The worthlessness of the UN. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pj67coll · #1 04-08-2009, 02:55 PM

You can read the screed here if you're interested...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/07/pub-rice-faces-test-diplomat/

but in my opinion this paragraph...

"Because this was a violation of a previous Security Council resolution, we think it would be most appropriate that it would be treated in a subsequent Security Council resolution, but our aim is not only the form, it is the substance,"

... in reference to the North Korean missile launch perfectly encapuslates the utter worthlessness/uselessness/fecklessness/moribundity of the waste of resources known as the UN.

- Peter.

MTI · #2 04-08-2009, 03:09 PM

The US has never had an interest in a "strong UN" that didn't kowtow to its agenda, so what's the difference now?

#3 04-08-2009, 03:14 PM

Problem with the U.N. is that they always have to play with kids gloves on. Ohhh and that other thing they have no army or anything or their own. They are kind of like the friend that starts fights all the time but then comes over to ask you to fight them. Not to say other aspects of the U.N. aren't good and needed.

JollyRoger · #4 04-08-2009, 03:37 PM

An obsolete institution for a Cold War world, when the Allies were victorious and the Commies got their say. It needs to be scrapped for something new, perferably a One-World-Government of ZOG, run from Moscow, staffed by the Illumanati and generaled by the Templar Knights, who shall invite the Anti-Christ as the keynote speaker and appoint the False Prophet and the Beast to a joint Secretariat over the world on opening day. Then we will be secure.

pj67coll · #5 04-08-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helpplease

Problem with the U.N. is that they always have to play with kids gloves on.

See. I don't think that they really even play at all. They merely give the appearance of playing while allowing the bully's to go about their normal business. I think the best description of them is "reprobate enablers."

- Peter.

tankdriver · #6 04-08-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

You can read the screed here if you're interested...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/07/pub-rice-faces-test-diplomat/

but in my opinion this paragraph...

"Because this was a violation of a previous Security Council resolution, we think it would be most appropriate that it would be treated in a subsequent Security Council resolution, but our aim is not only the form, it is the substance,"

... in reference to the North Korean missile launch perfectly encapuslates the utter worthlessness/uselessness/fecklessness/moribundity of the waste of resources known as the UN.

- Peter.

Because the UN can't police the world minus America (because we should do what we want) it's utterly useless? Not one good thing?

pj67coll · #7 04-08-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Because the UN can't police the world minus America (because we should do what we want) it's utterly useless? Not one good thing?

Becaues the UN does not wish to "police" the world. As I said. It's merely a forum for the west's enemies to bash the US while enabling reprobates to go on their merry way. As far as world security is concerned, no, not one good thing.

- Peter.

tankdriver · #8 04-08-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Becaues the UN does not wish to "police" the world. As I said. It's merely a forum for the west's enemies to bash the US while enabling reprobates to go on their merry way. As far as world security is concerned, no, not one good thing.

- Peter.

Not does not wish. Is incapable of. And world security isn't the only thing it does.

SirNik84 · #9 04-08-2009, 05:39 PM

The UN is an obsolete institution for a Cold War world. During the cold war when there was more then one super power it was a forum for all the world to talk out is problems (mainly that they didn't want to be blown up by one or both of the super powers) thus it served its purpose as a place for the super powers to talk and debate.

Now that the Cold War is over the rest of the world needs the UN to solve their problems (now their problems are more personal and have nothing to do with the whole world being obliterated) The US is not usually involved in the cause of these problems, but is normally called apron to stop them. (think the African wars and genocides)

As a result of this the UN is now a forum for the world to talk and debate and also the forum for the world to ask the US for help. thus the UN is not much help for the US because the US is more powerful then the UN. the only purpose the US has for the UN is a forum to explain out actions.

The US doesn't want powerful UN or a UN that has its own troops because then the US would not have any power over the UN. if you like this arrangement or not comes down to how you see the US.

I personally see the US as a force for good in the world promoting capitalism that brings the world together at the global market place.

LUVMBDiesels · #10 04-08-2009, 05:51 PM

The real problem is that the UN is a debating society with no grounding in the "real world" The ambassadors can blovinate all they want and not care if anything ever gets done while enjoying the shopping and restaurants in NY.
Unless there is the ability to translate words into action as in NATO all you get is words.

The scary thing is that Obama elevated Ambassador Rice to become a member of the cabinet. Last I had heard the UN ambassador was part of the State Department and answered to the SecState. Now that is no longer the case. It puts way to much emphasis on a failed organization...

tankdriver · #11 04-08-2009, 07:05 PM

The real problem in my opinion is a misunderstanding of what the UN is supposed to be. It will never be a world government, which is what people want it to be in certain situations, and then don't want it to be in others. Security wise, it will never, and was never, meant to usurp the rights and powers of states wholesale. Only specifically, and if enough people agree and are willing to step forward. For example, the Persian Gulf War. The United States did not need UN approval to exercise its powers to attack Iraq. However, Iraq's powers were usurped not by the US, but by the world at large. Surely the benefit of that is obvious. That is what the Security Council is for. It's for a group of countries deciding what will happen to one country. In the case of N. Korea, no country including ours has the desire to get a group of countries to collectively exert power over N. Korea. So nothing happens.

Botnst · #12 04-08-2009, 08:01 PM

Waste of tax dollars. Send it to the same grave as the "League of Nations."

tonkovich · #13 04-08-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Becaues the UN does not wish to "police" the world. As I said. It's merely a forum for the west's enemies to bash the US while enabling reprobates to go on their merry way. As far as world security is concerned, no, not one good thing.

- Peter.

would one of those reprobates be israel - our client state / colony?