United Nations
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
I agree with you on every point there. The UN is a totally useless organization, I wish we would pull out of it and make them get out of this country. They should move to France or somewhere, we could make a nice budget cutback and quit giving money to those bunch of moochers.
satellitedriver
Moderator
It is not foreign policy, it is foreigner's trying to dictate American policy.
Moreluck is brilliant, because she put a bulb in her lamp.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
United Nations
And since it was the League of Nations first,
League of Nations
Once you understand the underpinnings of the Wilsonian model of Foreign policy and how it crafted the League of Nations, then you'll understand the United Nations, the Cold War and the later policies of Bush 1 and especially Bush 2 but also Clinton and now Obama. If you don't like the UN, and I agree, it is self inflicted and under the current model of gov't, will not go away for any reason. This is one of those unintended consequences I often speak of that a certain Walmart shopper here loves to just close her ears and scream, cricket! cricket! cricket!
And let's be honest, Wilson was just another one of those millions and millions who were nothing more than power drunk chimpanzees!
I think it's easy to mock the U.N. for it's failures and completely disregard the success they've had over the years. Want proof? Can't think of any of their successes, can you? And yet, I would bet that googling UN successes would compile an impressive list. Fact is that the UN is probably the cheapest way for America to play "World Cop". Not that we should, but it's what we seem to be.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
It has been a long time since the UN has served any meaningful purpose, other than providing humanitarian relief. I agree that it is time for the US to witdraw and for the UN to move out of NYC.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Now follow onward via the trail of Brettonwoods, Import/Export Bank, International Monetary Fund, G8, G20, WTO and then through NATO for that stormtrooper effect and you really are on to something. I will warn you that if you dare, at some point you will find yourself in a real moral and philosophical dilemma in what you now believe and what you will then be confronted with.
I think humanitarian relief is meaningful enough. Probably serves the U.S. big picture goals. The fact that peace keeping is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
Not so sure about that. Peace is good for the economy, especially in emerging markets. That's something China knows and is willing to promote on the African continent.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree at all that peace is good, no it's great, for the economy and I also believe that free and fair trade (true free markets) promotes peace but let's take your stance in defending the UN and associated global organizations. If peace and goodness is the goal, then even since 1945' when the UN was formed in San Francisco, how do you explain the level of global warfare, death and destruction as well as the level of authoriterian govt's around the world and yet the level of UN influence contrary to much political spin has actually increased, example US won't go to war without UN blessing first? Also explain in that same time span that the major powers never had a direct conflict with one another but use the excuse of proxy wars in the 3rd world to expand it's own territorial reach often under the aegis of checking the tyranny and brutality of the other guy? The UN didn't tell them to behave because these same powers owned the damn place and still do. It's as big a con job as the so-called political left and right wing of the single party state in America.
From your POV that govt's should protect the little guy, then how do you explain the 1990's UN sanctions against Iraq, let's be honest it was about Saddam anyway (a villian we help create and put in power) but the only victims were 1000's and 1000's of innocent average folk Iraqis, many of them women and children who died as a result of this policy, a policy that the 1990's democrats and Clinton fully supported and took part in? The other real winners in Iraq were never even there so to speak and that is the Saudis who enjoyed after 9/11 an inflated oil price and the Iranians who watched as a longtime enemy was eliminated not that the Saudis didn't want Saddam to go away also even though they benefitted from his geographic wall he was to Iran. And let's not forget the neo-con cheerleading for Iraq overthrow in the 90's that the Clinton adminstration answered the call in 98' with the Iraq liberation act. If George W. Bush has muddy hands then Clinton and little Georgie's Dad along with both parties are both holding/working the shovel and wheelbarrow and the UN is where? Well they did profit from food for oil so I guess they served their personal interests in all of this too.
And from the "UN is so good" viewpoint, how does a poor American kid from the ghetto with no opportunities differ from your POV from an Iraqi kid living in some desolete village in Iraq with no opportunities as well? In one case, you'd decry the American gov't or any gov't if they even in the least harmed this kid but now you defend an international organization who enforced a policy that in effect one way or another killed that Iraqi kid? If the american kid is innocent and the victim of cruel, greedy people here at home, then tell me what crime the Iraqi kid committed that would justify the unleashing of those same "cruel, greedy" people to kill him/her at will to the benefit of the "cruel, greedy" people's political. economic, social cause? From a philosophical, moral position, can you explain why one would be a capital crime and the other the goodness of freedom and global democracy? I'm sure that Iraqi kid has some comfort that his death brought you some pride in the greater cause!
How do you explain certain countries who have by the use of international law and treaty made certain currencies in effect a monopoly of capital and yet those currencies are pure fiat that are nothing but debt instruments and inflationary on all goods and services? How do those inflationary policies help elevate the poor out of their condition not only here at home but abroad? How do you also explain in this good free market you might think we have that certain countries and specific entities and individuals within have used state interventions on global scale to amass ever increasing amounts of wealth by using the state to control both labor and commodities and their movements around the world? How come govt's tell me I can't buy a pound of good Mexican gold weed from a poor mexican farmer directly when I bet Rush Limbaugh can get the best Cuban stoogies to suck on during and after his show? Unlike me and the Mexican farmer who deal directly with one another in a purely free market exchange, I wonder in Rush getting those Cubans how many hands get greased? I wonder what would happen to Rush if he went directly to the poor Cuban farmer who grew and picked that tobacco and made the cigar from it? Seems I'd have a roomie in my jailcell. Wonder what the UN would say of my wanting to go directly to that Mexican farmer even for some mexican corn? Ever looked at international treaty law concerning all manner of plant and farm commoditiies? Again, I ask the question, where is that free market everyone sez we have?
I find the study of old world colonialism along with it's economics of mercantilism, later American imperialism, then bring it forward into the modern day while looking at all the players involved and as I said, you will be confronted with a huge dilemma if you have a philosophically moral foundation to begin with. You are the only one that can answer that question. It's funny how one political side in this country see the UN from one standpoint and the other sees it another way yet in a very real sense they both have it wrong IMO. When you sit back and begin to ask the hard questions you are confronted with the most uncomfortable of answers. But then, most see it like the global oligarchy want you to see it so there you go. Read their own history and follow the money, as Mulder said, "the truth is out there!"
packageguy
Well-Known Member
it is a complete waste, they should find
somewhere else to play. It's a free for all.
they owe so much money they will never pay,
lets take the loss and go on.......
somewhere else to play. It's a free for all.
they owe so much money they will never pay,
lets take the loss and go on.......
wkmac
Well-Known Member
There's been a movement going to Get the US out of the UN since 1959' so some of you guys might want to check it out.
In principle, I'm in full agreement with them on this too!
In principle, I'm in full agreement with them on this too!
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
You must still think you are in the 804 thread.....this thread is about the United Nations.
Wk--You do well to point out the dichotomy that is the United Nations. In fact, I don't even argue with the points you make. What I believe is that we are better with the flawed body than without it. A little research suggests that while peace-keeping may be the highest profile mission of the UN, it in fact remains only about 30% of it's mission. And looking at history it seems that through the 20th century it was considered a good and noble cause to have an international organization to air grievances and voice opinions in the hopes of avoiding armed conflicts. That it did not always succeed is not reason for condemnation of the mission nor the organization. People often point out that Iraq violated UN mandates as a rationale for war while missing completely that the UN groups searching for WMD had found nothing. Though the mandates had been broken, the nations of the UN were not nearly as enthusiastic about invasion. If the UN were disbanded, I submit to you that in short order the nations of the world would find the will and desire to replace it with a similar coalition.
