Why bother with the UN?

[tater]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/stayed-mum-iran-vote-womens-commission/

UN puts Iran on the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women.

You know, Iran. This Iran:


2004, 16 YO girl about to be stoned for crimes against chastity.
http://www.religiouswatch.com/images/nestone.jpg

Sometimes they get hanged, instead (17 YO):
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/photos/women-stoning/images/Woman%20Hanging%20Iran%202.jpg


WTF. Seriously, WTF?

[Jimbuna]

I'd be asking them (UN) to look for a new location somewhere in a country that was unpredictable and potentially very volatile whilst reassuring them they're new friends would look after them.

IMHO the UN has got to be the most expensive quango on the planet Earth :nope:

[SteamWake]

Yes this Iran

http://www.newser.com/story/87215/iran-to-arrest-tan-women.html

The UN has been a joke for a long time. Bunch of popus gas bags full of themselves.

I do think its time to tell them to find a new home and use the assembly building for I dunno housing 'undocumented workers'. It would probably save money in the long run. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, the UN is joke at best. :down:

[STEED]

UN are scum...;)

[krashkart]

Iran, eh? Either Iran has made rapid progress in women's rights, or the UN is just plain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrmnTllAvGw

[TarJak]

The U.N. is humanities biggest waste of space we have yet come up with: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55875/max-boot/paving-the-road-to-hell-the-failure-of-u-n-peacekeeping

[Tribesman]

[QUOTE][/The UN has been a joke for a long time. Bunch of popus gas bags full of themselves.

QUOTE]
The UN is the result that comes from abunch of racist/nationalist/idealist pricks trying to throw thier vision on the world.
The reason the U N doesn;'t work is because the world contains too many pricks

OK children, what is the probability that somone takes the first word after "a bunch of" and tries to run with it

[tater]

For a period during the cold war, the UN wasn't entirely useless to the US interest (and West in general). The moment the UN ceased to be in our interest, we should have left it.

[Tribesman]

The moment the UN ceased to be in our interest, we should have left it.
There is a dance like that........hey mussolini:yeah:

[CaptainHaplo]

I am all for getting the UN out of the US. However, I do think we need to keep a SINGLE representative there.

Why? Because if we didn't - we would lose our veto right (we are one of 5 countries that have it) and then we would end up seeing the UN being manipulated into an "alliance" of unfriendly nations that would, under the guise of UN "legitimacy" - attack our interests in any way they could. With a single represenative there, we can block such attempts.

Better to do so at a table than over crossed swords - when such is possible.

[tater]

There is a dance like that........hey mussolini:yeah:

Our interest is all that matters to me. The US interest. As long as the UN is a net plus to the US interest, it is useful.

The UN as some sort of moral imperative is nonsense, clearly. Despots sitting on committees related to human rights, etc. It's a joke, a bad joke. Perhaps Iran could chair the gay rights council if they ever get one. They can share tips on the humane execution of boys who happen to have been born gay.

That's the trouble. They let everyone in, that's the idea. But the reality is that many countries don't deserve to have a say. COurse that goes to the highest level. Hell, the CCCP was in the UN even as it was the greatest murdering nation in human history. The PRC still is, and they passed Russia a while ago. And both those places can veto us.

[TLAM Strike]

I am all for getting the UN out of the US. However, I do think we need to keep a SINGLE representative there.

Why? Because if we didn't - we would lose our veto right (we are one of 5 countries that have it) and then we would end up seeing the UN being manipulated into an "alliance" of unfriendly nations that would, under the guise of UN "legitimacy" - attack our interests in any way they could. With a single represenative there, we can block such attempts.

Better to do so at a table than over crossed swords - when such is possible.

I agree.

That is sort of what we have been doing in the Security Council. The US has used its Veto the 2nd most number of times, second only to Russia/Soviet Union- and the most of the Soviet Union's vetoes were done during the early years of the UN.

Every time a motion comes up condemning Israel we are the lone veto. Since the fall of the Soviet Union only the US and Russia have used vetoes, the US has done so 13 times and the Russians 4.

[Respenus]

I am in no mood to point out yet again the fallacies people make when talking about international organisations and looking at just one aspect of the whole god damned picture. I agree, having people who would do everything to prevent the respect for human rights is a damn shame, but that's the way the rules were written, at a different time, for a different international community. Plus, behind every international organisation there is hope that state through their representatives and working with others, will socialise and integrate certain norms we take for granted. It doesn't work, yet again, as most people like to do, just because one person isn't changed or goes against the system, the whole system must be at fault.

Plus, I would recommend to check the UN website and see what else they are doing and you'll soon realise, that for people outside the comfort zone that we have created for ourselves, sitting behind nice desks with internet access, the UN has been at the forefront for helping those who are less fortunate and making the world, a nicer place than it was before it was created. Oh, and before making comments as to the toothless nature of the beast, read the UN Charter. The law is set, just the political will due to the Cold war was missing in order to create a powerful UN, international force.

This was just something quick, from the top of my head. When I'll have more time, I'll be certain to answer in more detail. Just remember one thing. Be glad that there are organisations that you perceive as undemocratic (as if any state truly is, thus their agglomeration isn't as well) and enforcing their "will", as sometimes, and I must stress this, sometimes something good, which could newer had happened without them, comes out and it is worth all the troubles.

[Tribesman]

Our interest is all that matters to me. The US interest.
Good , next time some muppet mentions appeasement you can say it wasn't in Britains or Frances interests to stand up for some distant foriegn land.
Perhaps Iran could chair the gay rights council if they ever get one.
Thats funny, Iran like the crazy fundamentalists in your country views homosexuality as a sickness. Did you know it is a leading nation when it comes to sex change operations to "cure" the "sickness".

Ok fair's fair, the crazy fundamentalists in Iran run the country since they sidelined all the other people in the revolution to put the countryon its "right" path, the crazy fundamentalists in your country just want a revolution to put the country on its "right" path

[Dowly]

CRY CRY CRY. What is the US, the supposed "good guys" doing about it? Nothing. Why? Because there's an chance that you could lose. (not that you are winning in AFG & Iraq either atm). So, how about STFU? :hmmm:

[Foxtrot]

Iran has Weapons of Mass Destruction in North, South, East and West of Tehran...

bomb them some freedom? :rock:

[Snestorm]

Get rid it.

The sentiment is shared by people all over the spectrum.

[STEED]

The UN needs a massive shake up to get any form of credit back, will it? :hmmm:

[tater]

Good , next time some muppet mentions appeasement you can say it wasn't in Britains or Frances interests to stand up for some distant foriegn land.

If the US pressures another country to ask for help, it's because it is on our interest to do so. If the UK or France elects to help, it is because it is in THEIR interest to do so. That's all I expect. To expect otherwise is to live in a fantasy land. That some bleeding hearts might not think it is in their national interest is beside the point. It might be in the national interest, even if it is NOT on the radar of the populace. The FDR admin wanted to get into the war earlier, but the US public was very isolationist. FDR was right, public opinion was wrong.



Thats funny, Iran like the crazy fundamentalists in your country views homosexuality as a sickness. Did you know it is a leading nation when it comes to sex change operations to "cure" the "sickness".

Ok fair's fair, the crazy fundamentalists in Iran run the country since they sidelined all the other people in the revolution to put the countryon its "right" path, the crazy fundamentalists in your country just want a revolution to put the country on its "right" path

You're talking out your ass comparing executing gays to people not wanting the state to use the word "marriage" with their unions. Unlike Iran, the US has a secular government, and an explicit separation of church and state. Does YOUR country have an explicit separation of church and state, BTW?

Are there Christian fundies who try (and repeatedly fail) to get religion mixed with government? Sure. Would that put us on a path to murdering homosexuals? No. Do they try and get religion in schools? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes—and the courts agree, every single time. People in the US have been just as religious as now, and the Constitution didn't suffer for it. I think it will endure those attempts as it has.

Saying the US views homosexuality as a sickness is flat out absurd. Let's see the polling data on that, please. You must have a source to make such a generalization. I bet you might find a poll at PEW, and US attitudes might very well be surprising to you. A majority of Americans support civil unions, for example. Some monolithic democrat groups oppose gay marriage, too. Note that age plays a huge role, younger people regardless of party don't seem to care about it. The debate seems to focus entirely on the use of the word "marriage." Change it to "civil union" and it passes. The reality is the population at large—and the government—are pretty color-blind on the issue.

[tater]

CRY CRY CRY. What is the US, the supposed "good guys" doing about it? Nothing. Why? Because there's an chance that you could lose. (not that you are winning in AFG & Iraq either atm). So, how about STFU? :hmmm:

The UN is only useful to the US to the extent it does our bidding, or distracts small countries into thinking they matter so we can ignore it and do what we want anyway. The second it empowers small countries against our wishes, it's in our interest to get rid of it, or mitigate the effects.

Note that that is true of ANY power in the UN. To the extent they can use it to do their own bidding, it is useful to them. Piss ant countries like it because they feel empowered, and they might be able to extort some cash for themselves into the bargain (usually dear leader's swiss bank account, however).

The idea of a democratic organization that gives equal voice to despots is amazing.

[SteamWake]

The UN does on occassion provide entertainment

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/03/ahmadinejad-taking-stage-nuclear-treaty-conference/

Heh told you it would be entertaining !

http://interactive.foxnews.com/livestream/live.html?chanId=4

[Tribesman]

You're talking out your ass comparing executing gays to people not wanting the state to use the word "marriage" with their unions.
Who said anything about executing gays? I said the fundys in Iran give lots of sex change operations to "cure" the homosexuality.

Unlike Iran, the US has a secular government, and an explicit separation of church and state. Does YOUR country have an explicit separation of church and state, BTW?

You mean like an explicit seperation in the constitution? Yes it does.

Saying the US views homosexuality as a sickness is flat out absurd.
Is that why I didn't say it?

[tater]

Wow, I just looked up the Irish Constitution. Perhaps I found a really old one?

Preamble: "In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,"

Sounds sorta religious to me compared to the US Constitution which has no mention of god (even a deist one) whatsoever.

I may be wrong, however, that's just what google spit out for the Irish Constitution.

I realize that you compared some fundie kooks to Iran, but the most crazy denomination with any significant numbers is none the less not even close to Iran. Yeah, you can find some church of inbreds like that Westboro Baptist Church that is pretty hateful, but aside from the fact that I doubt they suggest murder as punishment, they also have only a few dozen members (most in the same family).

The reality is that virtually no one accepts murder as a "solution" to gays in the US.

[Tribesman]

Sounds sorta religious to me compared to the US Constitution which has no mention of god (even a deist one) whatsoever.

Did you get as far as the prohibition of establishment?
The same thing that sets up the seperation in your constitution

[tater]

Did you get as far as the prohibition of establishment?
The same thing that sets up the seperation in your constitution

It's very similar at that point, yes. I saw that. None the less, the preamble is without question not just religious, but explicitly Christian—Catholic, frankly given the Trinity reference (ex-Catholic here (1/4 Irish, too, great grandfather born there)).

So, your constitution is certainly less secular than ours is.

I know that religious types in the US frequently try and bring up the Creator references in the Declaration of Independence as somehow meaningful in pitching their preferred mix of religion into state. Gets shot down of course, because the Declaration doesn't really matter. They'd have far more ammunition if that language was in the Constitution, however.

[nikimcbee]

Yes, the UN is joke at best. :down:

My brother participated in the model UN in highschool:haha:. What a joke. It truely is something that works great on paper and not so great in reality.:doh:

[Platapus]

Saying the US views homosexuality as a sickness is flat out absurd. Let's see the polling data on that, please.

Polls have nothing to do with it.

For some references, please consider the following:

The DSM I (1952) and DSM II (1968) for starters. Both listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In the subsequent revisions, the wording has changed though

DSM III (1980) listed ego-dystonic homosexuality as a disorder

DSM III-R (1987) changed it to "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation"

It has only been recently in the DSM IV (1994) that homosexuality was removed as a standalone disorder, but some aspects are still covered under "Gender Identity Disorders".

Remember that before Lawrence v Texas (2003) we still had state laws criminalizing homosexual activity.

[Platapus]

Lets see. There were two vacancies on the commission. Only two nations submitted candidates for these vacancies. What exactly is the United Nations supposed to do? Two vacancies, two candidates.

Besides it is not like Iran is in any leadership position on this commission. They have been members of this commission, on and off, since the 1990's by the way.

If it is desired to encourage cultural changes concerning women's rights in Iran, is this goal best served by, somehow, keeping them off this commission? I don't think so. I think it is a great idea for representatives of Iran to be on this commission. Maybe they will be able to garner a little more understanding on how different cultures treat women.

The key to encouraging change in cultures such as Iran is not to exclude them, but to include them. Remember, cultures such as Iran exist because they choose to isolate themselves from other cultures.

Change takes a long time. Probably several generations, but it has to start somewhere and perhaps, just perhaps, this could help. It certainly can't hurt.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The UN is only useful to the US to the extent it does our bidding, or distracts small countries into thinking they matter so we can ignore it and do what we want anyway. The second it empowers small countries against our wishes, it's in our interest to get rid of it, or mitigate the effects.

The entire point of "democracy" is that it includes everyone. Yes, that includes that neighbor you consider uncouth.

The point of the UN is at least to provide one venue where countries are relatively equal, similar to the role the law (in a 1st world country at least) provides for the people.

Its value to the US, I believe, is to help maintain the image of the Americans as a good guy, which is more important than you may think.

America is really in an extremely privileged position these past 20 years. Not only is it top dog (and by a mile at that), but most other competitors that may have a chance of jumping to the top dog slot (or allying so their aggregate power allows it) aren't too interested in doing so.

It is extremely rare in history to have one nation 10 times more powerful (at least militarily) than everybody else, and yet nobody tries serious alliances and an all out effort to counter.

If someone from say a hundred years ago heard about the end of the Cold War and the rise of American to unequaled hegemony, his prediction of the next international moves would likely involve tons of aid being dumped from most of Europe to Russia along with the formation of a European alliance with serious military clout to maintain a power balance against US influence. Instead, we continue to see countries in relative contentment with America's hegemony.

This relative lack of interest is the perception of the United States as a "good Big Brother", a perception to be backed, to be fair, by the fact that the United States is when all is said an done a relatively good Big Brother, probably the best history ever made. But part of being a "good Big Brother" is at least a show that they can treat others as (almost) equals, worthy of consultation. And that means continued participation in the UN and as many other alliances as could be managed, because of alternative of losing this image would likely cause America MUCH more than any small annoyance or setback at the UN.

[Castout]

Iran has Weapons of Mass Destruction in North, South, East and West of Tehran...

bomb them some freedom? :rock:

what Iran has never done a nuclear weapon test...North Korea did that . . .

so why US isn't so inclined to attack North Korea for having possession of WMD?

It was almost 50 years from first world war when second world war broke out and now it has been a little more than 50 years since that and WMDs are proliferating which may significantly destabilize the world. And no I sincerely believe that it wasn't the politicians that kept the peace to this day since 1945 but it was the atom bombs and missiles. Mankind is primarily a primal being still . . .

But I'm a realist too. Oil is depleting and depleting fast and US just wanted to secure its interest in the uncertain world that's going to come in the event oil becoming more and more rare. So it's ok as long as Iraqi people are enjoying their share of petrol dollars. The question is are they?

[Tribesman]

The key to encouraging change in cultures such as Iran is not to exclude them, but to include them. Remember, cultures such as Iran exist because they choose to isolate themselves from other cultures.

So thats the old line about having them inside your tent pissing out rather that outside your tent pissing into it.

[tater]

The reason we did nothing to NK is the PRC.

If NK was not bordering the PRC and closely tied to it, we'd likely have bombed their nuke facilities. The sensible US policy of engaging in multi-lateral talks—another way of saying "talks with China"—was the only smart path to take since China is holding all the cards WRT NK.