Death of the UN

  1. I have never felt the UN was a very useful organization, but now I feel that not only is it not useful it is an obsolete organization that deserves to go the way of the League of Nations. When the world, particularly the US, is threatened by terrorism in a way that thousands of people can die and the only thing the UN is capable of coming up with is continued inspections, I say we should throw up our hands and get the hell out of dodge. The US provides more than half of the funding for the World Food Program, and the very countries we are feeding are unwilling to do anything more proactive then inspections. Of course that may have something to do with the despots that run those countries and who in some cases are deliberately starving their own people as a way to stay in power.
    Repeatedly the UN has been useless in human rights tragedies, particularly in Africa, but somehow or another these failures end up being the fault of America. Just listen to the crap that came out of the the conference on racism last year. Condemnation of the US occured repeatedly while the countries doing the condemning where obviously incapable of looking in the mirror. It was not the UN who intervened into "Greater" Serbia, that would be NATO, and only after the US took the lead.
    And then there is France. If one looks back into history the last time I believe the last time that France actually won any kind of war was when Charlemagne(742-814) was King of the Franks. Of course there is Germany too. A country that has repeatedly showed it's xenophobia to the world and are using Americans as it's latest bogeyman. China? Well a country that advocates forcing women to have abortions for population control has nothing to say to my country. Russia? Consider the history of Russia and it has yet to actually come out of the age of Czar's though I do give credit in it's current attempts.
    It is not so much that I advocate war on Iraq, it is more that the UN is not going to do anything that has some teeth behind it in order to actually avoid a war. Think about it. If the UN actually did something, how many other world members would be quaking in their boots because of the way they treat their own citizens? These people are not going to vote for something that could prove a precedent on what could happen to them.
    By refusing to do something, anything besides inspections that the whole world has to know is nothing more than searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack, the worlds organization has basicly forced this country into an action that has nearly split this country in half in terms of opinions. Anyone with even a bit of knowledge of US history should understand that we are not a country that is going to back down when we feel our existance is threatened. All the UN has done is guarentee that the US will do what it feels it needs to do to protect our citizens and when we take that step the UN will mean even less than it does now. The new century we are just starting into will be defined historically much different than the century we have left behind.
    Now don't for a minute think this means I support everything that Bush is doing because I don't. I abhor the Patriot Act, as well as some of the other tactics that I believe is impinging on the US constitution, and our rights as American's. What I am saying is the inability of the UN to do something more constructive than inspections has guarenteed the demise of the UN as we know it, and virtually guarenteed a war in Iraq and an increase of terrorism not only in this country but in European countries and likely on the Asian continent as well. They have virtually guarenteed what they seek to stop. The sheer stupidity of it all boggles my mind. I also think the grand ability of the people in the Middle East to hold to violations of the human spirit, not to mention human rights in the name of religion will result in the demise of those cultural norms that we know now. I'm not sure that is a bad thing personally, particularly in Saudi Arabia. They are the hicks of the Middle East with nothing of the cultural heights that most of the other areas attained in ancient history. The religious Mullahs have for centuries stifled the learning and forward movement of a whole region of the world, leaving the vast majority of the population poor, hungrey and angry. It is not unlike watching the demise of European monarchy. It will be painful, there will be much death, but in the end they will lose what is now so precious to them because of the inability to treat the population as anything but herds to be ordered about for the power of the religion and those in the top of the cultures. Any kind of reform the Saudi's are attempting may come way too late. They will lose out to the religious fanatics and then the religious fanatics will lose out to those who believe in true human freedom and dignity. Huge changes in the world history are coming, feel it in the air.
    I will not be going to the peace rally I had planned on going to today because the UN has already sealed the fate of the world. It would be a useless exercise on my part. Now if someone decides to put together a rally for the freedoms that the Bush adminstration has taken away than I will be there with bells on. It is difficult to take the moral high ground when the Patriot Act is in force.
    Ding Dong, the UN is dead.
    •  
  2. 27 Comments

  3. by   Q.
    Helen,
    Woo Hoo way to go. And on top of that, let's get out of *******' NATO while we're at it. Do you know how much we'd save?
  4. by   WashYaHands
    It is not so much that I advocate war on Iraq, it is more that the UN is not going to do anything that has some teeth behind it in order to actually avoid a war.
    This is an excellent statement that I think is shared by many who have been labeled "pro-war". It's not a pro-war stance, but rather a pro-policy enforcement stance. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

    Linda
  5. by   RN-PA
    Here are some other thoughts about the UN from writer Andrew Sullivan. (Scroll down to the 2nd and 3rd articles down on the right hand side.)

    http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

    Here's the first of his writings on the subject:

    "IT'S OVER: We now know that, barring a miracle, there will be no second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. We know that European public opinion has hardened against any such military action, and that large sections of world opinion regard the United States as more morally abhorrent and internationally dangerous than the genocidal murderer in Baghdad. We know in other words that we will have to wage this war with an international coalition that is not synonymous with the U.N. The U.N. route has been a failure. But it was still worth trying, even if only to give it one last chance. The U.S. and the U.K. have shown amazing patience in trying to force the U.N. to live up to its own resolutions. That very effort gives the lie to those who argue that the Anglosphere nations have no interest in mulitlateralism. But those resolutions - specifically Resolution 1441, demanding immediate Iraqi compliance with disarmament - have been revealed as meaningless, in as much as those countries that signed on to them have no intention whatsoever of enforcing them. The notion that inspections are working is simply ludicrous on its face. The fact that that position was warmly applauded at the Security Council today is a signal that it has decided to engage in unreality."

    The beginning of his second essay:

    "LEAVING THEM BEHIND: The lesson from this is a simple one: we have to abandon the U.N. as an instrument in world affairs. I'm not saying complete U.S. withdrawal, although I'm beginning to think that now makes a lot of sense. I mean temporary U.S. disengagement. The body is now a joke of immense proportions. If it cannot enforce a resolution it passed only a couple of months ago, it cannot enforce anything..... "
  6. by   maureeno
    to sucessfully combat intenational terror the US needs the co-operation of the other countries of the world. no matter our military might, no matter our economic power, we cannot solve the problem alone.
    The UN is a frustrating organization but it is the world body we have.
  7. by   Mkue
    "The body is now a joke of immense proportions. If it cannot enforce a resolution it passed only a couple of months ago, it cannot enforce anything"..... -Andrew Sullivan

    Amen
  8. by   Katmease
    "The body is now a joke of immense proportions. If it cannot enforce a resolution it passed only a couple of months ago, it cannot enforce anything"..... -Andrew Sullivan

    Amen

    Ditto!
  9. by   Q.
    The notion that inspections are working is simply ludicrous on its face. The fact that that position was warmly applauded at the Security Council today is a signal that it has decided to engage in unreality."
    Amen again. Inspections working for what? The Resolution does not call for inspections. The Resolution is not in place to inspect. The Resolution calls for immediate disarmament or else face disarmament by force. Everyone knows that Iraq has not disarmed. Why is the UN not honoring its own Resolution? Because it's a joke.

    Nobody likes war, and anyone who actually identifies themselves as "pro-war" are maniac radicals who I would not want running our country, making decisions or otherwise in a position of power. But the UN has left us with no real alternative grounded in reality. They won't approve force, but haven't identified a real way to actually solve a problem which they themselves have identified.
    Last edit by Susy K on Feb 15, '03
  10. by   rncountry
    Maureeno, as much as I respect nearly everything political that you post, do you believe that we need a world organization? Most of that world organization members do not have values that are akin to the values we hold as the most important to us in the states. They have no problems with killing and starving their own people. Most of those countries offer nothing in terms of even a modest education to the vast majority of their citizens.
    What has the UN done for the Sudenese?
    What has the UN done for Tibet?
    What has the UN done in Sierra Leone?
    What has the UN done in Zimbawawe?
    What did they do in Serbia?
    And on and on. They have repeatedly condemned Israel, but where is the condemnation for the Arab countries?


    Imagine the following scenario: if on the eve of American independence, the founders had asked the world's permission before they revolted against the English crown. Imagine if the question of American independence rested not in the minds of the patriots, but with the kings in the palaces of Europe. And then imagine not living in America, because had the founders not possessed the moral courage to act and instead adapted a policy of begging the world's favor, America would simply not exist as it does today.


    For all its pretense, credibility is one thing the UN lacks.

    And Suzy, as far as NATO goes, do we need to have American troops in Germany any longer? I'm thinking no. I felt much the same way when the bloodletting in Serbia was stopped, not because the Europeans led the war against a tyrant in their own backyard, but because America stepped up to it. Yes, I know there are other countries there now, but it should not be forgotten that these people quit killing each other because of American intervention, not European intervention. Hell, if we had left it up to the Europeans Serbia would still be aflame.

    But more than anything, in this moment of history, the UN has failed in a stunning display of incredible weakness. They have failed in all ways to support the country that has embodied what freedom and human rights are all about. I will never, never excuse any American govn't, past or present, that has taken actions to disrupt that freedom, here or abroad, but acknowledging that my country has done imperfect thing does not equate into belief that third world countries with abysmal records of human rights along with nominal European powers should be able to in essence, leave this country to the dogs of terrorism. I may not fully believe in a link between Iraq and Al Queda, but I am pragmatic enough to believe that SH would do anything to bring about the demise of this country and so would Al Queda. As they say, politics make strange bedfellows.

    Within days of the 9-11 attacks and the anthrax attacks I posted on this board that I expected we would be going after the Iraqi's. Why? Because even then I did not trust that the Iraqi's somehow were not involved. I still don't. I have intense doubts about this country warring against Iraq, but I also know believe it is an inevitable outgrowth of a World Organization that has refused to be proactive one bit to protect it's member, the US. I've grown tired and weary of listening to members of the UN who haven't a clue about the rights of man, whining in decibles regarding what my country doesn't do for theirs, or doesn't do for people's that are terrorists not just recently but for decades.

    Look at a map of the Middle East, or all of the African continent and tell me where there is a country that even comes close to giving their citizens respect, dignity and basic rights. When that happens I'll believe the UN has something to do for this country. These countries make me think of teenagers who can't grasp that all their parents have is because it took them many years and hard work to attain that prosperity, instead believing that the parents should just give what they have to them, so they can avoid the hard work and difficult decisions that were made to manage to have a good life. I believe deeply in what has been called the Protestant work ethic, I also believe in helping those who cannot help themselves, but only until they are able to help themselves. I don't believe in repeatedly asking for a handout and then biting the hand that feeds you. After awhile that hand is going to b***hslap you back.

    The UN has effectively left the US to it's own devices and no one truly is going to like where that takes us. The world has no one to blame but themselves for it . Though you can bet that they will blame the US as it's the norm.
  11. by   RN-PA
    Another view on the UN. (It was written in October 2002 but is timely today)

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=29166

    The trouble with the U.N.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: October 4, 2002
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Joseph Farah
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002 WorldNetDaily.com

    "There are many reasons it's wrong to go to the United Nations for permission to defend the United States of America.

    There are even more reasons not to use Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions as the principal justification for an attack.

    Already the usual suspects are stating the obvious: If we are about to attack Iraq because it has violated U.N. resolutions, why aren't we attacking Israel?

    The proponents of the argument recognize the U.N. has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy over the last 50 years condemning the Jewish state. There's just no dispute about it. The U.N. hates Israel. It has almost from the moment the U.N. voted to approve the creation of the state in 1948. Israel is perceived by the U.N. as perhaps the greatest threat to peace in the world.

    Just look at the facts. Of 175 Security Council resolutions passed by the U.N. before 1990, 97 of them were directed against Israel. Of 690 General Assembly resolutions before 1990, 429 condemned Israel.

    The U.N. is obsessed with Israel.

    And that is a great example of why we should treat the U.N. for what it is - an evil and irrelevant group of global busybodies.

    Israel is no threat to anyone except those who seek to destroy it. Frankly, even to those people, it's not enough of a threat. Israel's biggest problem is that it has been so wimpy and conciliatory except during wartime when it is faced with extinction.

    The U.N. sees no great danger posed by totalitarian nations imposing their will on neighbors - regimes like the one in Syria. Syria, in fact, even served as chairman of the Security Council during the month of June this year. Yet, there is only one nation actually occupying another in the Mideast today, and that one nation is Syria, which has a political and military stranglehold on Lebanon.

    The U.N. sees no great danger when a nation like Sudan makes war on its own people because of race and religion. The Islamic radicals who run the country have aided Osama bin Laden in the past. Today they are content to continue the mass murder of Christians and animists in the southern region of the country and in the Nubian mountain region.

    The U.N. sees no great danger in tribal wars like the one that flared in Rwanda, resulting in the deaths of more than 1 million people. In fact, the evidence is now clear the U.N. had advance knowledge of the impending slaughter and did nothing to prevent or even condemn it.

    The U.N. sees no great danger in the wholesale, government-sponsored, racist land-grabs currently underway in Zimbabwe, for instance. White farmers are being held hostage and murdered in a systematic, orchestrated, forceful and violent campaign of wealth redistribution. Not as much as a whimper of concern was expressed by the U.N. Conference on Racism.

    Yet, the U.N. has even characterized the Jewish state as a racist concept. Yet, was it racist when the people of Kosovo - ethnic Albanians, mainly Muslims - wanted independence from Serbia? Evidently not, according to the U.N. In fact, NATO bombed Serbia in an effort to accomplish the objective of an autonomous Kosovo.

    Was it racist when mainly Muslim Bosnians wanted to create a separate nation? Evidently not, according to the U.N, which helped ensure the creation and maintenance of such a state.

    Think of all the national independence movements based on ethnicity and religion that have received the support of the international community in recent years. Why is it that only Israel is targeted in this way?

    It's time for the United States to recognize the U.N. is a sham from beginning to end. It's a disgrace that we continue to court this modern-day global Tower of Babel. It's time for us to say goodbye to this dangerous and useless group of power-mad tinhorn dictators.

    When the U.S. is attacked without provocation, it's up to us to defend our nation. We don't need nor want the U.N.'s blessing."
  12. by   kmchugh
    Originally posted by maureeno
    to sucessfully combat intenational terror the US needs the co-operation of the other countries of the world. no matter our military might, no matter our economic power, we cannot solve the problem alone.
    The UN is a frustrating organization but it is the world body we have.
    Go back, re-read Helen's posts. The UN is not a frustrating organization. It is an ineffective, impotent, irrelevant institution that has placed those adjectives upon itself. By passing resolutions without teeth, by fearing to enforce its own resolutions, the UN has become obsolete. I've said it before, and nothing said here or elsewhere has changed my view. It is time to pull all US funding from the UN, and kick them out of New York. If any part of that august organization demands payment for the buildings or other "UN" property in the US, as far as I'm concerned, they can try to come get it. 24 hours. Out or we will arrest you and deport you. Begone.

    As to the solution of the international terror problem, it would appear to me that we already have the cooperation of many countries. Yet another example of the irrelevance of the UN.

    Well said, Helen.

    Kevin McHugh
  13. by   fergus51
    I have no problem in not using the UN as a security organization, but I am not in favor of just letting all the humanitarian work they do go to sh*t because I am a little pi$$ed at them right now.
    http://www.un.org/works/index.html
  14. by   donmurray
    The UN, for all its faults, which are many, is the nearest thing we have to a World organisation, where peoples of every viewpoint can debate and resolve issues peacefully. It gives the smaller, weaker nations a platform where their voices can be heard. It is, or should be, the next logical step in the progress of humankind, and of democracy.
    The alternative is the law of the jungle, with the big beasts doing as they may, and the smaller ones cowering in fear of offending them.
    It can only be as effective as its members allow it to be. It should be the home of International Law, but then the creation of the Internaional Court was blocked by powerful members unwillingness to allow independent overview of their actions, despite a robust system being in place to prevent spurious charges being brought. This begs the question as to whether some countries believe that they are above the law, or that their actions may not stand up to legal scrutiny.
    We are a small planet, and ultimately we all have to live together. Empires come and go, but if a supra-national body did not exist, we would have to invent one. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

close