From WorldNetDaily (WND):

The United Nations is closer to extinction than at any time in its history. Finally, the people of the United States and around the world are calling for an end to this institution. Mired in scandal and controversy, Kofi Annan's last hope of salvaging the failing institution is the latest "reform" recommendations produced by his blue-ribbon committee.

The two critical recommendations would expand the Security Council from 15 to 24 members and would designate the Security Council as the sole authority to legitimize "pre-emptive" military action.

These recommendations, if implemented, would sink the institution further into the quicksand that has prevented it from meaningful action in the past. As long as the veto remains intact for the five permanent members, nine additional members would only lengthen the debate before a proposal is killed – or ignored. Removal of the veto, which is the ultimate goal of global governance advocates, would give the institution the power to impose and enforce world government.

The solution to the world's problems is not reform of the United Nations. The solution lies in the nations of the world finding a new way to address common problems.

Dialogue, as a means of dispute resolution, is a far better alternative than bombs and bullets – when dialogue is possible. Cooperation, as a means to achieve a common goal, is far better than coercion. So, there needs to be some kind of system to encourage dialogue and promote cooperation. This is the same observation that prompted the creation of the United Nations originally. The idea went sour at the point where the institution acquired the authority to require its members to implement U.N. policy.

The fundamental organizing principle upon which a successful global system can be constructed must be voluntary participation. The world needs a system of global cooperation, not global governance, as is the goal of the Kyoto Protocol now being celebrated in Buenos Aires.

President Bush and Congress have a unique opportunity to move the world forward toward a global system of dialogue and cooperation. Instead of trying to salvage the U.N. through another round of reforms and glossing over the cavernous scandals, Congress should simply stop funding this corrupt institution, and the president should use his bully pulpit to invite other freedom-loving nations to begin discussions toward the development of a voluntary system of global dialogue.

One idea that has emerged is to expand the scope of the G-8 summits as the nucleus of a new system and invite other nations to participate to help define goals and procedures. Another idea is for Congress to review all existing international bodies and withdraw from those that are coercive or offer no positive influence toward the development of democratic, representative national governments.

There is no practical justification for the U.S.'s continued participation in international organizations such as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and many others. There may well be reasons to continue participation in the International Atomic Energy Agency – though some restructuring might be beneficial – and other agencies and organizations.

The point is that the present U.N. system has failed its first purpose; it is blatantly corrupt and continues to get worse by the year. It is destined to fail, because there is no accountability in the system to the people who are governed by the system.

The current scandals and the new reform recommendations make some kind of action necessary in the very near future. The United States will ultimately decide what happens to the U.N., because without U.S. support, the U.N. will evaporate. The bottom line is money; if Congress has the backbone to say no to U.N. funding, the world will have to find another forum for communication and cooperation. If President Bush has the backbone, he can lead the nations of the world to begin construction of another system, without the inherent flaw – the vision of global governance – that plagued both the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations.

Global governance is not a worthy goal; global cooperation is. Many goals can be achieved through voluntary cooperation. National security, however, is not one of them. Dialogue and cooperation with other nations on security issues is essential, but national security is the responsibility of the U.S. government. The U.S. must never allow the U.N. to even think it has the authority to tell the United States when it may, or may not, take military action.

U.N. advocates will preach "mend, don't end" the U.N., but there comes a time when mending is futile, and replacement is necessary. That time is at hand.

--Join the fight!  www.getusout.org

U.N. advocates will preach "mend, don't end" the U.N., but there comes a time when mending is futile, and replacement is necessary. That time is at hand.

When you can present something to replace the UN, then you can talk about getting rid of it: the UN is flawed, but so are other institutions we rely upon (democracy, for example), and the world without the UN would be a far worse world than it is at present.

The US unilaterally withdrawing from the UN would be the sort of narrow-minded and blinkered view that can see no further than its own borders... so given that Bush has just been re-elected, I guess it's a possibility.  The US is the strongest country in the world right now, but nobody could be so misguided as to suggest that the US can take on the rest of the world put together - which is pretty much the scenario you appear to be considering.

The US unilaterally withdrawing from the UN would be the sort of narrow-minded and blinkered view that can see no further than its own borders... so given that Bush has just been re-elected, I guess it's a possibility.  The US is the strongest country in the world right now, but nobody could be so misguided as to suggest that the US can take on the rest of the world put together - which is pretty much the scenario you appear to be considering.



Nobody is suggesting the United States take on the rest of the world, just withdraw from the UN.  With something like 190 nations, the US is stuck paying nearly one-fourth of the UN's total bill, and many Americans feel it just ain't worth it.  One thing I am more than a conservative, is a nationalist.  And, as Michael Savage would say: Borders, Language, and Culture...value them as that is what defines a nation.

We need another National Firearms Purchase day here in America.

You're just cut-and-pasting propaganda from right-wing websites.  Jeez, if I was interested in what the jokers over at World Net Daily had to say, I would go to WND.

Nothing doing.
::)

Nobody is suggesting the United States take on the rest of the world, just withdraw from the UN.

That's your problem - exactly the same as your problem in invading Iraq - not considering the consequences of your actions.  FFS, you've got a brain of your own - try using it.  Just because the blinkered idiot who wrote the article you posted didn't bother to think of what happens afterwards, doesn't mean you shouldn't.  But I would agree that the rest of the world should contribute towards the UN proportionate to GDP.


We need another National Firearms Purchase day here in America:

WTF are you on?  What on earth has that got to do with anything?

WTF are you on?  What on earth has that got to do with anything?

We all must be armed to the teeth to protect ourselves from the invasion of the sissy socialist secularist U.N. who are about to storm our borders, turn our children into gay Muslims, and ruin our Christmas!
:D

We all must be armed to the teeth to protect ourselves from the invasion of the sissy socialist secularist U.N. who are about to storm our borders, turn our children into gay Muslims, and ruin our Christmas!
:D


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/greatbay/1111.jpg

Nobody is suggesting the United States take on the rest of the world, just withdraw from the UN.  With something like 190 nations, the US is stuck paying nearly one-fourth of the UN's total bill, and many Americans feel it just ain't worth it.  One thing I am more than a conservative, is a nationalist.  And, as Michael Savage would say: Borders, Language, and Culture...value them as that is what defines a nation.

We need another National Firearms Purchase day here in America.


Nation Fire Arms Purchase Day?  ::)

Nation Fire Arms Purchase Day?  ::)



I'm wondering what that is, too.



Cat

I'm wondering what that is, too.



Cat

I wish there was a National Fire Arms Purchase Day...followed by a National Grudge-Settling Day!
:o

which would probably turn into a civil war

I wish there was a National Fire Arms Purchase Day...followed by a National Grudge-Settling Day!
:o


Followed by a National Duck and Cover Day?  ::)

I'm wondering what that is, too.



Cat


Um...is your memory that bad?  Did you miss the commercials on Fox?  It was on July 9, 2002.  Guns at my local gun shop were marked down, and I got me a new .22 LR.

Um...is your memory that bad?  Did you miss the commercials on Fox?  It was on July 9, 2002.  Guns at my local gun shop were marked down, and I got me a new .22 LR.



I don't watch Fox.




Cat

I watch FOX but not the commercials.  I haven't seen the ads for Roger Ailes' favorite "Patriotic Country" music CD either.
::)

Since human beings are imperfect, so are the institutions they create, and the UN is no exception.  Withdrawing would be absolutely a mess.  The rest of the world distrusts us enough as it is and that would make it worse.

And Bush using the bully pulpet?  On who, the red states?  Get real.

The "scandal" at the UN over "oil for food" is just the tip of Saddam's scams.  He was selling like 4 times the  oil to Syria, Jordan, and our ally Turkey.  And Lil' Georgie knew it and did nothing.  No wonder sanctions didn't work, and just as with Saddam getting into and staying in power, our policies made  a substantial contribution.  As I have said in another thread, things are seldom as simple as they appear, and therefore simple and simplistic solutions usually not only don't work but make things worse.

And GWB, Cat has one of the best memories of anyone I know.  Why do you assume that everyone watches Foux News, and why must you reduce everything to a personal level?

I don't think the UN should be replaced. It needs to be reformed. I think that the Security Council should be expanded to 24 seats, 9 permanate and 15 revolving, and the veto should be eliminated. I would also like to see the General Assembly reps be elected by the people of their country, not appointed(not sure if the U.N. could strong arm countries like North Korea into doing this though), and it should have some actual legislative power. Currently, all it can do by voting on something is state an opinion.

A little trivia that I compiled recently.

The current UN security council represents 35% of the worlds population.
This figure is mainly due to China which represents 20%.

Therefore, if China abstain, the security council represents 15% of the people of the world, hardly democratic authority!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/greatbay/1111.jpg

I seem to remember you posting this sort of ignorant rubbish during the election campaign, too: the UN never has had, nor ever will have, the power to change the laws of any member countries.  Remember that, the next time some right-wing propaganda-pushing xenophobe tries to sell you another load of snake oil.

I watch FOX but not the commercials.  I haven't seen the ads for Roger Ailes' favorite "Patriotic Country" music CD either.
::)


Geeeee..... on FOX? Hmmmmmm.... I wonder why?

And GWB, Cat has one of the best memories of anyone I know.  Why do you assume that everyone watches Foux News,


I was just asking, I didn't know.  And who said I meant Fox News?  I didn't write Fox News, just Fox.

A little trivia that I compiled recently.

The current UN security council represents 35% of the worlds population.
This figure is mainly due to China which represents 20%.

Therefore, if China abstain, the security council represents 15% of the people of the world, hardly democratic authority!


That is interesting.  Are you trying to say that the UN is a Government?  FOr Heavens sake, I hope not!

Here is some more trivia.  After WWII, the UN was formed largely with the backing and influence of the US.

After WWI, we were also the driving force behind the "League Of Nations".  In fact, just like the UN it was hosted here in the US.  However, we were never members of the League.  Congress refused to allow the US to join.  And a great many people attribute WWII directly to the League.

The League was an impotant organization, which never did anything that mattered (other then to piss off Japan and the other Axis powers), and certainly did not prevent another war.  And I have yet to see the UN having any effect to decrease tensions now.  Which is sad, because at one time, they did a lot to help prevent wars from getting out of control.

Democracy in the UN?  Making countries vote for their UN representatives?  What for?  The UN is not a Government.  It has no authority, it is only an advisary group.  And if somebody seriously proposes that the UN should be a GOvernment, that is the time I demand that we pull out of it.

The UN is broken.  And I think it needs some serious reform and fixing.  But honestly, I doubt it will be replaced, short of a Third World War.

I say dump the UN and stick with NATO.

I say dump the UN and stick with NATO.

So you see the UN as the same sort of organization as NATO?  I strongly suggest you go and do some reading.


The UN is broken. And I think it needs some serious reform and fixing. But honestly, I doubt it will be replaced, short of a Third World War.

Agreed - but the world is still better-off with a flawed UN than none at all: military alliances such as NATO are no substitute.

Since human beings are imperfect, so are the institutions they create, and the UN is no exception.  Withdrawing would be absolutely a mess.  The rest of the world distrusts us enough as it is and that would make it worse.

And Bush using the bully pulpet?  On who, the red states?  Get real.

The "scandal" at the UN over "oil for food" is just the tip of Saddam's scams.  He was selling like 4 times the  oil to Syria, Jordan, and our ally Turkey.  And Lil' Georgie knew it and did nothing.  No wonder sanctions didn't work, and just as with Saddam getting into and staying in power, our policies made  a substantial contribution.  As I have said in another thread, things are seldom as simple as they appear, and therefore simple and simplistic solutions usually not only don't work but make things worse.

And GWB, Cat has one of the best memories of anyone I know.  Why do you assume that everyone watches Foux News, and why must you reduce everything to a personal level?

Has the U.S. government ever made underhanded deals with tinhorn dictators?  Has the U.S. government ever contracted with private firms, such as Halliburton, who have made underhanded deals with tinhorn dicators?  If the answer to both these questions is an affirmative "No," I suppose the U.S. DOES have the moral authority to pounce on the U.N. for "Oil for Food."

Has the U.S. government ever made underhanded deals with tinhorn dictators?  Has the U.S. government ever contracted with private firms, such as Halliburton, who have made underhanded deals with tinhorn dicators?  If the answer to both these questions is an affirmative "No," I suppose the U.S. DOES have the moral authority to pounce on the U.N. for "Oil for Food."



My point exactly.  The answer to both your questions is a very strong YES.  We have, and no doubt will, support any tinhorn dictator who can afford a pair of sun glasses as long he is willing to make his country safe for Coka Cola.  As long as we continue to follow the advice of George F Kennan and his ideological heir, Henry Kissinger, we can never claim the moral high ground in world affairs.  Real politique is not the way to go, but since it has been the basis for our foriegn policy for years, its no wonder that we are held in contempt as hypocrits.  The UN is the last best hope, and I suspect this "oil for food" progam is being hyped by the right to serve their political agenda while ignoring the complicancy of this and the previous admin's complicity in Saddam's smuggling.  More

HYPOCRACY

It just amazes me that the right wingers, even when they're the ruling party, still find something to be overly paranoid about.  If they somehow succeded in forcing the US to leave the UN, what would they be paranoid about next? UFOs?

It just amazes me that the right wingers, even when they're the ruling party, still find something to be overly paranoid about.  If they somehow succeded in forcing the US to leave the UN, what would they be paranoid about next? UFOs?



UFOs?  :o Where?  ::)  ;D

My point exactly.  The answer to both your questions is a very strong YES.  We have, and no doubt will, support any tinhorn dictator who can afford a pair of sun glasses as long he is willing to make his country safe for Coka Cola.  As long as we continue to follow the advice of George F Kennan and his ideological heir, Henry Kissinger, we can never claim the moral high ground in world affairs.  Real politique is not the way to go, but since it has been the basis for our foriegn policy for years, its no wonder that we are held in contempt as hypocrits.  The UN is the last best hope, and I suspect this "oil for food" progam is being hyped by the right to serve their political agenda while ignoring the complicancy of this and the previous admin's complicity in Saddam's smuggling.  More

HYPOCRACY

And don't forget they canned George Kennan because he was too liberal, too humanitarian, too internationalist in his views.

ChuckyG wrote
It just amazes me that the right wingers, even when they're the ruling party, still find something to be overly paranoid about.  If they somehow succeded in forcing the US to leave the UN, what would they be paranoid about next? UFOs?
Actually, they would be EVEN MORE paranoid about the U.N.  If the U.S. had no voice in the U.N., the U.N. would be seen as a vicious rival always plotting against America.  The right-wingers from Podunk want out of the U.N., but not the right-wingers in power.  The U.S. has enormous leverage over the U.N.  A U.N. resolution becomes effectively null and void if the U.S. and Israel vet it.
It is quite amusing to me that GWB wants to stick with NATO.  I used see right-wingers driving around with "U.S. out of NATO" bumper stickers.
As for paranoia and power, the more power you have, the more paranoid you become.  Look at Stalin, Hitler, Tito, Saddam, or any other dictator.  There aren't enough bodyguards and food-tasters in the world to make those guys feel secure!
And remember they canned George Kennan because he was too liberal, too humanitarian in his outlook!

More

HYPOCRACY

Would "hypocracy" be "rule by hypocrites", do you think?

Are you trying to say that the UN is a Government?  FOr Heavens sake, I hope not!

It isn't but I think the worlds needs a government.
Why? Simply ask most of the civilised countries (US, Most of Europe, etc)
We all understand why a single, democratic government is necessary, yet, on the international stage, we say it's not needed.
If the US (for example) shouldn't be beholded to a "higher" government, then why Georgia (I seem to remember that they were forced to (re) join the union).  Lets go further, I have democracy in my house, why should I succeed to the UK government?
The fact is, we all understand why this is right, how can we then refuse a world government and be anything other than hypocrites?

It isn't but I think the worlds needs a government.
Why? Simply ask most of the civilised countries (US, Most of Europe, etc)
We all understand why a single, democratic government is necessary, yet, on the international stage, we say it's not needed.
If the US (for example) shouldn't be beholded to a "higher" government, then why Georgia (I seem to remember that they were forced to (re) join the union).  Lets go further, I have democracy in my house, why should I succeed to the UK government?
The fact is, we all understand why this is right, how can we then refuse a world government and be anything other than hypocrites?


Yeah, I'm sure a world government would go so well over with the American public... ::)

No country should have to give up there rights to other people.  The majority of the world wanted John Kerry to win the last Presidential election, but yet the American public wanted George Bush.  Why should the leader of our country be left up to anyone else.  I can just see what the elected world leader would be like.

World government?  Not in any of our lifetimes.  The United States joining the world government?  Never.

World government?  Not in any of our lifetimes.  The United States joining the world government?  Never.


I thought the United States WAS the world government, we sure act like we are.

I thought the United States WAS the world government, we sure act like we are.

The United States demands to be free to pursue her imperial interests worldwide at any cost to man and ecology---and never be held accountable to any other interest on the planet accept the interest of profit. 

(Is that so much to ask?)
::)

The Bush Administration sees most of the world as ants at a picnic, and the American public is sheepishly following suit.  It is shameful.

That is interesting.  Are you trying to say that the UN is a Government?  FOr Heavens sake, I hope not!


The League was an impotant organization, which never did anything that mattered (other then to tick off Japan and the other Axis powers), and certainly did not prevent another war. 



By "impotant," did you really mean to say it was important, or did you mean something else? And was that an accidental typo or was it intentional?  ::)

By "impotant," did you really mean to say it was important, or did you mean something else? And was that an accidental typo or was it intentional?  ::)


Oh, I think you know.  I think you just want to avoid responding to what Mushroom wrote.

If any other nation wants to tell the US what to do, let them do it by force!  See how that works.

If any other nation wants to tell the US what to do, let them do it by force! See how that works.

Oh, grow up, please - do you realize just how childish that sounds?

"Jealous"... ROFL!

The US can't even keep its own currency stable without foreigners buying trillions of dollars to subsidise its debt - and you think you can go your own way and leave the rest of the world alone?  Just because *you* don't understand the issues, doesn't mean they ain't there...

Oh, grow up, please - do you realize just how childish that sounds?




Ahh...that nice jealous foreign attitude.  It's better than Maxwell House coffee in the morning.

Ahh...that nice jealous foreign attitude.  It's better than Maxwell House coffee in the morning.

Sigh, you need some Maxwell Smart coffee in the morning.  To those of you from other countries (or "ferners" as they say in the red states), GWB does not speak for me as an American.  This should go without saying, but sometimes I like to affirm it explicitly.

Oh, I think you know.  I think you just want to avoid responding to what Mushroom wrote.

If any other nation wants to tell the US what to do, let them do it by force!  See how that works.


Now suppose, just suppose we are talking about China, you know, that big country just west of Japan on the Asian mainland, armed with lkots of WMDs?  Or suppose we're talking about Russia?  Sure, MAD applies in both cases but suppose one or the other's leader got desperate?  Sure we can militarilly lord it over Iraq, Iran, or any other 3rd rate power.  So what?  Bullies usually get their come-uppance sooner or later.  Your tall talk and bravado are just simplisting gingoist sabre rattling, and sound very foolish in this day and age.  I'm sure glad you are not going to be Sec. of State any time soon.

If any other nation wants to tell the US what to do, let them do it by force!  See how that works.

Last time that happened (Twin Towers incident), your president lost it & attacked the wrong country, costing the US worldwide credibility, money & lives. I can even remember the first time he mixed Bin Laden & Saddam up in a public speech! All this right-wing posturing is just sour grapes at the fact that the UN doesn't approve of the US throwing it's weight around, whenever it wants to control resources in another country (Vietnam=golden triangle, South America=cocaine trade, Afghanistan=opium, Iraq=oil). If the US were to leave the UN, it would publicly demonstrate their desire to be world dominators, and further ostracise the US in the rest of the world's eyes, so I think (for the sake of keeping Bush on expensive high-class anti-dementia drugs) it's unlikely the US will pull out yet. Despite the right-wing propaganda above, I hope & believe most Americans recognise the need to be part of a multi-lateral international community- on the base level of the US government, I can't see them alledgedly paying that much into the UN, without getting something very substantial in return (world influence whilst not having to cut back on pollution, perhaps, or a gateway to sell produce at very profitable rates). GWB here allows himself to be brainwashed by right-wing media, all I can hope is that the majority of Americans see this sort of scaremongering for exactly what it is- another attempt by self-serving fascist leaders to give the impression that the rest of the world is against them, to further consolidate their tyranny of fear over the American public. DON'T BUY IT, SENSIBLE AMERICANS!  :D