The Fall of the United Nations

[#juan]

No Abe

The most serious problem the UN has is the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council. That, and the very strong antipathy in the U.S. for the organization in general.

I think, in the U.S., the UN is seen as a big, unwieldy, blunt instrument that doesn't, respond to American government, or to American big business, who frequently by-pass the organization entirely.

The so-called Oil for Food scandal, was, almost completely, an American construct.

 

[HonestAbe]

Alright, I see what you guys are saying now, i think. This could be a big problem for the UN. Actually, it kind of defeats the purpose of the UN if one country can kind of just disregard everything that the organization says to do, and what not. I'm gonna try to research this issue further, then write a book about it.

 

[#juan]

Yes Abe,

There is a big problem. How do we get the five members to give back the veto stick? In giving the veto power, we've made a whip to beat ourselves with. All big powers have abused their veto power at one time or another. The thing is, that the U.S. and other western countries contribute to the UN's finances according to the size of their wallet, so the G-7(maybe the G-12) basically finance the UN. I don't know what the solution is but we, the world, need an organization like the UN. Maybe starting over is a good idea.

 

[jimmoyer]

#juan, with all due respect to your smiling grandkid
and with all due respect to your reasonable intelligence,
I gotta tell you that your post on the UN Food for Oil
program is mostly drive-by analysis, faulty, and finally
is misleading spin.

You keep re-posting it.

Like a mantra. Repetition of it seems to have gotten
you to stop thinking.

Take the Jordan Loophole for example. No one
prevented the trade between Jordan and Iraq for
several reasons. But such drive-by shallow analysis
is gleefully accepted as righteous criticism of the
Americans on that embargo.

The same shallow analysis and a jump to judgement
occurs on the smuggling before American ships in
the Gulf.

Such criticism appeals to that mantra on American
hypocrisy.

But the analysis is simple-minded, hypocritical
and quite shallow.

And if you're interested I'll gladly poke all the holes
in that post AGAIN for you.

 

[BitWhys]

you know Jim, unless you're applying some sort of quantum geometry you'd like to make me aware of I personally wouldn't call making an undefined parallel between naval operations and a non sequitor much of a hole at all.

 

[jimmoyer]

you know Jim, unless you're applying some sort of quantum geometry you'd like to make me aware of I personally wouldn't call making an undefined parallel between naval operations and a non sequitor much of a hole at all.
-----------------------------BitWhys--------------------------------


LOL, BitWhys !!

Holes and Naval Operations do go together, BitWhys.

It's quantum expanse of the seas, and the quantity
of ships you gotta stop.

And the subsequent bellyaching about stopping
every canoe.

There's your QUANTUM, right here.

 

[#juan]

Just for you Jim

link

 

[jimmoyer]

Juan, you're just a bad as the rightwing neo-cons.

The Neo-cons
certainly did "enhance" their case and ignore the CIA's real estimates of Saddam's capabilities.

But your post on the UN Food For Oil scandal is typical
of taking certain facts and doing drive-by analysis.

All the bellyaching by Europe on wanting that Embargo
ended is one reason for the Jordan trade loophole.

Another was to invade Jordan to actually stop it.

Another was a fact your post conveniently dismisses
is that Jordan's economy has primarily relied on trade
with Iraq forever as long anyone who examines it in
depth can remember.

Criticism of the Embargo and then pointing out this
Jordan loophole is two-faced, having your cake and
eating it to, just to use anything you can to sustain
a prejudice.

To have destroyed Jordan on the Embargo was not favored
by the leftwing or the rightwing. So the criticism on that
score is quite duplicitous.

 

[BitWhys]

here's a little more geometry while we're on the subject...

If Iraq can slip unscheduled oil tankers past the US Navy into Jordan's ports you gotta figure Homeland Security is pretty well screwed.

 

[jimmoyer]

Oh Homeland Security is so screwed.

I was in support of Bush originally not wanting
to create such a new layer of bureaucracy, and was
very much against Bush succumbing to the pressure
to do so.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: The Fall of the Unite

hehehehehehehya pretty phony that homeland obscurity

 

[#juan]

No more copy and pastes

I detest them anyway.

My point was that so many people point to the alleged "oil for food" scandal, to put down the UN but, as yet, none of these criticisms stand up to examination. The attacks on Annan's son have fallen apart. In the U.S., the very term, "UN", has become synonymous with corruption and as far as I can find out, it just isn't true.

 

[jimmoyer]

Homeland Obscurity !!!

Aptly hilarious.

And Bush blaming the CIA for faulty analysis
was duplicitous and self serving, despite supporting
the fact that Saddam gone is one part of the
festering pool eliminated.

 

[Finder]

Even though the UN has been underminded by the USA, I think with the failure of the United States to fullfill their needs and desirers by attacking Iraq without Un support and somewhat unilaterly, shows to even the Americans they need international support and not just their own alliances and interests. Consider their own main alliance, NATO did not support this war it even goes to show you

 

[Kreskin]

We need one of these:

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Election Alert

Haha, I like that chart, Kreskin — quite true. :lol:

 

[Finder]

We need one of these:

love that thanks

 

[jimmoyer]

That's a bunch of crap about America calling the shots
in the UN. I think you all know of many thousands of
ways it doesn't call the shots if you take a moment
to consider it.

 

[BitWhys]

My understanding of the Oil-for-Food program is there's plenty of blame to go around, pretty well anybody with weight who was paying attention knew what was going on and it only became an issue when Bu$hco needed something to slag the UN with since they weren't rolling over on the "serious consequences" clause.

Plenty of players have said what was going on was an open secret on both sides of the pond. It was a stupid idea anyways. Who came up with it?

 

[ChrisP]

China & Russia callthe shots in the UN, Always have.