The UN is big on hot air...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| AnonymousCoward Feb 21, 2006 6:01 AM EDT |
...but this is still going to be a huge plus for FOSS in general. Sort of the right things happening for the wrong reasons, I guess. |
| salparadise Feb 21, 2006 6:27 AM EDT |
Quoting: The UN is big on hot air... The UN says a lot of things that are absolutely on the mark. The problem is that certain countries think the UN is great when they want justification and a pita when they want to do their own thing. Consequently the UN gets a lot of bad press that really amounts to anti-UN propaganda. |
| tadelste Feb 21, 2006 12:32 PM EDT |
Well, actually, the UN in its present form needs an enema and I don't say that because I'm justifying anything. The current guys in charge don't compare to the previous administration - they're not even close. All member states should also pay their dues. You and I pay almost all the freight, Sal. |
| nicsmr Feb 21, 2006 1:21 PM EDT |
I lost all respect for the UN after they let the genocide that happenned in Rwanda happen. Just a bunch of political hand wringers that couldn't decide to fart if their lives depended on it. |
| AnonymousCoward Feb 21, 2006 2:15 PM EDT |
There's a lot more of that about than one country. The problem is that in the mix alongside the shills and incompetents, there are quite a few bright people trying to Do The Right Thing(tm). Parsing them isn't as simple as it ought to be, but it looks like a flock of the useful ones got together long enough to make a policy here. |
| richo123 Feb 21, 2006 5:33 PM EDT |
0) The UN could do with some reforming as could: 1) FEMA 2) Department of Homeland Security 3) Department of Defense 4) The White House Interesting that 3) and 4) keeps attacking 0) |
| salparadise Feb 21, 2006 9:46 PM EDT |
Bingo. With respect, the American Gov treats the UN appallingly. It often doesn't pay it dues, veto's 99% of all bills that would actually make a difference and then has the bare faced cheek to turn round and accuse them of being ineffective. And as for "standing by while genocide happens", two points, 1, at least they're not committing genocide, whether directly or by proxy and 2, the UN is in a curious position. Everyone criticises them for being ineffective, yet in order to become effective they need to be able to override sovereign national authority. Any of you out there fancy handing your national authority away to an international body? Either it works for everyone or it works for no one. "Rich industrial" nations don't get to opt out of international responsibility and they don't get to trample on other peoples national sovereignty at the same time as forbidding others to do the same. Enough double standards already. |
| tadelste Feb 22, 2006 9:22 AM EDT |
Sal: In the United States the states themselves don't give up sovereignty. We have a federal government, but each state has part of the military and unless given permission by the governor of the state, the Feds can't have it. Each state has its own laws regarding the death penalty, whether to have speed limits on the freeways, etc. The Federal government only functions because they passed an income tax bill. Without that income tax, we probably wouldn't have a Federal government and most US citizens if they understood all this might be happy if it went away. The only major function the federal government was ever supposed to perform was defense. With regard to the UN, I don't know if our State Department withholds dues. If they do, it's because they have an agenda. But, I do know we foot the bill for almost everything the UN does. Have you ever heard of USAID? It works through the UN and spends more than the entire budget of the UN as far as I recall. The other country making serious contributions through the UN is Germany. That's right, Germany. They sponsor programs globally and give away lots of foreign aid. I've seen them at work around the world. Who else? It would be nice if the planet repaid their loans to the US for our help in World War II. We funded almost the entire effort including much of the Russian's efforts. The American people have a record of giving and giving and giving. And what's the reward? People criticize us, blame us and hate us. That's why a huge isolationist movement exists in this country. We should build walls around the country, stop immigration, stop exporting jobs and let the rest of the world starve by keeping all our food exports in the US. No more international flights into the country. No more technology exported. No pharmaceuticals. Why should we pay more for medicine than people in other countries? We should rekindle the star wars program and blow up anyone attempting to attack us. That's the reaction people here have when someone wants the UN to become the reigning world government. Like Syria should be on the the committee for human rights in the UN? That's an American point of view. It's not right or wrong. It doesn't speak to a world that works for everyone. Just in case you wondered how I think we feel about it. |
| NoDough Feb 22, 2006 10:08 AM EDT |
Tom: You're brave. Short of being called a terrorist, I usually avoid the political discussions. Of course, this may qualify... Quoting:And as for "standing by while genocide happens", two points, 1, at least they're not committing genocide, whether directly or by proxy... |
| tadelste Feb 22, 2006 10:42 AM EDT |
NoDough: I actually thought that my comment by-passed politics and focused on economics. It seems to me that the world would get along fine without us. We should just snuggle down, take care of our people at home and stop trying to be a super power. It just costs too much money to do the latter and we're hypocrites when we have people starving at home and try to reorganize a nation with the second largest oil reserves on the planet. As for the quote, I don't know, I know there's no easy answers. |
| NoDough Feb 22, 2006 11:08 AM EDT |
Tom: These problems are older than time itself. Anyone who believes that there are "easy answers" needs to study history. One things for sure; if finger-pointing hasn't solved anything in the last several thousand years, it's not going to solve anything today. |
| salparadise Feb 22, 2006 11:12 AM EDT |
If I might recommend a book to you... Deterring Democracy by Noam Chomsky Most enlightening. The US didn't pay for the war, it made loans (in the case of Britain). Which took the UK till a very few years ago to pay off. But pay it off we did. (afaik) What's reported over here is that the US Gov' is openly hostile towards the UN and wants it either to bow to America or just shut up and go away, preferably the latter. I got the idea from the news here that the UN has been pretty badly trashed by the mainstream media in the US. Am I right in thinking this? |
| tadelste Feb 22, 2006 1:41 PM EDT |
Sal: The US demanded repayment of loans from WWI from German reparations but never received them. And the effort to collect collapsed in 1931. The UK's debt for WWII was reduced to 10% with a 2% interest rate and are still being paid. As of 2001, UK still owed the US £243,573,154 . So, I don't think the loans were repaid and aside from that 90% was forgiven. What's reported over there, btw is mostly BBC propaganda. I know because I watch it and I'm amazed at the distortions. I'm not saying that the BBC has a different slant - I'm saying that they lie. So, please factor that into the conversation. I was supposed to work on a project for the BBC eight years ago. They wanted a state of the art communications facility similar to the one that Creative Artists built. I heard all kinds of stories about these independent factions inside the BBC. It looked so disorganized. Multiple crews showed up to cover events, etc. So, we were supposed to help coordinate that with technology. Well, one thing I learned in the process - they wanted Cap Gemini project managers from the UK and France, but not from the "hated" US. England still owes the 13 colonies war reparations from 1700's - one of the reasons it took so long to decide who to fight with in WWI. I'm sure a faction in the US still exists that would like to turn the UN Building into condos. Remember, we didn't even join the League of Nations. Now that the Soviet Union is gone, I think the argument to put the UN somewhere else, like Brussels is a valid idea. But, no official stance exists to ignore, leave or disband the UN exists. The official Federal line is we "have to have it". |
| richo123 Feb 22, 2006 2:15 PM EDT |
There is a large right wing element within the US who would like to see the demise of the UN. Here is a (very influential) group that fits this description: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ The problem I have with such people is that they say they support the spread of democracy and yet insist that this take place under the auspices of the US government not the UN. That's about as undemocratic as you can get. The French public (for example) had no vote in the invasion of Iraq which was part of such a program. |
| tadelste Feb 22, 2006 2:27 PM EDT |
richo123: Let's end this thread. That's a pretty fringe organization. We could trade fringe groups on either side of the aisle. I wouldn't call NAW as influential as Ralph Reed working for Microsoft to get Bush to give them the whole monopoly board game including Park Place and handing them a free pass on their anti-trust trial. Like I said, we know elements in the US who want the kick the UN out. And we have eco-terrorists too. And in Texas, we have a group called the Republic of Texas that claims we had the right to leave the US at the time of the war of northern aggression. Have you seen Texas leaving the US? LXer's terms of service require that we moderate threads that discuss politics or religion. One more post here and the whole thread will go away. |
| NoDough Feb 22, 2006 2:47 PM EDT |
Sal:
I have to agree with Tom concerning the BBC. I watch their feeds and they are extremely unreliable. In fact, the same story will often be reported entirely differently on their BBC Americas feed than it is on their native feed. What I would have to add is that American big media isn't much better, if any better. I get much higher quality news from blogs. They are highly opinionated, but at least you know that up front and they reference all of their sources. So, when in doubt, you can check it out for yourself. Concerning the UN, the big media here supports the UN, so when UN news is negative it simply isn't reported. Again, if it weren't for blogs I would have no idea about the incredible corruption at the UN (not that they have a monopoly on corruption.) Yes, there is a faction here that believes the UN has become worthless. I would count myself in their number. However, I believe about 90% of the local, state, and federal governments are worthless as well. So, my opinion probably doesn't count for much. |
| NoDough Feb 22, 2006 2:50 PM EDT |
Tom: Sorry, I started that last post before your call to end. I came back and finished it later. I shall post here no more. |
| tadelste Feb 22, 2006 2:50 PM EDT |
OK. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!