Steyn on just about everything wrong with the UN

[Displaced Flames fan]

Hmmmm, maybe we should have a vote based on GDP% as well?

Yeah, didn't think so.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 09:04 PM
Hmmmm, maybe we should have a vote based on GDP% as well?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Would you prefer that method? Would that be more fair to the United States? Is the US being screwed by the UN?

[Savvy27]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Feb 6 2005, 03:59 PM
He DOES? I thought I found a few 'sweeping generalizatins', but I suppose you have to dig for them... though they seemed obvious.

I think you misunderstood my post, although it was written at 3 in the morning or so after returning from the bar so the clarity may have been less than I wished. I was simply commenting on the writer, not the specific article. Usually when faced with a right-wing columnist's work I can hardly manage to trudge through all the abusrdity. I just found this article readable and it even had a few good points.

Regarding corruption in the UN, I am somewhat biased because I've been waiting for the it to become a much more effective entity, in the sense that it would help keep order and uphold its charter. The volunteer work and financial aid that the UN provides is certainly commendable, even in spite of the "skimming". I am not for 'disbanding the UN' in any way, I just wish it was more effective.

To comment on the situation in Iraq, the success of the election is a positive. That's all the credit I've ever managed to give the US administration throughout their ill-concieved invasion. Stability is still far away and there is a lot more work to do but if they can manage to leave Iraq as an independant democratic country then good for them. Although you would have to be truly ignorant to believe that bringing democracy was the reason they went there, it doesn't mean that something good can't come from this war, God knows that there have been enough bad things come from it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 6 2005, 09:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 6 2005, 09:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 09:04 PM
Hmmmm, maybe we should have a vote based on GDP% as well?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Would you prefer that method? Would that be more fair to the United States? Is the US being screwed by the UN? [/b][/quote]
Nope. Wasn't saying that at all.

We can use numbers to show the same thing in any number of different ways.

Claeren chose to use GDP% to make the US look bad. Is that a fair way of evaluating UN support? Aid to tsunami stricken countries?

You tell me.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm not for the disbanding of the UN, it does a lot of great work on the Humanitarian side. the problem that I have with the UN is the half-a$$ed methodology that they follow in peacekeeping, and the fact that they seem to make unique choices for the positions of power.

If any area of the UN needs a serious gutting and rebuild its the concept of the security council, and thier use of international troops.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

I believe the original intent of the UN was to deal with intra-country conflicts such as civil wars, etc, and not inter-country conflicts such as what we saw with Iraq and the USA. So I do agree that while the UN does great humanitarian work and this corruption that is surfacing should not paint the whole organization black, it could use an overhaul in order to deal with some of the new roles it is expected to play on the world stage...

[Displaced Flames fan]

I can't agree with you FATW. The UN and it's predecessor, the League of Nations, were conceived and brought to life in the wake of WWI and WWII. I think their initial purpose was specifically to prevent those sort of massive wars from happening again.

I'd also point out that while the US 'unilaterally' entered Iraq, the world had a problem with Saddam Hussein, not just the US. Why else would the UN issue resolution after resolution in an effort to contain and supress Hussein's maniacal whims?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 08:17 PM
I can't agree with you FATW. The UN and it's predecessor, the League of Nations, were conceived and brought to life in the wake of WWI and WWII. I think their initial purpose was specifically to prevent those sort of massive wars from happening again.

I'd also point out that while the US 'unilaterally' entered Iraq, the world had a problem with Saddam Hussein, not just the US. Why else would the UN issue resolution after resolution in an effort to contain and supress Hussein's maniacal whims?

Now you got me second guessing myself. I'm going off something I read awhile ago, a big thing on the UN where one of it's main themes was the fact that the UN was originally designed to only deal with conflicts within a country or between countries, but I can't remember which. So I could very well be wrong (most likely am). Either way though, I still feel the UN needs some sort of an overhaul to make it more of an effective player in international affairs.

Anyways, I have officially added nothing to this thread. Please discount both of my posts as they have probably made you all stupider. I award myself no points, and may god have mercy on my soul ...

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Feb 7 2005, 03:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Feb 7 2005, 03:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Feb 6 2005, 08:17 PM
I can't agree with you FATW. The UN and it's predecessor, the League of Nations, were conceived and brought to life in the wake of WWI and WWII. I think their initial purpose was specifically to prevent those sort of massive wars from happening again.

I'd also point out that while the US 'unilaterally' entered Iraq, the world had a problem with Saddam Hussein, not just the US. Why else would the UN issue resolution after resolution in an effort to contain and supress Hussein's maniacal whims?

Now you got me second guessing myself. I'm going off something I read awhile ago, a big thing on the UN where one of it's main themes was the fact that the UN was originally designed to only deal with conflicts within a country or between countries, but I can't remember which. So I could very well be wrong (most likely am). Either way though, I still feel the UN needs some sort of an overhaul to make it more of an effective player in international affairs.

Anyways, I have officially added nothing to this thread. Please discount both of my posts as they have probably made you all stupider. I award myself no points, and may god have mercy on my soul ... [/b][/quote]
Yeah, UN was for inter, not intra-country conflicts.

Huge points for your avatar though :P

"Kiff, I've made it with a woman... inform the men."

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Feb 7 2005, 10:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Feb 7 2005, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Now you got me second guessing myself. I'm going off something I read awhile ago, a big thing on the UN where one of it's main themes was the fact that the UN was originally designed to only deal with conflicts within a country or between countries, but I can't remember which. So I could very well be wrong (most likely am). Either way though, I still feel the UN needs some sort of an overhaul to make it more of an effective player in international affairs.

Anyways, I have officially added nothing to this thread. Please discount both of my posts as they have probably made you all stupider. I award myself no points, and may god have mercy on my soul ...

Yeah, UN was for inter, not intra-country conflicts.

Huge points for your avatar though :P

"Kiff, I've made it with a woman... inform the men." [/b][/quote]
Haha, why thank you...



...and boy oh boy did I ever kill this thread.