The End of The UN.

Renderking Fisk · Dec 31, 2004

I actually think it's time to put an end to The United Nations....

I spent the better part of the night working on this article, and it still feels rushed. But I don't think the UN works anymore. I think we need to leave.

The Wingnut · Dec 31, 2004

If we're taking the U.S. out of the U.N., let's get the U.N. out of the U.S. first!

The headquarters are in New York City!

jamespowers · Dec 31, 2004

Ten years ago I would have thought the idea wrong----well maybe twenty years ago but anyway, it is about time. I am about on my last nerve with that idiot's comments from Norway being the last straw. To equate us with being cheap while we put out the fires all over the world is just ridiculous. Moving from the ridiculous to the sublime we find this same dunderhead telling us that we should be taxed more?! :rage: That is it. I am done. Declare that stupid building in New York an environmental health hazzard due to asbestos and lead paint. Tear it down. It is long enough that we continue to foot their bills (40%) for coniving Ponzi schemes like the Oil for Food Program just so our own money, derived from taxes, is used to plan and execute terrorist attacks in Iraq and here in the US. Enough is enough.
They blithely stand by and take all the credit for that which we do while treating us with disdain. Gee France you are real big contributors there with that few hundred thousand you gave for Tsunami victims. Whoo hoo!

No, the mask the UN has been wearing for years has slipped too many times lately and it is now time for them to go. We, as a nation are a far greater force for good than the UN. We can do more through our own channels without having to kowtow to the whims of despots and regimes run by dictators. Imagine Libya having a seat on the Human Rights arm of the UN! :rage: Gee, does he sit next to Pol Pot?!
I don't think I have covered everything that just burns me about the UN but I am sure someone will make me cover the rest.

Regards to all,

J

LuckyLighter · Dec 31, 2004

YEAH!!! ROCK ON, REN!!!

I just read that article, and all I can say is that it makes me want to go Tyler Durden on the UN building!

We have to give the UN one of these: :kick: right out the front door.

Where's the smilie for waving the American Flag?

RedFalcon · Dec 31, 2004

Though well intentioned, the UN has never worked and was based on a flawed design.

The idea that all people are basically good and can be reasoned with is the flaw in the design.

History shows that some people just can not be reasoned with.

Marlowe · Jan 1, 2005

RedFalcon said:
...History shows that some people just can not be reasoned with.

Yep! So do current events.

After the Great War (WWI) there was a similar international organization, the League of Nations. It didn't last as as long as the United Nations has. After the League of Nations fell apart we got World War II. I'm not trying to start an argument, but maybe we should think about fixing the U.N. instead of withdrawing from it. In either case, it doesn't seem to work all that well the way it is.

MK · Jan 1, 2005

...

Good to see you here Marlowe.

The reparations put on Germany at Treaty of Versailles were so harsh it made War probable. The League of Nations were not willing to deal with Hitler re-arming...mostly because Democaratic countries stood idly by. Chamberlain even appeased Hitler...until it was too late.

Reminds me a bit of current events.

Renderking Fisk · Jan 3, 2005

Marlowe said:
I'm not trying to start an argument, but maybe we should think about fixing the U.N. instead of withdrawing from it. In either case, it doesn't seem to work all that well the way it is.

Here's a news flash, you can have a debate and not argue. I think The Fedora Lounge has proven that time and again.

Robert Turner turned this in this morning... Robert and I are pretty much on the same pageâ€¦ The UN might have gone too far and think itâ€™s about time the United States starts to rethink its involvement with in the United Nations.

What does the UN do for the United States? What are we doing there besides playing the duel roll of cash cow and â€˜scapegoat?

With the â€œOil For Foodâ€? scandal with-in the UN and the involvement of many of the organizations officials including the Secretary Generals own son and leaders of some of the United Nations such as the French Prime Minister is just ONE example on how the original principals of the UN have been compromised. I think the CONCEPT is a good idea, but this execution is not. I think maybe its time is over and we should move on.

My question to my fellow Loungers:

Besides keeping tabs on whatâ€™s going on in The United Nations, is there any reason for us to remain as a member?

By leaving The United Nations, would that cause an international crisis? Come onâ€¦ whatâ€™s the worst that can happen?

If leaving the United Nations is not the answer, what is? How can we fix this problem with this current incarnation of The United Nations with out leaving it?

kamikat · Jan 4, 2005

"By leaving The United Nations, would that cause an international crisis? Come onâ€¦ whatâ€™s the worst that can happen?"

Well, I do think it would cause an international crisis. You could have either of two situations. In the first one, those countries who used to be allies that are now afraid of us (like France and Germany)because they think we've invaded a country with no right to and believe that no other country is strong enough to stop us should we decide to start invading our neighbors, will get together with our enemies and try to push us around. The other possiblity is that once the US pulls out, everyone else does, too. Then, all these long time enemies (like India and Pakistan)think noone is watching anymore and start all-out wars on each other. The biggest problem there, is that both India and Pakistan have nukes, as well as all those little former USSR countries.

For a while, there were rumours of Clinton wanting to be president of the UN. Now that he's been appointed to head up, along with Bush SR., the tsunami relief effort, I don't think it will happen. However, I do think the could help change things. I know most conservatives don't like him, BUT he is an American and would have American interests at the forefront.
kamikat

Renderking Fisk · Jan 4, 2005

You have to step up to the plate and admit something stinks in Th UN. There's something SERIOUSLY WRONG with that organization and to say there isn't means a lack of creditiblity.

kamikat said:
"In the first one, those countries who used to be allies that are now afraid of us (like France and Germany)because they think we've invaded a country with no right to...

Ironic that France was yelling "Let the sanctions work, let the santions work!" when their PM and other officials with-in that country were making back-room deals via the "Oil For Food" program. France is afraid of us? They should be for those reasons.

I would like to go to Normandy, find my Grandfather's grave and bring him back home.

I know most conservatives don't like him, BUT he is an American and would have American interests at the forefront.

kamikat, you're wrong. Clinton doesn't have American interests at the forefront. He never has. He's been more intrested in what the elite Intelectuals from around the world think of him above and beyond what those who put him into office.

You can't convince me he's a good joe.

kamikat · Jan 4, 2005

"You can't convince me he's a good joe."

Well, my mother worked for him and I met him on several occasions. You'll never convince me that he's the evil that the conservatives like to paint him.

kamikat

Renderking Fisk · Jan 4, 2005

kamikat said:
"You can't convince me he's a good joe."

Well, my mother worked for him and I met him on several occasions. You'll never convince me that he's the evil that the conservatives like to paint him.

kamikat

See, how does one answer that? Youv'e met him a couple of times so he gets a pass? I don't believe he's either the saint or the hero those say he is.

I don't like the man. As I said before: Clinton doesn't have American interests at the forefront. He never has. He's been more intrested in what the elite Intelectuals from around the world think of him above and beyond what those who put him into office.

MK · Jan 4, 2005

nah

I wouldn't say Clinton was evil. He was a moderate Democrate. From a policy and issue stand point he was more reasonable than most of the radical left that seem to run the party now. I may disagree with some of his policies but I am sure his intentions were good and tried to do what he thought best for the country.

I WILL say he did do more to damage the office of the Presidency than anyone to hold the office with his lying under oath and other disgraceful behaviour.....but that is not what this thread is about.

Marlowe · Jan 4, 2005

MK said:
...I WILL say he did do more to damage the office of the Presidency than anyone to hold the office with his lying under oath and other disgraceful behaviour.....but that is not what this thread is about.

It's my own humble opinion that Nixon gave the prestige of the office of President more of a black eye than Clinton. Not that Clinton is really any hero of mine...

The Wingnut · Jan 5, 2005

I'll agree on that point, with one counterpoint: Nixon screwed up domestically. Internationally, he actually didn't do half bad. Clinton, on the other hand, was either grossly negligent or painfully self-seving with regard to foriegn policy.

Nixon screwed us on our turf - the scandal was purely domestic. Clinton screwed us globally - never mind the scandal revolving around goings-on within our own borders, his actions and politics with regard to nations that posed military, intelligence, and economic threats will have repercussions far into the future.

MK · Jan 5, 2005

.

I agree that Nixon gave a black eye to the office....I don't know how Clinton could look people in the eye...especially his family....after what he did.

What do you see as his biggest foreign policy blunders?

Sergei · Jan 5, 2005

MK said:
I agree that Nixon gave a black eye to the office....I don't know how Clinton could look people in the eye...especially his family....after what he did.

What do you see as his biggest foreign policy blunders?

Well just off the top of my head:
- not concentrating on the terrorist threat after the first WTC attack in 93
- not concentrating on the terrorist threat after Somolia - "Black Hawk Down" which was aided for the most part by bin Laden
- not concentrating on the terrorist threat after the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were both bombed in 1998 in attacks which the US blamed on Islamic militant Osama bin Laden. Close to 300 people died in those attacks. Clinton's response was to shoot a $2M cruise missle at a $10 tent somewhere in Afghanistan. That is showing them.
- not concentrating on the terrorist threat after the USS Cole was attacked
- ignoring 3 brokered deals to hand over bin Laden in 1997 by the Sudanese. Deals brokered by Mansoor Ijaz who was a Clintonite.
- failing to reach a Palestinian/Israeli peace agreement in 2000 by betting the whole farm on Arafat. Arafat was presented a good deal with Israel leaving over 90% of the occupied terrority back to the Palestinians. A deal that Arafat later regretted
- And this is in Clinton own words when asked the same question - ignoring the aids crisis in Africa, which Bush later infused millions of dollars of US aid money.
- Clinton with NATO using faulty intelligence invaded Kosovo under the pretext that there was a genocide plan. " President Clinton, Secretary Cohen, and Secretary Albright are on record with figures of between 10.000 and 100.000 missing and probably killed in consequence of the alleged plan by Milosevic, Operation Horseshoe. However, the Hague Tribunal has recently revealed that, so far, 2.108 bodies have been identified - of more than one ethnicity and dead from different causes; in short, not all Albanians massacred by Serbs. "

I can go on. This is right off the top of my head, with less than 10 seconds of thought time. Sounds like I need to write an article at the RenderKing Chronicles.

Take Care...
-Sergei

jamespowers · Jan 5, 2005

I think we also need to remember the result of inaction. Lets look at the beginning of all of this and remember. Check out this link. Turn up your speakers and REMEMBER.
http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html
Did the UN help prevent this or was it the result of a Neville Chamberlain like attitude?

Regards to all,

J

The Wingnut · Jan 5, 2005

My particular gripe was the Loral Missles & Space security violations that handed over so much satellite and missile technology directly to the communist Chinese regime, and the economic agreements that have saturated our domestic market with products made in China, while the Chinese buy few if any U.S.-made products in return. Opening trade relations on the scale that we have only works if there's reciprocity. As it is, billions of dollars are being pumped out of the U.S. with very little return.

The End of The UN.

Practically Family

One Too Many

Familiar Face

New in Town

One of the Regulars

Founder

Practically Family

Call Me a Cab

Practically Family

Call Me a Cab

Practically Family

Founder

One of the Regulars

One Too Many

Founder

Gone Home

One Too Many

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics