The United Nations

[Nurvingiel]

This is a thread to discuss the United Nations. (There is already a thread for Model UN if you want to talk about that.)

Do you support the UN? Pose and answer any questions about it that you want.

Personally, I do support the UN, but I wish it was actually useful, and a force for good in the world. In the The Official US President Election Thread, JD and I got a bit off topic and started talking about the UN.

Obviously, this topic needs a thread of its own. Everyone's thoughts are appreciated.

[Nurvingiel]

This is my last UN post from the "Election" thread:

Originally Posted by jerseydevil
Except for the patching up of relationships between Canada and the US - I think the UN is a lost cause. We'll need a lot more countries then the three of us involved. I have a feeling that Russia and France won't go along with it at any rate and they're on the security council.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel
The three of us would lead the other countries to forming the UN into something great. Who wouldn't want to be a part of that? As for France and Russia, that's where we come in. We have good relations with them as far as I know. Maybe fixing the UN (or trying to anyway) will help patch up relations between you and Russia and France. Same with Britain. IOW, patch up between the two "sides" of the war on Iraq - those that supported it and those that didn't.

[jerseydevil]

This what I last said in that thread regarding this..,

The US and France - aren't on the best of terms. Although I have heard rumors that we are allowing them to bid in the Iraq contracts because of their terrorist help during the holidays. As I said before "You scratch our back - we scratch yours".

As the UN stands right now - I do not support them - neither does 70% of Americans. They're a glorified debating society made up of rogue nations who do not care whatsoever about human rights. Their sole purpose of being in the UN seems to garner protection and call foul whenever anyone wants to take action against them. Iraq being an example.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Their sole purpose of being in the UN seems to garner protection and call foul whenever anyone wants to take action against them. Iraq being an example.

Protection for or against whom?

Maybe what I really support is what they could be, and the ideas behind their original formation. I think with effort of some of the key nations, starting with kicking out human rights abusing countries, the UN could be a great thing.

I also think we need some kind of world organization to assist with the distribution of wealth more fairly around the world.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Protection for or against whom?

Protection from anyone doing anything about their attrocities.

Iraq went on and on about how the US was the big bully - as they were killing millions of people. Over 2 million people have been found in mass graves in Iraq. But people still scream - well where are the WMD?

Maybe what I really support is what they could be, and the ideas behind their original formation. I think with effort of some of the key nations, starting with kicking out human rights abusing countries, the UN could be a great thing.

it could be a great thing - but it's going the way of the league of Nations.

I also think we need some kind of world organization to assist with the distribution of wealth more fairly around the world.

I disagree there. I think I have enough tax dollars going to food aid and all that stuff. Why should my hard work go to be redistributed to other parts of the world like that? It's bad enough that it's redistributed within the US through taxes. NJ pays $5,000 for every dollar we send to washington. Other states receive $5,000 for every dollar they send to washington.

That money could be used within NJ to make things better here. New Jerseyans are the ones working for it and sarcificing for it - not to mention that we have a higher cost of living here than those other states that get money.

[Dúnedain]

whoops

[Dúnedain]

[edited] Probably not appropriate. -- Khamûl

That pretty much sums up what I think of the UN

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
[edited] Probably not appropriate. -- Khamûl

That pretty much sums up what I think of the UN

And again I say - you voted democrat? *SHOCKED*.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And again I say - you voted democrat? *SHOCKED*.

lol, voting for them and acting like them are two separate things

what happened to the quote? It totally cut off the dude peeing on the UN!! lol

*edit* nvm it's fixed now

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Protection from anyone doing anything about their attrocities.

That's horrible! The UN is not a force for good with this crap going on. In Nurvingiel's United Nations, all human rights violators are kicked out as of now. They will return to find all their stuff in boxes and the locks changed on their offices.

Iraq went on and on about how the US was the big bully - as they were killing millions of people. Over 2 million people have been found in mass graves in Iraq. But people still scream - well where are the WMD?

Initially, I didn't support the US attack, but now I'm not sure what I think about Iraq anymore. The WMDs aren't the important thing, the biggest one has been found - Saddam Hussein. He killed many innocent civilians, and stopping that was more important. Perhaps the end justifies the means, but the true end is when Iraq has a stable, independant government. That will take a long time to set up properly, but it looks like it will occur. I am hopeful. The US still has to deal with Saddam loyalists; peace always seems to take a long time.

it could be a great thing - but it's going the way of the league of Nations.

What is the League of Nations? I begin to see what you mean.

I disagree there. I think I have enough tax dollars going to food aid and all that stuff. Why should my hard work go to be redistributed to other parts of the world like that? It's bad enough that it's redistributed within the US through taxes. NJ pays $5,000 for every dollar we send to washington. Other states receive $5,000 for every dollar they send to washington.

I don't understand your numbers JD. Maybe if you said it a different way?

What I meant about the redistribution of wealth is an idea I hope the (improved and useful) UN would explore. I have no idea how it would be accomplished, because it is extremely complicated, but this is what I meant:
Natural resources are not fairly distributed worldwide. This includes fresh water, timber, arable land, etc. Not only do some areas of the world have more natural resources than others, but some countries consume resources from other nations in addition to their own.
For example, in Brazil, all the good farmland is owned by forgein corporations. Brazillian farmers are left with poor, margianalized land. They are eventually forced to cut down parts of the rainforest in order to maintain their levels or crop production. These are small, individually owned farms. However, many farmers cutting down the rainforst adds up quickly, especially since rainforests do not regenerate in any reasonable period of time.
One idea I have to resolve this is that there is a limit to how much land you can own outside of your own country.
There is at least one flaw in this idea:
- How would land be transfered? In Brazil, the average farmer can't afford the best farmland. That's how the foreign companies came to own it in the first place. Something in addition to market-based economics would have to be employed.

[Nurvingiel]

Dúnedain you are the biggest spammer! What about my ideas around an improved UN? Would you approve of them if they actually did something useful, and if all the human rights violators were kicked out?

[Dúnedain]

That is so lame. I get edited for something so tame like that. Are we running an after school program here? jeez...I included a smiley face with it...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Initially, I didn't support the US attack, but now I'm not sure what I think about Iraq anymore. The WMDs aren't the important thing, the biggest one has been found - Saddam Hussein. He killed many innocent civilians, and stopping that was more important. Perhaps the end justifies the means, but the true end is when Iraq has a stable, independant government. That will take a long time to set up properly, but it looks like it will occur. I am hopeful. The US still has to deal with Saddam loyalists; peace always seems to take a long time.

Hussein was the reason I supported the war from the beginning. WMD was never a primary thing in the US. Bringing democracy and ending the dictatorship of Hussein was the big thing. Even Libya's Qaddafi said that part of the reason he agreed to let inspectors in and to dismantle his WMD programs was because of the US in Iraq and Hussein being captured. People may not like force - but sometimes it is the only way.

What is the League of Nations? I begin to see what you mean.

The League of Nations was the predecessor to the UN. The US was also instrumental in developing that - but never joined. It soon failed for the same reasons the UN is so incompetant now.

I don't understand your numbers JD. Maybe if you said it a different way?

Through taxes and so forth - the federal government gets money - they then redistribute this money through various benefits to the states. New Jersey send $5,000 for every dollar it gets back. But others send a dollar for every $5,000 they get back.

What I meant about the redistribution of wealth is an idea I hope the (improved and useful) UN would explore. I have no idea how it would be accomplished, because it is extremely complicated, but this is what I meant:
Natural resources are not fairly distributed worldwide. This includes fresh water, timber, arable land, etc. Not only do some areas of the world have more natural resources than others, but some countries consume resources from other nations in addition to their own.

But you can't expect everyone to be equal and have the same things. We consume more resources - because we produce more.

For example, in Brazil, all the good farmland is owned by forgein corporations. Brazillian farmers are left with poor, margianalized land. They are eventually forced to cut down parts of the rainforest in order to maintain their levels or crop production. These are small, individually owned farms. However, many farmers cutting down the rainforst adds up quickly, especially since rainforests do not regenerate in any reasonable period of time.
One idea I have to resolve this is that there is a limit to how much land you can own outside of your own country.
There is at least one flaw in this idea:
- How would land be transfered? In Brazil, the average farmer can't afford the best farmland. That's how the foreign companies came to own it in the first place. Something in addition to market-based economics would have to be employed.

That's a different issue than redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is saying - that if a country has so much money - they have to give so much of it above a certain limit away. So that way everyone has the same amount - it's called communism - it doesn't work. Why should I wok hard or a country work hard beyond a certain point - if the money is just going to go into the hands of someone who didn't work?

[jerseydevil]

Khamul it was too appropriate - a guy pissing on the UN - VERY appropriate.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The League of Nations was the predecessor to the UN. The US was also instrumental in developing that - but never joined. It soon failed for the same reasons the UN is so incompetant now.

It's up to us to save it! Or start a better international organization when they go down.

Through taxes and so forth - the federal government gets money - they then redistribute this money through various benefits to the states. New Jersey send $5,000 for every dollar it gets back. But others send a dollar for every $5,000 they get back.

I see what you mean now. New Jersey must be a wealthy state, relatively. But you are all part of the same country.

But you can't expect everyone to be equal and have the same things. We consume more resources - because we produce more.

This is not always the case. For example - coffee. Not one bean is produced in Canada, and I don't think any is produced in the US either. Yet, we consume a great deal, and all of it was produced in other countries that could have used the land to produce essential food for themselves. They did not because we could afford to pay, and their government chose to allow this. The average farmer did not get to make the decision, and is the one to suffer in the end.

That's a different issue than redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is saying - that if a country has so much money - they have to give so much of it above a certain limit away. So that way everyone has the same amount - it's called communism - it doesn't work. Why should I wok hard or a country work hard beyond a certain point - if the money is just going to go into the hands of someone who didn't work?

I'm not supporting communism, this just leads to no one having incentive to accomplish anything. When I said "redistribution of wealth" I meant "fair distribution of natural resources".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I see what you mean now. New Jersey must be a wealthy state, relatively. But you are all part of the same country.

New Jersey is the wealthiest state in the country per capita. We beat out Connecticut for the number 1 spot for the last couple of years.. We are one country - but state rights is an important thing in the US. Whether people want to admit or not - we are more like Europe and the EU - at least as far as they were trying to go with the new constitution and everything. People seem to really not be able to grasp this concept though.

This is not always the case. For example - coffee. Not one bean is produced in Canada, and I don't think any is produced in the US either. Yet, we consume a great deal, and all of it was produced in other countries that could have used the land to produce essential food for themselves. They did not because we could afford to pay, and their government chose to allow this. The average farmer did not get to make the decision, and is the one to suffer in the end.

So you are saying that they should destroy the crop they make money off of? There are a lot of reasons fro poverty - the lack of food in certain countries is not one of them - especially in the rain forest.

I'm not supporting communism, this just leads to no one having incentive to accomplish anything. When I said "redistribution of wealth" I meant "fair distribution of natural resources".

You can't have fair distribution of resources without taking from the people who have them - either through work or money and GIVING them to the ones who don't. This is communism. Resources cover a broad range. Even under your scenario above - a country has something to sell - it sells it - it is called trading. Coffee beans is a resource - that is tradeable. Most countries make money through trade. most of the South Americans are poor because their governments are corrupt. The poverty on the African continent is mostly caused by the civil wars and war lords.

[The Gaffer]

People are talking about the UN as if it is an entity in itself with malicious intent to protect dictators and scumbags worldwide. This seems to be going unchallenged, so let's think about it. (I'll leave aside the selective amnesia towards who propped up Saddam throughout the 80s, when he was busy gassing Kurds and Iranians)

Firstly, the UN consists of its members states. They vote. They don't (always/often) agree. So, often, the UN decides to do something which we don't like. Often, it decides to do NOTHING, which we don't like. The same is true of any form of government. If we have government, we have to put up with the possibility (indeed, the inevitability) that we are not going to agree with some of the things it does.

This also means that the UN cannot do anything without the commitment of member states. To send in "UN" troops, it has to borrow them from member states' armies, which means that those states have to agree with the policy. Given that, what's surprising is that the UN ever manages to agree on anything.

But does that mean we should just throw up our hands and say that there is no role for such an intergovernmental agency?

The alternative would be rule by national self-interest. What this translates to, of course, is "might is right". Maybe that's OK, but it's not my idea of civilisation.

And frankly, I find the assertion that third world poverty is all their own fault to be totally naive and rather shocking.

[jerseydevil]

You forgot though Gaffer that most of the MEMBER states don't even live up to the UN charter and have terrible human rights records and perform genocide on their own people. This is in complete conflict to what the UN charter says that all member states must live up to. So why are they allowed to be members? Why was Iraq allowed to be a member? Why was Iraq even voted to chair the Disarmament Committee - when it for 10 years didn't adhere to the disarmament resolutions of the UN? This is the organization that is looked upon with such fondness in Europe?

As for propping up Hussein - we supported him in the war against Iran - which the Soviet Union was supporting. It would have been disasterous for the region if Iran conquered Iraq. Anyway - this has been gone over and over again. You just want to ignore the facts of the 40's - 80's and the goal of the Soviet Union.

[sun-star]

I support the idea of the UN, but I don't agree with its current operation. I think it's important to have an international organisation of this kind and its aims are admirable, but there are certainly some problems with it in terms of who it accepts as members.

If we're drawing parallels with the League of Nations - it's interesting that it collapsed to a great extent because of the absence of the USA. If the UN is really so unpopular in the US now, that could be the cause rather than the result of perceived UN failure.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
We are one country - but state rights is an important thing in the US. Whether people want to admit or not - we are more like Europe and the EU - at least as far as they were trying to go with the new constitution and everything. People seem to really not be able to grasp this concept though.

That's because some of us don't want it to be that way

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

As for propping up Hussein - we supported him in the war against Iran - which the Soviet Union was supporting. It would have been disasterous for the region if Iran conquered Iraq. Anyway - this has been gone over and over again. You just want to ignore the facts of the 40's - 80's and the goal of the Soviet Union.

Really? I thought that the Soviet Union was the main supplier of arms to Iraq all through the Iran-Iraq War.

Since most of Iran's equipment was American, it was, ironically, Israel which supported the Ayatollahs with most of their supplies, supplemented by America during the Irangate deals; after that they bought what they could get from from China and North Korea.

In fact, the USSR was seen as such a bulwark against Iran that Kuwait asked the both the Soviet and US Navies for protection from Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping.

I've never heard anyone suggest that the USSR was backing Iran- interested to hear of anything supporting that view.