Why bother with the UN?

[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?

[Foxtrot]

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

bomb them some freedom?

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?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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...ty-conference/

Heh told you it would be entertaining !

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Yes, the UN is joke at best.

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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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.