I am not saying ‘survive’) without the rest of the world and vice-versa. The US is a country of immigrants, from the low-paid workers in the South to the boffins in your universities. I do not doubt there are many resources that the US cannot produce alone in sufficient quantities to sustain it’s current standards of living.
Closing your borders would mean the US would probably end up being left behind - you are only 300 million or so of the 6 billion people in this world. What if Germany finds a cure for cancer or France produces the next Einstein?
The world is much like any community - it’s members could struggle on their own and survive, but it’s the interactions (be they social, cultural, scientific, economic) that means they can thrive.
Preview is for wimps! Try sticking a full-stop after the “Don’t” if you’d like that to make sense. :smack:
Let’s think about this logically. Without even considering economic arguments, we can ask the following: Why would the U.S. be engaged in a behavior (free trade) that keeps its standard of living low? Why wouldn’t it abandon free trade if it were so obvious that the standard of living would go up?
BTW, this argument also applies to U.S. membership in the U.N.
That is, if it were advantageous to leave the U.N., the U.S. would have done it.
The fact that they haven’t shows that there must be some national interests served by remaining a member of the U.N.
(e.g. if the U.S. leaves, the U.N. collapses, and there is more chaos and more wars around the world, which is not good news for global trade, which the U.S. needs to keep its standard of living. This was just an example; we don’t really need any theory about what the U.S. national interest actually is, to know that there must be one for staying in the U.N.)
I find quite amuzing that all who had bashed the UN doesn´t seem to know that it´s quite a bit more than just the security council (casually the less democratic of it´s institutions); they disregard completely the achivements of the World Health Organization, Unicef, UNESCO, etc, etc…
Why don´t you take a tour and stop acting like an ass?
What, and spoil their the-United-Nations-is-an-ineffective-outdated-organization-secretly-bent-on-world-domination fantasies?
I just find it amazing that people who wouldn’t act like an asshat in their neighborhood would encourage that sort of asshat-ery from their government.
I’m even more amazed at how freaking proud they are of said behavior.
I think this thread should be dedicated to the memory of Senator Borah of Idaho.
What else I think of this thread should not be posted, even in the Pit! :mad: