AsstChiefMark
Topic Author
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:18 pm

So far, he seems to be rehashing stuff that UN folks already know. Education, free trade, human rights, etc. It's like he's preaching to the choir. And bordering on hypocracy at times.
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:49 pm

The real question is, given his credibility rating, does anyone care any more what the guy has to say?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:11 am

Quoting Arrow (Reply 1):
The real question is, given his credibility rating, does anyone care any more what the guy has to say?

None whatsoever, but I am sure he is playing president, not his usual role of conqueror.


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
Queso
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:15 am

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Thread starter):
Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

I was wondering the same thing myself. Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:16 am

I liked it , (of course).. I think it was right on time. He highlighted all of the international efforts that the US is involved with. These are not President Bush's efforts all in all, but he went down the list of all of the "good " positive things that the US does in the world. If I am not mistaken I believe he even credited the administration in the 90's for its efforts against AIDS .. and highlighted the continued commitment of his administration.

I guess you would have liked him to get up and announce that we are oppressive , warlike en slavers of poor Iranian children... ?
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
airtran737
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:47 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
I was wondering the same thing myself. Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.

I agree. The UN is an impotent organization that serves no purpose. We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:29 am

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
The UN is an impotent organization that serves no purpose.

Translation -- it doesn't do what the US tells it to do, or support what the US does unilaterally.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.

Agreed. The sooner the better.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:38 am

Quoting Arrow (Reply 6):
Translation -- it doesn't do what the US tells it to do, or support what the US does unilaterally.

Wrong translation. Perhaps a better one would be that it is so ripe with corruption, nepotism, and theivery that it is incompetent and incapable of achieving much. Sure it does good things but imagine what it could do if the third world banana republic dictators wouldn't try to line their pockets with UN cash and instead use it as intended for their people. Crazy thought I know but maybe, just maybe, that is the real goal of the UN and that has long since been forgotten.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
airtran737
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 3:47 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:40 am

Quoting Arrow (Reply 6):
Translation -- it doesn't do what the US tells it to do, or support what the US does unilaterally.


Translation, the UN serves no purpose for me on a daily basis. It is a corrupt thieving organization. Furthermore, I don't give a damn about the welfare about the people in third world countries, it may be the fact that I am a bastard German, but it is the way I feel. I know you're sitting there shocked and appalled, but I just don't care. The billions of dollars that the US dumps into the UN every year could be better spent on making sure are own citizens are fed, educated, and not living in poverty. Why should developed countries should the burden of the un-developed countries?

[Edited 2007-09-25 17:41:10]

[Edited 2007-09-25 17:41:37]
Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:42 am

I am sorry guys, but I have to defend the UN. Although I don't defend the US being part of it, or one of their main offices located in our territory, I think the UN is highly necessary.

After WWII, our world needed an organization to gather all nations and have great diplomatic relations. One of the reasons we had 2 world wars was because the parties involved failed to become amicable enough to sit down and work the problems (well I don't think Hitler would have enjoyed doing that) but still I think that having the UN is better than not having it at all.

And I think that because the cold war never got to become officially WW3 (although it was at some times), was because of the UN.

[Edited 2007-09-25 17:44:33]
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
BigOrange
Posts: 2291
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:20 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.

No, don't do that. It's the only excitement (aircraft wise) that we get in NY and that's only once a year  Wink
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.

Then Mr. Bush fits perfectly there: he's impotent, serves no useful purpose, and has been a leech on the economy of the U.S. What a great marriage.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 5):
We should withdraw from it and let the headquarters move to another country.

 Yeah sure
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
huskyaviation
Posts: 912
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:58 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 9):
And I think that because the cold war never got to become officially WW3 (although it was at some times), was because of the UN.

I think the fact that the Cold War never became officially "hot" had very little to do with the UN.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:02 am

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 12):
I think the fact that the Cold War never became officially "hot" had very little to do with the UN.

Oh, please then by all means, elaborate for me.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
huskyaviation
Posts: 912
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:18 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 13):
Oh, please then by all means, elaborate for me.

It had much more to do with spheres of influence (NATO, Warsaw Pact), mutually assured destruction, massive retaliation, and both the US and USSR being unwilling to take steps that would spark a hot war between them. All of the de-escalating events during the Cold War came about as a result of direct US-USSR negotiation or action, rather than as a result of anything the UN did. Examples of such would be: the Berlin crises, Cuban Missile Crisis, ABM Treaty, SALT I and SALT II, the INF Treaty, and START.

Can you think of an example where the UN itself prevented war between the superpowers during the Cold War?
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:39 am

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 14):
Can you think of an example where the UN itself prevented war between the superpowers during the Cold War?

I do agree with you, the UN is somewhat of a symbolic institution. However, it did have at least some repercussions during the cold war.

Let's take the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example, both sides were contemplating in having the UN in charge of carrying out of the commitments of supervising the removal of missiles from Turkey and Cuba, although the UN didn't at the end, it was a plausible measure. The UN was the center of the debates. The world saw throughout the UN meetings the pictures of missiles in Cuba. I bet that if those pictures were presented or the meetings held in some NATO meeting place it wouldn't have an unbiased value. All parties involved spoke in the General Assembly of the UN relating to the crisis. They had the debates there, and people got to hear both parts. The people were informed and that is more important, were we able to read or listen to the negotiations that both parties had if it were outside the UN?

Although they resorted to a solution directly Kennedy and Khrushchev, I am quite sure that the UN did keep us on our toes with everything going on with those debates.

My point, the UN did somehow present to the world what was going on, and at least saved us from a third world war. And yes it was an insignificant institution.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
huskyaviation
Posts: 912
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:29 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 15):
The people were informed and that is more important, were we able to read or listen to the negotiations that both parties had if it were outside the UN?

If you think the UN is good for being a place for nations to voice their differences, then yes, the UN has value. It gave Adlai Stevenson a global audience to basically indict the Soviets of foul play on the world stage.

For most of the Cold War it was merely a forum for the US and USSR to whine at each other while achieving little substantively, which was my point originally.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:32 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 9):
After WWII, our world needed an organization to gather all nations and have great diplomatic relations. One of the reasons we had 2 world wars was because the parties involved failed to become amicable enough to sit down and work the problems (well I don't think Hitler would have enjoyed doing that) but still I think that having the UN is better than not having it at all.

The UN wasn't instrumental in the Vietnam conflict.

The UN wasn't instrumental in ending the Cold War.

The UN wasn't instrumental in the Balkans/Kosovo... indeed President Clinton and NATO bypassed them altogether!

The UN was useless in enforcing their own resolutions, when it came to Iraq.

The UN is useless when it comes to Darfur.

The UN was impotent when it came to the genocide in Rwanda.

The UN was useless when it came to bringing stability and peace to Somalia.

The UN has proven totally useless when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

The UN has proven totally useless when it comes to the Israeli-Lebanese-Syrian issues.

The UN has been completely irrelevant during the War on Terror, and calming radical Islam.

The UN has proven to be grossly corrupt and morally bankrupt.


....For an organization that we pay for nearly %25 of their operating budget, why shouldn't we expect more?

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 15):

Let's take the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example, both sides were contemplating in having the UN in charge of carrying out of the commitments of supervising the removal of missiles from Turkey and Cuba, although the UN didn't at the end, it was a plausible measure. The UN was the center of the debates. The world saw throughout the UN meetings the pictures of missiles in Cuba. I bet that if those pictures were presented or the meetings held in some NATO meeting place it wouldn't have an unbiased value. All parties involved spoke in the General Assembly of the UN relating to the crisis. They had the debates there, and people got to hear both parts. The people were informed and that is more important, were we able to read or listen to the negotiations that both parties had if it were outside the UN?

That's one example of a 40year war. And even then... it wasn't a primary player in defusing the conflict. After Adlai Stevenson went before the UN and exposed Soviet missiles in Cuba, the situation intensified. At the time of his speech we were at DEFCON 3, and we went further down to DEFCON 2 days later. Soviet missiles also went online after the UN event. A US U2 aircraft was shot down, and pilot killed, after the UN event... which propelled us even closer to nuclear war.

Yeah the UN was an important factor in the PR aspect of the conflict... but it certainly didn't defuse the crisis. Just like the list above, the UN has a history of irrelevancy.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:32 am

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
I was wondering the same thing myself. Bush should have refused to speak because the UN is impotent and serves no useful purpose. They are a leech on the economy of the US.

Bingo!

Nuf Said.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 8):
The billions of dollars that the US dumps into the UN every year could be better spent on making sure are own citizens are fed, educated, and not living in poverty.

Ditto . . .

How many children in this country could we save by keeping the $$$ Billions here? How many schools could be rebuilt? How many collapsing bridges could we repair? How quickly could we upgrade ATC? There are hundreds of things I feel my tax dollars could be better spent on than helping some third world country that doesn't even try to help itself. . .

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Thread starter):
So far, he seems to be rehashing stuff that UN folks already know. Education, free trade, human rights, etc. It's like he's preaching to the choir.

Mark, my friend, show me ONE leader of a country on this planet that speaks at the UN and doesn't do EXACTLY the same thing?!
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:37 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):
....For an organization that we pay for nearly %25 of their operating budget, why shouldn't we expect more?

So why do the USA to a large extent sabotage and prevent it from achieving what it's there to do?  eyebrow 

In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions. And many people would still live today if the Bush administration hadn't gone off on a wild tangent instead of supporting the UN inspections which were fully correct and effective as even the later US inspectors had to confirm post-invasion.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:42 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions.

 rotfl  By doing what Klaus my friend . . . passing yet more worthless resolutions!

Laughable.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:46 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
How many children in this country could we save by keeping the $$$ Billions here? How many schools could be rebuilt? How many collapsing bridges could we repair? How quickly could we upgrade ATC? There are hundreds of things I feel my tax dollars could be better spent on than helping some third world country that doesn't even try to help itself. . .

So how many billions do you believe the USA contributes to the UN, exactly? You're in for a surprise if you should actually check the relative dimensions.

Especially when considering that good-faith participation in the UN process would have saved the USA the massive expenses of the Iraq occupation the UN would be a bargain - if the investment wasn't simply wasted by failing to exploit the substantial chances the UN would offer - if the US government actually recognized them, that is.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:49 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):

In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions.

So when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors... what exactly did we do? More importantly what did the UN do?

I think we lobbed a few AGMs into Iraq, dropped a few 2,000 pounders... and said, "Oh well." So the hell was the point of passing resolutions, if the organization was unwilling to see them fully implemented? What the hell is the point of putting our trust in that organization, when they were clearly uninterested in keeping their word?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
AsstChiefMark
Topic Author
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:51 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
Mark, my friend, show me ONE leader of a country on this planet that speaks at the UN and doesn't do EXACTLY the same thing?!

He sounded like he was schmoozing and trying to make good for blowing them off in the past.

What was he trying to accomplish? He's not exactly on the UN ambassadors' RU list.

[Edited 2007-09-25 20:52:45]
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
By doing what Klaus my friend . . . passing yet more worthless resolutions!

Among them being the UN inspections which were correct and successful (among other things destroying the only actual weapons systems which was found in violation) before they were aborted by the US invasion.

Had the process completed, the findings would have been the exact same the US invasion produced. Minus the massive damage. Plus the opportunity to deal with Saddam jointly instead of unilaterally.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Laughable.

Not when you look at what actually happened and not some fantasyland wishful thinking which is crumbling before your very eyes.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:10 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22):
So when Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors... what exactly did we do? More importantly what did the UN do?

a) Unfortunately Saddam had actually been given plausible cause for evicting the inspectors back then, because some members of the inspection teams were violating the terms of the process. It is supremely stupid to do that when legitimacy is the primary foundation of your work.

b) The inspections process was highly successful nevertheless - it were not the allied military forces which destroyed most of Saddam's weapon systems, it actually were the UN inspector teams. As the 2003 inspections showed - and later the US inpectors confirmed - Saddam never recovered from that earlier teardown.

It is very easy to denigrate "the UN", but in fact it's the same as with any other collective organisation: If you're member of an organisation, your own participation will make the difference whether it sucks or not. Especially if you're one of the larger members.

Whining about the UN has become fashionable in the USA in recent years. But next to the blatant incompetence of your own recent foreign policy and its disastrous consequences, even the flawed UN we have looks like a shining beacon of hope for the world by comparison.
 
huskyaviation
Posts: 912
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:38 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:18 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
So why do the USA to a large extent sabotage and prevent it from achieving what it's there to do?

Hold on a second--I'll admit I'm not a huge lover of the UN nor am I a great fan of Bush's foreign policy, but singling out the US for making the UN an impotent institution is absurd. The USSR/Russia and China are just as culpable as anyone else is in preventing the UN from accomplishing much. The UN ceased to be relevant during the 1960s when the flood of newly independent nations made the GA a cauldron of whiners about the US and Israel.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 23):
He sounded like he was schmoozing and trying to make good for blowing them off in the past.

What was he trying to accomplish? He's not exactly on the UN ambassadors' RU list.

Every President has addressed the UN at some point or another, as other leaders do. There's nothing wrong with him delivering a speech in an attempt to show the world that the US actually does do some good, contrary to the belief of some.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:23 am

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 26):
Hold on a second--I'll admit I'm not a huge lover of the UN nor am I a great fan of Bush's foreign policy, but singling out the US for making the UN an impotent institution is absurd.

Only because of the source of the criticism. It is perfectly clear that especially China and Russia have played a rather deplorable role in the UNSC as well - China was the main blocker of progress in Darfur, for instance, due to their economic interests in Sudan.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5643
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:34 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 7):
Perhaps a better one would be that it is so ripe with corruption, nepotism, and theivery that it is incompetent and incapable of achieving much.

Have you ever studied Louisiana politics in the 30's, 40's, 50's & 60's?

Or Cook County IL during the 50's and 60's?

Or Texas in the 40's, 50's & 60's?

The UN are amateurs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

President Bush is speaking to the UN because many other world leaders is speaking this week.

It's an appropriate opportunity to tell the world what the US thinks needs to be done.

And it's also equal time - because very other leader is speaking and telling the US and other countries what they need to do and why.

While the UN is irrelevant to the daily lives of most people who live in the US, it is an important body and an important factor in a lot of countries where it does a lot of good.

Though personally, I wish the HQ was in Paris.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:47 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
In the case of Iraq the UN did enforce its own resolutions. And many people would still live today if the Bush administration hadn't gone off on a wild tangent instead of supporting the UN inspections which were fully correct and effective as even the later US inspectors had to confirm post-invasion.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 24):
Among them being the UN inspections which were correct and successful (among other things destroying the only actual weapons systems which was found in violation) before they were aborted by the US invasion.

Had the process completed, the findings would have been the exact same the US invasion produced. Minus the massive damage. Plus the opportunity to deal with Saddam jointly instead of unilaterally

Because everything you have said, It is imperative that the US be removed from the UN and the offices located in NY. For their disobedience to the findings of a "symbolic" institution as the UN which is defenseless against a power as the US.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:03 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 29):
Because everything you have said, It is imperative that the US be removed from the UN and the offices located in NY.

Under your plan, can all of our money be removed, as well?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:12 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 30):
Under your plan, can all of our money be removed, as well?

-UH60

By all means, they ought to. If we do not abide by nothing they dictate or say that goes against our policies and defy the UN, meaning the rest of the world (which are the rest of the members). Then our participation in such organization is unnecessary and completely absurd. Why should we fund the thing? Plus we have dozens of vassal satellite states there to represent us in any case.  Wink
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:45 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 31):
By all means, they ought to. If we do not abide by nothing they dictate or say that goes against our policies and defy the UN, meaning the rest of the world (which are the rest of the members). Then our participation in such organization is unnecessary and completely absurd. Why should we fund the thing? Plus we have dozens of vassal satellite states there to represent us in any case.

Well...wait... that doesn't make much sense, does it?

We'd have to expel a lot of countries, wouldn't we? How many countries have ignored the UN, or countermanded the UN's intent? If the rule of thumb was, "Everytime the UN passed a resolution that went against another nation's policies, they should leave." Then the general assembly would be very empty.

Look... the reason some people believe the US ought to reevaluate its role in the UN is based on a history of failures (see above for a sample list), an anti-Israeli bias, unfair treatment of Taiwan, and internal corruption that went as high as the Secretary-General.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:47 am

Yay, another round of UN bashing... shocking!  yawn 
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:18 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 31):
By all means, they ought to. If we do not abide by nothing they dictate or say that goes against our policies and defy the UN, meaning the rest of the world (which are the rest of the members).

There is a legitimate debate about this. Of course a US withdrawal would mean a withdrawal of funding. How could it be any other way?

There's a choice to be made here. If the U.S. wants to chart its own independent course without regard for anything called a "global village" then it should do that. The rest of the world can then get on with a life without the US and, who knows, maybe they'll find solutions to some problems. Heaven knows, lots of nations (Canada at the top of the list) would then be forced to stop relying on the world's default policeman and look after their own security interests. That would be a good thing.

At the same time, the US can withdraw from the WTO, from NATO, from NORAD, from APEC, from OAS, from NAFTA and from a whole host of other multi-lateral or even bi-lateral organizations where they have to make compromises in the interests of getting along with neighbours. My guess is all that would save billions which could then be redirected to solving a host of domestic problems -- hell, maybe even New Orleans could get rebuilt. And the other members of those organizations would go through a nasty withdrawal period, but they would survive and emerge from the process stronger and more independent.

I'm pretty disillusioned with US leadership over the past decade, and I see nothing in the current run-up to the 2008 presidential election that gives me any cause for optimism. I think a return to an isolationist stance would be good for America, and good for the world.

What would the future be like if this were to happen? Well, I'm learning to speak mandarin.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:35 am

Quoting Aloges (Reply 33):
Yay, another round of UN bashing... shocking!

And yet nothing from you to counter any of the claims or opinions...not shocking.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:51 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 32):
We'd have to expel a lot of countries, wouldn't we? How many countries have ignored the UN, or countermanded the UN's intent? If the rule of thumb was, "Everytime the UN passed a resolution that went against another nation's policies, they should leave." Then the general assembly would be very empty.

Well, you have to know, we are far too powerful for a simple UN resolution to affect our policies, whist if a UN resolution tackles some smaller and less powerful nation, I have a feeling it will hurt them more. Thus the small nation will have to admend their policies or be isolated like North Korea.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:52 am

Quoting Arrow (Reply 34):

At the same time, the US can withdraw from the WTO, from NATO, from NORAD, from APEC, from OAS, from NAFTA and from a whole host of other multi-lateral or even bi-lateral organizations where they have to make compromises in the interests of getting along with neighbours.

Come'on Arrow.

There is a large difference between wanting to reform the presence of the US in the UN... and calling for isolationalism.

I see nothing wrong with asking, "Should we be paying so much money into an organization, in light of the many failures?" Even if we don't fully withdraw (which I am opposed too), why is it wrong to consider reducing our presence, or realigning our expectations for what they can achieve.

Why not invest more into the groups you lists? Some of them have proven to be more potent and useful, than we ever could expect the UN to be. There are many cases of partnership organizations having a large benefit for humanity, surely the US can continue to be apart of those that succeed, and reject those that fail?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 34):
I think a return to an isolationist stance would be good for America, and good for the world.

Who do you believe would fill the void? And what would be the benefits?

Quoting Arrow (Reply 34):
lots of nations (Canada at the top of the list) would then be forced to stop relying on the world's default policeman and look after their own security interests.

And just curious, who threatens Canada?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:20 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 35):
And yet nothing from you to counter any of the claims or opinions...not shocking.

Most of it isn't even based on any actual knowledge of the UN but merely on unfounded and factually incorrect prejudices and long debunked talking points of a US administration which has utterly failed to provide any viable alternative to the UN.

I see rampant single-child syndrome pouting and throwing its toys out of the sandbox and threatening to go home "...because you're all mean to me and it just can't be my own fault!". Not much to respond to, really. I was already stretching myself above.

Fact is that the USA substantially depend on a stable environment on many, many fronts which you're not even aware of now that they're running smoothly and without major disruptions. Iraq should indeed be a wakeup call for those who underestimate the value of good-faith cooperation which on a large international scale only the UN can orchestrate and legitimate.

Most of the vehement UN critics would be surprised by the costs to the USA of abandoning the UN - just as they've been surprised by the cost of going it alone in Iraq on every level.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:22 am

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 35):
And yet nothing from you to counter any of the claims or opinions.

I could write something on successful UN missions (such as UNDOF and UNFICYP), on their objectives (not to turn a place into a land of milk and honey, but to stop people killing each other), on the obstacles (economic vs humanitarian interest in the security council) and on the lives that have been saved, but it'd be wasted time and people would be all over me blaming the UN itself for Srebrenica, Darfur and whatnot.

I could stress the importance of various UN organisations such as the WHO, UNICEF, WFP and UNHCR, but I'd be laughed at and the efforts involved in those operations belittled and smeared because they are unable to save everyone they try to help.

I could then ask how on earth anyone could be supposed to feed every child, clear every mine, vaccinate every mother and put an end to every brutal dictator in the world on an (estimated) operating budget of $4.19 billion and faced with a board whose members, figuratively speaking, would rather kick each other under the table than reach a compromise, but I'd be told that the UN claimed it was able to do all that and should figure it out by itself - preferably without putting a "strain" on the US economy (strange that I never hear anyone else complain about the miserable portions of their GDPs they have to pay) or occupying some "prime real estate" on Manhattan Island.

And if I finally mentioned the eradication of smallpox, someone would certainly insist the WHO and UN had failed at that, too, because the eradication never stopped everyone from hoarding samples of the virus.

See how it would be frustrating? I'm already looking forward to the replies to this post.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 38):
Fact is that the USA substantially depend on a stable environment on many, many fronts which you're not even aware of now that they're running smoothly and without major disruptions.

Not just the US, but we all depend on that.

[Edited 2007-09-26 00:25:28]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:32 am

You guys are only speaking of some of the most controversial subjects relating US-UN, but you guys haven't mentioned the Kyoto Protocol, which we swiftly signed back in the 90's but we haven't ratified. Its part of the United Nations agreements.

It is the environment, out of all the countries in the world only two, Australia and the US, have not ratified it. Which is a pity considering that we are the number one in emissions.

You want something more delicate than our environment?

[Edited 2007-09-26 00:34:14]
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37):
There is a large difference between wanting to reform the presence of the US in the UN... and calling for isolationalism.

I don't disagree with you, but listen to some of your politicians. The rhetoric that comes out their mouths makes it sound like the UN is a communist plot to suck away US soveriegnty and create a world government that can then tell the US what to do. You hear the same BS trotted out with regard to all the other international bodies the US participates in, especially the WTO. Hell, you won't even follow the trade rules that you agreed to when you signed on to NAFTA -- and that's just Canada and Mexico.

The complaints the U.S. makes against the U.N are often valid -- but many other nations have the same complaints, and you don't hear them threatening to to take the ball and go home.

I really believe the U.S. has to make a choice -- and the sooner the better. It either participates fully in the UN and works collaboratively with everyone else to try and fix it and make it work better, or it pulls completely out of it. I can respect either decision. But what you can't do is stay in and then constantly whine and bitch at every UN move you don't like. The Bushies always cite the UN's failure to deal with Saddam and his WMDs properly -- but as has now been proven, the UN approach was the right one , the WMDs were destroyed, and the US finds itself in a hellish quagmire with no end in sight because it charted its own course (and executed it very badly).

And the corruption argument? Don't make me laugh. Last time I checked, Enron had no UN connection. Yes, the UN has corruption. So does the US; check the pork-barreling that goes on every day in Congress. That's a pot/kettle/black line of reasoning.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37):
And just curious, who threatens Canada?

No one I'm aware of; the US tried three invasions and got booted out. But it has always troubled me that we rely far too heavily on our big friend to the south to look after our defence needs. We were in pretty good shape after the second world war, but we really do need to look after ourselves much better than we currently do.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:49 am

Quoting Arrow (Reply 41):
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37):
And just curious, who threatens Canada?

No one I'm aware of

The NHL, perhaps? Big grin
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 40):
but you guys haven't mentioned the Kyoto Protocol

....and just what has the KP done?

China is building over 50 coal plants a year, and their emissions are steadily growing - they have/or shortly will be the chief greenhouse emitter. India is not far behind.

Canada has refused to abide by the protocol... even though they are a signatory nation. In fact many other nations are far from meeting their contractual agreement, and it appears their signing of the treaty was only a symbolic gesture.

France gets their power from nuclear energy... which a lot of liberal Democrats in America are staunchly opposed to doing in America. Indeed, French nuclear power plants are considerably more advanced than those in America. However, the US would never be able to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, like France, because Democrats would stand in the way.

...Look, the principle of the treaty is noble... but it highlights the impotence of the UN. They have demonstrated for many years that they can "talk the talk" but they've consistently failed at implementing their own initiatives.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
b752fanatic
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 1:44 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:13 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
China is building over 50 coal plants a year, and their emissions are steadily growing - they have/or shortly will be the chief greenhouse emitter. India is not far behind.

China ratified it (unlike us), although their emissions are half of ours, they say they will comply. But as you say its nothing but a symbolic accord. The UN won't go to China and invade them because they broke with what they signed, its up to them to make the reforms in their emissions.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
Canada has refused to abide by the protocol... even though they are a signatory nation. In fact many other nations are far from meeting their contractual agreement, and it appears their signing of the treaty was only a symbolic gesture

Canada also ratified it, but the right wing corporate led politicians are making it difficult, but they are far more improving than us. AT LEAST, but they are steadly working towards complying.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
...Look, the principle of the treaty is noble... but it highlights the impotence of the UN. They have demonstrated for many years that they can "talk the talk" but they've consistently failed at implementing their own initiatives.

Ok, granted, you can't force them militarly to comply or nuke them because they don't wish to comply (then the impotence from the UN will cease) Its symbolic in a sense but makes them act. At least the nations you have mentioned ratified it, we haven't reach that level yet.
"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
 
Springbok747
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:16 am

One example of the UN's incompetence - Zimbabwe. There are literally millions of people starving and suffering under Mugabe. So why isn't the UN doing anything? The UN is a spineless organization..'nuff said.
אני תומך בישראל
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:18 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 43):
...Look, the principle of the treaty is noble... but it highlights the impotence of the UN. They have demonstrated for many years that they can "talk the talk" but they've consistently failed at implementing their own initiatives.

Yeah, they should simply bomb everybody who doesn't fulfill their self-committed goals immediately and at the first try...!  crazy 

That argumentation doesn't make any sense, especially in the total absence of any viable alternative proposal. The UN is merely the platform on which the participating countries agree on and commit to their respective goals. Kyoto is a multilateral treaty, not an universally binding UNSC resolution. Sloppy argument.

Change is tough. Fundamental change is extremely tough.

Not doing anything but bitching non-stop while others work is cheap and easy - and simply disqualifies the criticism.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 45):
The UN is a spineless organization.

The UN is an organisation which was designed to receive its spine from its member countries. Bitch at them while you're at it. The UN is a platform, not an executive organ. Even the UNSC has only the muscle and spine its members supply to it. If they wimp out, little or nothing is achieved.
 
Springbok747
Posts: 4007
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:33 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 47):
The UN is an organisation which was designed to receive its spine from its member countries. Bitch at them while you're at it. The UN is a platform, not an executive organ. Even the UNSC has only the muscle and spine its members supply to it. If they wimp out, little or nothing is achieved.

So what you're saying is that the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without support from its members. In other words, the UN is completely powerless and pacifistic...and hence completely useless.
אני תומך בישראל
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Why Is Bush Talking At The UN?

Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:02 am

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 44):
China ratified it (unlike us), although their emissions are half of ours, they say they will comply.

Wrong, they are roughly equal to ours. Or some, such as the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, predicts they recently passed us:

http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climat...2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html

They are, or soon will be, the biggest emitter. And does not it even look like they'll be slowing down in the next 50 years.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 44):
AT LEAST, but they are steadly working towards complying.

Canada's movement has flat out stalled.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 46):
Yeah, they should simply bomb everybody who doesn't fulfill their self-committed goals immediately and at the first try...!

Well jeez, Klaus, I JUST stood up for you in another thread where someone falsely put words in your mouth.

...and here you're doing the same thing, yourself!  crazy 

Klaus, where did I ever say we should bomb the nations who fail to meet their obligations under Kyoto? Please, Klaus, show me where I said it, or retract it.

...All I said was that the UN is impotent and has continually failed to implement their own initiatives. And when that is the case, it is a major issue that should be addressed. I'm sorry Klaus, but there are other ways to apply pressure to achieve your goals - economic, diplomatic, social... and yes Klaus... even militaristic. But I don't remember saying the latter was the ONLY solution.

In fact Klaus, I think I've been one of the biggest anetters to oppose going straight to war. Been there, done that, wouldn't love to see it again.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rfields5421, VapourTrails, WarRI1 and 15 guests