Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The UN and Americans...

United Nations US Opinions

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:28 AM

http://www.rasmussen...ted Nations.htm

Quote

April 27, 2004--Just 38% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the United Nations these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% have an unfavorable view.

Quote

The telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 25-26, 2004.  The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.

I'd say they're on the right track. The UN is a deeply flawed institution-- oil for food, and the 1511 fiasco-- and I hope the unfavorable numbers continue to rise. Regardless of your take on recent events, it's simply unacceptable to give veto power over US foreign policy to France, China, Russia, and Britian.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:30 AM

Can I ask Rov, what would you suggest as an alternative? Speaking purely personally, i wouldn't necisarrily want to go back to a point where the only alliances countries have are ones that they wrangle out between each other in backroom deals.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:39 AM

Cyberhippie, on May 3 2004, 09:28 AM, said:

Can I ask Rov, what would you suggest as an alternative? Speaking purely personally, i wouldn't necisarrily want to go back to a point where the only alliances countries have are ones that they wrangle out between each other in backroom deals.
I'm really not sure. Ideas, though:

-- Fist, the UN could make it easier for Americans to take it seriously by preventing countries like Cuba and Libya from sitting on the Human Rights Council.
-- Second, restructure the security council to include the 15 democratic* nations with the strongest militaries as permanent members, and move it to a simple vote; no vetoes. It makes no sense that Cameroon can change "illegal war" to "authorized international action", and what moral authority do nations like China have?

*It can be problematic to objectively determine which nations are 'democratic', granetd.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:49 AM

there are people who feel that the US, as the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilians lacks a certain moral authority as well.
(edited to add, that's a different discussion completely though, i'm only mentioning it ter illustration)

I agree with you about the first part of point 2, but you do realise that would require nations to give up their seats on the permanent security council if they ceased to be one of the 15 most powerfull nations?

Edited by Cyberhippie, 03 May 2004 - 11:50 AM.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:51 AM

Cyberhippie, on May 3 2004, 09:47 AM, said:

there are people who feel that the US, as the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilians lacks a certain moral authority as well.
Point. But what always gets lost in that debate is that the United States legitimately didn't know the power she was unleashing. I've read that when areas in Japan made their first reports of radiation sickness, nobody believed it was real at first...

Quote

I agree with you about the first part of point 2, but you do realise that would require nations to give up their seats on the permanent security council if they ceased to be one of the 15 most powerfull nations?

... which is an incentive for democratic nations to maintain military readiness, isn't it?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 G-man

G-man

    Is there a problem?

  • Moderator
  • 8,654 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:53 AM

Ummm, Rov?

The UN came about in response to the failure that was the League of Nations.

The UN's security council was a collection of the leading nations at the time it was created, and the Veto power was granted so that the nations would be forced to actually talk to eachother versus just invading another country, or walking out in protest (which the Soviets did ONCE, and then saw the errors of their ways when the UN intervened in Korea).  It is a forum by which third world nations, who would've been ignored or exploited, could make their voices heard.  Before, in the League of Nations, when Italy invaded Abyssinia (I think this is Ethiopia), their delegation basically drowned out the one from that nation and the invasion stood.

The UN is not a branch of the US Government, it is supposed to represent the world, and when the US chooses to act like a rogue nation, then it will be reprimanded (and not much else, as the US presence on the security council will veto any attempt to intervene militarily against the US, and it is this facet that is why they didn't decide to do a straight vote).  

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself
Let me strive every moment of my life to make myself better and better, to the best of my ability, so that all may profit by it.
Let me think of the right and lend my assistance to all who may need it, with no regard for anything but justice.
Let me take what comes with a smile, without loss of courage.
Let me be considerate of my country, of my fellow citizens, and my associates in everything I say and do.
Let me do right to all, and wrong no man.
-- Doc Savage

Few people want to be moderated, most people see the need for everyone else to be moderated. -- Orpheus

#7 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,021 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:53 AM

There we go again...

You don't get to do all you can to weaken the UN, ignore it when it doesn't serve your purposes and then whine about it when it turns against you. The UN looks the way it does because it was comfortable for strong countries not to face a strong organization that can actually give them trouble when they, say, support the Taliban... or sell chemicals to Iraq... or destroy the environment.

That's short sighted, because one day, when things get real bad, we're all gonna regret the fact that we don't have a strong international organization.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#8 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 11:56 AM

Quote

Point. But what always gets lost in that debate is that the United States legitimately didn't know the power she was unleashing. I've read that when areas in Japan made their first reports of radiation sickness, nobody believed it was real at first...

I'm not sure i find ignorance a very palatable reasoning, but c'est la vie i guess. My point actually was that any nation i can think of offhand has committed acts that other nations could seize on to claim that they lacked moral authority. No nation is a paragon of virtue.

Quote

... which is an incentive for democratic nations to maintain military readiness, isn't it?

Can i take it by your comment that you believe that military readyness is a good thing for democractic nations to strive for?

I'm not trying to be facetious here, i just want your opinions clearly defined so that i don't inadvertantly end up debating an opinion you don't actually hold.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#9 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 12:59 PM

Here's a link to a front-page Globe and Mail article from Friday, April 30th.


In brief.....a new organization based around the G-20 nations.


http://www.globeandm...UN to sidelines


.....and a columnist from the same issue


http://www.globeandm...ada from UN box


It's time to dismantle the UN.  :cylon:
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#10 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 01:26 PM

What UN?

</heavy dose of sarcasm>

Really... err, the UN needs some work, but I think with that work, it could help quite a bit.... especially if there was a little less obstructionism going on (and yes, I do think it is).
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#11 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 02:32 PM

The two cites targeted had military factories or in Hiroshima's case a set of fleet repair and shipbuilding facilities.

But hey we could have done those cities the Curtis LeMay way we wait till weather conditons are right and then circle the city in fire from Incendiary Bombs then lay strips of fire in the middle of the cities and keep going till a firestorm is created.  

Remeber this was a war to the finish. We had given no terms beyond complete and total surrender  After seeing the kindness shown to civilians and soldiers captured by the Japanese it is fortunate we had people willing to accept their surrender.

For the record that 'kindness' included beatings malnutrition murder torture medical experimtation rape  So ask me not to cry that  two cites were vaporized. horrible it might be compared to the lingering death of the japanese care program.


Now as to the UN.

First it is corrupt. When a minster for a food to the hungry program is not removed from office for selling the grain he has been given and pocketing the money. When details about the oil for weapons program ...Sorry Oil for food program that was shown to be suppling a limited amount of aid to the people while giving Saddam means to rearm.


The fact that countries like Libya and Cuba being on the Human rights Commitee has all the wrongness of a bad joke.

Edited by G1223, 03 May 2004 - 02:33 PM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#12 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 03:23 PM

Quote

CH: Can I ask Rov, what would you suggest as an alternative? Speaking purely personally, i wouldn't necisarrily want to go back to a point where the only alliances countries have are ones that they wrangle out between each other in backroom deals.

I would be happy to replace the UN with bilateral agreements and multinational alliances like NATO that aren’t burdened by France, Russia, or China.  A NATO of the World made up of like minded Democratic nations who are willing to take over many of the tasks that the UN fails at today.  The UN is an outdated antiquated relic from the Cold War.

Quote

Rov: -- Second, restructure the security council to include the 15 democratic* nations with the strongest militaries as permanent members, and move it to a simple vote; no vetoes. It makes no sense that Cameroon can change "illegal war" to "authorized international action", and what moral authority do nations like China have?

I wouldn’t give up the veto.  You are giving way too much power to potential hostile majorities in the Security Council that could then threaten the US or our interests.  

Quote

CH: there are people who feel that the US, as the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against civilians lacks a certain moral authority as well.
And they are looking for reasons to bash the US if they say that.  If the US had actually invaded Japan they’d be whining that we have no moral authority because we killed millions in a conventional invasion and wiped out the Japanese culture.  

Quote

Enmar: You don't get to do all you can to weaken the UN, ignore it when it doesn't serve your purposes and then whine about it when it turns against you. The UN looks the way it does because it was comfortable for strong countries not to face a strong organization that can actually give them trouble when they, say, support the Taliban... or sell chemicals to Iraq... or destroy the environment.

Considering the fact that the UN is a corrupt forum for despots and backstabbing national interests it should be weakened in everyway that the US could do in order to weaken it.  The US is only one nation in UN and can’t change the UN anymore than any other nation.  Sure we have a veto but then so China, Russia, and France has veto power too.  Any attempt by the US to reform the UN into something useful would be sabotaged by them because it would be seen as an attempt by the US to take over.   This isn’t the 1950s when the US can grab the UN by the nose and steer it.  You are dealing with a many headed hydra of corruption and uselessness.  Can we pour money in massive amounts into the UN to fund it?  Sure but we can’t control or guide how that money is used beyond our one vote and veto power.  And a veto is just going to leave us in a face off.  This is why the UN will never work.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#13 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 03:40 PM

Quote

Ummm, Rov?

The UN came about in response to the failure that was the League of Nations.

The UN's security council was a collection of the leading nations at the time it was created, and the Veto power was granted so that the nations would be forced to actually talk to eachother versus just invading another country, or walking out in protest (which the Soviets did ONCE, and then saw the errors of their ways when the UN intervened in Korea).

The 'UN' intervened in Korea?  Fun fact: By percentages, the United States commitment in Korea is greater than in the current Iraq conflict. (88% in Korea vs. 86% in Iraq)


EDIT: Better source: http://www.blackfive...tion_democ.html

Note that the Iraq statistics are out of date; however, I doubt that it's risen to above 88% since then...

Quote

It is a forum by which third world nations, who would've been ignored or exploited, could make their voices heard

I have roughly 800,000 dead Rwandans who beg to differ.

Quote

The UN is not a branch of the US Government, it is supposed to represent the world, and when the US chooses to act like a rogue nation, then it will be reprimanded (and not much else, as the US presence on the security council will veto any attempt to intervene militarily against the US, and it is this facet that is why they didn't decide to do a straight vote).

It's SUPPOSED to represent the world. Tell me, do you think Libya and Cuba belong on the Human Rights Council? Do you suppose most people in the world do?

Quote

There we go again...

You don't get to do all you can to weaken the UN, ignore it when it doesn't serve your purposes and then whine about it when it turns against you. The UN looks the way it does because it was comfortable for strong countries not to face a strong organization that can actually give them trouble when they, say, support the Taliban... or sell chemicals to Iraq... or destroy the environment.

None of that justifies the oil for food scandal, or passing resolutions they don't mean. The UN is toothless. Regardless of how it got to that state, it's there now.

Quote

That's short sighted, because one day, when things get real bad, we're all gonna regret the fact that we don't have a strong international organization.

Perhaps. I would feel more comfortable putting my trust in coalitions of the willing than China and France. American power has been misused, and will be in the future; that being said, I certainly trust it more than the UN.

Quote

I'm not sure i find ignorance a very palatable reasoning, but c'est la vie i guess. My point actually was that any nation i can think of offhand has committed acts that other nations could seize on to claim that they lacked moral authority. No nation is a paragon of virtue.

Well, if we had known what would happen, maybe things would have been different. I don't know. As CJ has noted, a conventional land war may well have been worse in a lot of ways...

That being said, while all nations make mistakes (or are backed into a corner), it should be fairly clear to differentiate between, say, Cuba and Belgium.

Quote

Can i take it by your comment that you believe that military readyness is a good thing for democractic nations to strive for?

I'm not trying to be facetious here, i just want your opinions clearly defined so that i don't inadvertantly end up debating an opinion you don't actually hold.

There are many proud nations that have allowed their military readiness to slip in an alarming way (the United States included, sadly). There are bound to be plenty of conflicts in the middle east in the next few decades, plus the DPRK and China problems. Beyond that, who knows where the wars of the future will take us? The truth is that the democratic portion of the world is unprepared for the challenges that will face us, and we have to start getting ready now.

Like CJ, I would take multilateral agreements over the current UN format. It's the height of insanity that minor nations can wield such disproportionate power over world security, assuming they're on the council that month.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 03 May 2004 - 08:12 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#14 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 03:47 PM

Quote

Rov: Fun fact: By percentages, the United States commitment in Korea is greater than in the current Iraq conflict.

Just like there is more international troops in Iraq than Afghanistan. ;) I’d be curious what the percentages are.

Quote

Rov: I have roughly 800,000 dead Rwandans who beg to differ.

And the Congo, Balkans, and Somalia…

Quote

Rov: Like CJ, I would take multilateral agreements over the current UN format. It's the height of insanity that minor nations can wield such disproportionate power over world security, assuming they're on the council that month.

Give me a strong alliance of Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, Canada, Thailand, Australia, Poland, and the United States over the UN any day of the week.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#15 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 04:07 PM

It seems completly in touch with this thread, so check out Evan Coyne Maloney article The Alliance of Liberty: Meet the UNs replacement.

Quote

Would the McDonald's Corporation make an appropriate sponsor for a seminar on obesity?

Should Bacardi be providing refreshments at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings?

If Bill Clinton offered you marital advice, would you take it?

Unless you're a fat, drunk adulterer or a former president, I assume your answer to each of those questions is no. I also assume you wouldn't let Iraq run a conference on disarmament, or let Libya lead a human rights commission.

You might not. But the United Nations would.

Yes, the United Nations--whose purported purpose is "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person" and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"--decided that Iraq would make an appropriate leader for its U.N. Disarmament Conference, and that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights should be entrusted to Libya.

The U.N. pays lip service to human rights and freedom, but then lets countries like Libya and Iraq drive the discussions where these concepts are debated and defined. Is it any wonder, then, that the U.N.--for all of its inconsequential finger-waving and resolution-passing--has been unable to achieve any of the aims set out in its own charter?
Flawed By Design

The real problem isn't that the U.N. is weak and morally blind, the real problem is that it is built to be this way. As a result, the U.N. is structurally incapable of fulfilling its own goals:

The United Nations makes no distinction between democracies and dictatorships. Libya, Syria and Iraq have the same voice and the same vote as countries like Canada, Iceland and Japan. Because much of the world is not free, any serious effort to liberate the oppressed would be stifled by the sizable bloc of nations that freedom threatens.

The United Nations can't enforce its own resolutions. It has neither the brawn nor the backbone to do so. Without a fighting force, resolutions can't be enforced unless members commit their own troops. But, because other nations rarely put their resources where their rhetoric is, violators correctly calculate that enforcement will never come. Emboldened by years of U.N. inaction, the Saddam Husseins of the world now understand that continual stonewalling is the formula for escaping punishment.

Powder-blue helmets. Like Rodney Dangerfield, U.N. peacekeepers get no respect. This may have something to do with the fact that they wear powder-blue helmets in the middle of war zones. Or maybe it's because the U.N.--hamstrung by an institutional fear of force--discourages its peacekeepers from taking action, even in self-defense. Whatever the reason, peacekeepers are able to maintain tenuous peace only when combatants are willing to grant it. How effective are they? Not very: in a few brutal days during the summer of 1995, as U.N. peacekeepers stood by, some 8,000 people were massacred in Srebrenica, Yugoslavia, a city designated a "safe haven" by the United Nations.

Because these flaws are inherent in the design and culture of the U.N., they won't go away without rebuilding the U.N. from the ground up. That's not going to happen, so we must recognize the U.N. for what it is: a terminal patient, an abject failure, a latter-day League of Nations. And, like its precursor, its time--if it ever came--has come and gone. It's time for a replacement.
The Alliance of Liberty

What we need instead is an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to ensure the eventual freedom of every person on the planet. It would state its mission as follows:

We, the free people of the world, in recognition of the fact that freedom is a gift given to us through the selfless sacrifice of our ancestors, and in agreement on the belief that it is our moral obligation to share this gift with those who were not fortunate enough to be born into it, declare ourselves united in an Alliance of Liberty, whose purpose is to secure the freedom of every human everywhere.

The Alliance would have two main objectives: to free the unfree, and to bring about long-term peace. When it must, the Alliance would use force to topple tyrants. But, by defeating tyranny--even when war is required to so do--the Alliance will be working towards an ultimate peace, a goal touted but unattained by the United Nations and the League before it.
What Is Peace?

Paradoxically, conflict is sometimes required to secure peace. In World War II, peace in Europe was achieved through the exercise of military muscle. But let's say the pacifists had been successful at convincing the allies that--to use the words of Jacques Chirac--"war always means failure and therefore everything must be done to avoid war." If Hitler gobbled up Europe and satiated his appetite for expansion, the fighting in Europe would be over. Pacifists would declare success, because by allowing Hitler to roll over Europe, war was avoided. In the minds of those who believe that peace is the absence of war, a war-free Europe living under the thumb of the Nazis would be a Europe living in peace. Talk about doublespeak.

Of course, peace is not merely the absence of war. Peace is the absence of threat. That's why the Cold War--a conflict containing much threat but no direct fighting--is referred to as a war; for forty years, the world lived under a frightening threat, and we rightly recognized that state of threat as a state of war.

Only by eliminating the threats that the world faces today will we achieve meaningful, lasting peace. Given that such threats invariably come from repressive regimes--how often do you find free countries at war with each other?--bringing freedom to those without it will eliminate these threats, and will lessen the likelihood of new ones emerging in the future. In other words, we may need to fight wars now if we want peace in the future. Or, we can let threats fester, and leave future generations even less secure than we are today. But, remember: threats do not go away simply because one side wishes to avoid conflict. There is no such thing as a unilateral peace.
The Future of the U.N.

In the coming weeks and months, we will hear much debate about the future of the United Nations. Such talk is futile. The United Nations is a world body in rigor mortis. It is not, as it set out to be, a body for promoting progress. Instead, the U.N. promotes stasis. And it has not, as it set out to do, brought about larger freedom. Instead, the U.N. winks at dictatorships by granting them the same consideration as democracies. The U.N. may truly desire world peace, it just doesn't know how to get there.

History gave the gift of freedom to many, but it overlooked many more. Is it right that we enjoy this gift without sharing it? What we now call a coalition of the willing should band together in a permanent alliance to replace groups that--like the U.N. and NATO--find themselves struggling for relevance. Those free nations that agree to fulfill the mission of the Alliance are welcome to help the United States carry the light of liberty to the darkest parts of the globe. And to those other free countries, the stingy ones that seem to think freedom is finite and must be hoarded, I ask: is the only freedom worth fighting for your own?

http://www.brainterm...of-liberty.html
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#16 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 04:16 PM

Javert Rovinski, on May 3 2004, 09:26 AM, said:

http://www.rasmussen...ted Nations.htm

Quote

April 27, 2004--Just 38% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the United Nations these days. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found that 44% have an unfavorable view.

Quote

The telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports April 25-26, 2004.  The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points, with a 95% level of confidence.
What's the point of this thread? American voters don't like the UN? Whatever. :rolleyes:

I'm going to make a generalization here, but darn it, there's no easy way to say this. Imo, recent events (IE: the whole Iraq fiasco and the arguments made in support of the invasion) has shown that the American public (the shrinking number that bothers to vote, answer surveys, or participate in public life, anyway) lives in its own separate universe that only occasionally intersects with the real world. More and more, it seems that, imo, Americans don't care about real news or current events, but are content to simply swallow the predigested opinions fed to them by their designated leaders. (And I'm not just talking about Bush here, but the media and activist movements as well.) Now granted, I'm only seeing the United States from a distance, but we get a pretty clear view of your popular culture and news here, and more it more it looks like Americans don't hold opinions on issues so much as belong to them. If you're a liberal, you believe in W and X, if you're a conservative, you believe in Y and Z, if you're agnostic, you believe 3 and 4, if you're evangelical, it's 1 and 2. And screw reality, because Americans are rich and powerful enough to ignore the world beyond their borders.

Now the US isn't alone in this. All western countries fall prey to these delusions to one degree or another. It's just that America is ahead of the curve here, like they are with so many other things. Being several decades more advanced than the rest of the world is great when it comes to science and technology, but when the world is heading towards disaster, a precocious tendency towards self delusion is not such a good thing.

Quote

I'd say they're on the right track. The UN is a deeply flawed institution-- oil for food, and the 1511 fiasco-- and I hope the unfavorable numbers continue to rise. Regardless of your take on recent events, it's simply unacceptable to give veto power over US foreign policy to France, China, Russia, and Britian.

I'd say that US foreign policy is a deeply flawed series of beliefs, starting with the messianic Bush maxim that America is some kind of chosen nation, endowed with the responsibility to lead the world out of darkness. That belief, along with Osama bin Laden's psychopathic desire to impose his brand of Muslim fundamentalism on everyone else, is one of the leading causes of instability and violence in the world today. We need someone to deliver us from the believers, and even though it is flawed, the UN is our best hope for a global government and a world ruled by law. It's a power to balance the other powers, anyway.

What we need most is balance.
Per aspera ad astra

#17 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 04:31 PM

Quote

Kevin Street: What's the point of this thread? American voters don't like the UN? Whatever. :rolleyes:

That whatever is a rather dismissing term when the simple fact is that the US if it decided to could render the UN no more relevant in the world than the League of Nations.  And I don't see answers to any of the problems stated in this thread about the UN.  Instead I see an attack right off on the US rather than looking at the topic of the rather corrupt UN.

Quote

Kevin Street: I'm going to make a generalization here, but darn it, there's no easy way to say this. Imo, recent events (IE: the whole Iraq fiasco and the arguments made in support of the invasion) has shown that the American public (the shrinking number that bothers to vote, answer surveys, or participate in public life, anyway) lives in its own separate universe that only occasionally intersects with the real world. More and more, it seems that, imo, Americans don't care about real news or current events, but are content to simply swallow the predigested opinions fed to them by their designated leaders.

And of course the public in France, Russia, and say Canada are so much more in touch with reality.  You have France and Russia where the public is happily following leaders who were shoving UN backed blood money into their own pockets.  All under the guise of that wonderful Oil for Weapons and Political Kickbacks program.  Then you have the population of Canada who elect leaders who herald the UN as the greatest thing since the wheel.  When the UN is nothing more than a corrupt rotten international gang that tries to pass itself off as a legitimate organization as scandals happen all over it.  I wonder if the leaders of those three countries have to wipe the blood off their hands every time they shake hands and agree to help out their old buddy Kofi Corrupt Annan.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 03 May 2004 - 04:33 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#18 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 04:36 PM

for the record. I didn't intend to attack the US, so much as find out if all the people looking to tear the UN down had something in mind to replace it with.

#19 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 05:04 PM

I apologize for the tone of my post. It's certainly true that the populace of other nations are no wiser than Americans. The US is a vast place, with many different opinions and points of view, and a lot of very smart people. But America is also very insular and can appear strange to outsiders, because American power, wealth, and relative geographic isolation seem to lead to points of view that are often diametrically opposed to those of people in other nations. It can make America look rather odd at times, and imo (I'm not stating this as a fact, but only as an opinion), those same factors often give Americans a distorted view of the world. And again imo, modern America is extremely insular and strange, more so than at any other time in memory, and the actions of the Bush Administration since Afghanistan have showed that imo, American foreign policy is out of control. (IE: it is based on irrational beliefs, instead of pure self interest or any other motive that can be easily understood and lived with.) The UN has problems, but imo, it's better than the alternatives. At least we get a voice in the UN. We can fix the problems there, but there's nothing we can do to "fix" the modern US. That's something Americans must do themselves.

Once again, I apologize for the emptional tone of my earlier post. UN bashing is a subject that just gets under my skin, and I probably sounded a lot angrier than I should have.

#20 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 03 May 2004 - 05:15 PM

Cyberhippie, on May 3 2004, 03:34 PM, said:

for the record. I didn't intend to attack the US, so much as find out if all the people looking to tear the UN down had something in mind to replace it with.
I don't WANT another round of the same mistake.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: United Nations, US, Opinions

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users