The United Nations

[Galloglasses]

Me and a Methodist friend of mine are after having a long drawn out discussion over the United Nations, its methods, it silences and basically, its policies and pie-in-the-sky ideals. Mostly negative, (we do not approve of the UN, it angers us =D)

I wanted to know what people's opinions here are in regards to it. Please present examples to support your opinion to further discuss.

[kujo]

Useless.
Corrupt.
Abortion-pedlers.
Arrogant.
Never going to work.

The problem is that no powerful country will consent to giving up its sovereignty to an international organization for "world peace." The US gets all this croutons about going against what the UN said about Iraq. But who is the UN to tell the US, or any other country, what it can and can't do? I know it tries to do good, but the quintessential UN screw up was the Oil for Food debacle. The corruption is nauseating.

I view it as an attempt to push socialist agenda under the guise of "co-operation." I'm not in favor of weakening nation-states because I think that going back to a system based on universalism would be incredibly dangerous and a bad thing to do. The best thing to happen to the world was the downfall of the "empires." When areas begun to identify themselves as nations rather than subjects of the emperor, we begun to see the dawn of the era that brought about many of the truths we hold near and dear now--individualism, representation in government, fair taxes, freedom to practice religion, free market economies, democracy. Additionally, particularism, or the politics of group identity that trumps universal rights, and therefore the rights of minorities or any other kind of “other," is yet another dangerous slope. In Particularism the decisive factor of politics becomes religious and ethnic identity and the interests of the communities defined by these bonds instead of the ideas and values of political pluralism, with its emphasis on universal rights, separation of religion and the government, and an ethic of religious and ethnic tolerance. Examples of this phenomenon are multi-national corporations, inter-government organizations, non governmental organizations (the UN, the EU, NATO) and terrorist groups making contributions and demands.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote]United Nations Charter - Preamble

[b]WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED [/b]
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
[b]AND FOR THESE ENDS [/b]
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
[b]HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS [/b]
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_Nations_Charter"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_t...Nations_Charter[/url][/quote]The United Nations ( [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations[/url] ) I personally think is in theory a means to promote peace, security, freedom, and collective diplomatic influence. At the same I think in practice this theory is rarely executed, at the very least in the “American perception”. But I do think that there has been good the United Nations has caused, even if indirectly.

His Holiness Pope John Paul the Second called the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Dec...of_Human_Rights[/url] ) "one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time". So there are some good proposals coming from the United Nations, even if one suggests or even substantiates that there has been wrongs or dangers coming from such an institution.

At the same time increasing globalization ( [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization[/url] ) has made the need of international diplomacy, peace, and law all the more necessary. To some people this requires the instating of a global government of some form, even if a very lose and weak confederation, however I think that it does not require this “per say”. I have the tendency to defend the United Nations since I would much rather that this diplomatic channel remain open rather than it be closed, but at the same time there are issues concerning the United Nations that are no small matter.

The question that comes to many people’s minds, is the United Nations already a global government? I would have the tendency to propose, no it is not. I have the tendency to suggest that it is more of a collective diplomatic and debate society among the many different nations of the world. I do admit that there may be people that want the United Nations to be more than this, however I doubt that this will ever proceed very far and I think it would be easily reversed.

Again this is my personal opinion, more political than religious in nature. Since it is my personal opinion it could be wrong and subject to change...

Edited April 10, 2008 by Mr.CatholicCat

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1496497' date='Apr 10 2008, 02:13 PM']Me and a Methodist friend of mine are after having a long drawn out discussion over the United Nations, its methods, it silences and basically, its policies and pie-in-the-sky ideals. Mostly negative, (we do not approve of the UN, it angers us =D)

I wanted to know what people's opinions here are in regards to it. Please present examples to support your opinion to further discuss.[/quote]
I say we blow it up.

actually I there are things i dont agree with bush on but i really like his solution to the UN. He is currently working on constructing a more private international organization as a counter part to the UN. i think the working name is League of Democracy. It basically consists of US alliances who are Democracies the only difference between what we are doing now and after it is formally founded is that it will have a visible body on its formal founding.

[kujo]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1496533' date='Apr 10 2008, 04:53 PM']The United Nations ( [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations[/url] ) I personally think is in theory a means to promote peace, security, freedom, and collective diplomatic influence.[/quote]

I have no problem with the theoretical-UN. But, as I stated before, it will never practically work because:

a) sovereign nations that can defend and provide for itself will never be willing to abdicate power to a foreign agency so that other, weaker nations can feel they have a say.

b) the UN has no way to enforce its will. Some will argue that economic sanctions are a powerful persuasion method, to which I will refer them to the effectiveness of the sanctions against Iran, Iraq and other nations who have "stepped out of line."

The UN reminds me of non-proliferation measures taken during the 60s and 70s. THEORETICALLY, they were good ideas; however, in order for them to work, everyone had to agree to give up a bit of their power. And, since no one wanted to be the first one to do that, they rarely produced anything of substance.

As for the the UN's declaration of human rights, I would direct everyone to their stances on abortion and contraception.

[ardillacid]

[img]http://www.kidsfortigers.org/kftimages/paper_tiger.gif[/img]

[kujo]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1496544' date='Apr 10 2008, 05:07 PM'][img]http://www.kidsfortigers.org/kftimages/paper_tiger.gif[/img][/quote]

[size=5]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH[/size]

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='kujo' post='1496542' date='Apr 10 2008, 03:06 PM']I have no problem with the theoretical-UN. But, as I stated before, it will never practically work because:

a) sovereign nations that can defend and provide for itself will never be willing to abdicate power to a foreign agency so that other, weaker nations can feel they have a say.

b) the UN has no way to enforce its will. Some will argue that economic sanctions are a powerful persuasion method, to which I will refer them to the effectiveness of the sanctions against Iran, Iraq and other nations who have "stepped out of line."

The UN reminds me of non-proliferation measures taken during the 60s and 70s. THEORETICALLY, they were good ideas; however, in order for them to work, everyone had to agree to give up a bit of their power. And, since no one wanted to be the first one to do that, they rarely produced anything of substance.

As for the the UN's declaration of human rights, I would direct everyone to their stances on abortion and contraception.[/quote]
The reason I am opposed to the UN is because its origin and its goal are both Socialist. It wants to ultimately become the ruling Marxist body of the world (accuse me of McCarthyism the man was Crazy but it doesnt mean he was wrong). The carbon trading scheme is an attempt at a global tax and redistribution of wealth. the problem with Marxists is they dont understand that the Free Market system is not only the best system it is the only moral system.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1496497' date='Apr 10 2008, 02:13 PM']Me and a Methodist friend of mine are after having a long drawn out discussion over the United Nations, its methods, it silences and basically, its policies and pie-in-the-sky ideals. Mostly negative, (we do not approve of the UN, it angers us =D)

I wanted to know what people's opinions here are in regards to it. Please present examples to support your opinion to further discuss.[/quote]

I hate (don't hate, appreciate) (don't hate (don't hate, appreciate), appreciate) it with a passion. I think many of its positions (on abortion for example) are evil, and even though they can't be considered one yet, I do believe they are attempting to put together a one-world government. Especially if the North American Union comes together and they, along with the United Nations and EU and whatever all blend together as one. It seems unlikely that such a thing will come together any time soon. But I do believe the intention is there, and that scares me. Not to mention it goes against my principles as basically a libertarian/traditional republican in regards to government.

Pope Benedict XV:


"The advent of a Universal Republic, which is longed for by all the worst elements of disorder, and confidently expected by them, is an idea which is now ripe for execution. From this republic, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and community of possessions, would be banished all national distinctions, nor in it would the authority of the father over his children, or of the public power over the citizens, or of God over human society, be any longer acknowledged. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard-of terror." Bonum Sane 1909.

Edited April 10, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='kujo' post='1496502' date='Apr 10 2008, 02:24 PM']Useless.
Corrupt.
Abortion-pedlers.
Arrogant.
Never going to work.

The problem is that no powerful country will consent to giving up its sovereignty to an international organization for "world peace." The US gets all this croutons about going against what the UN said about Iraq. But who is the UN to tell the US, or any other country, what it can and can't do? I know it tries to do good, but the quintessential UN screw up was the Oil for Food debacle. The corruption is nauseating.

I view it as an attempt to push socialist agenda under the guise of "co-operation." I'm not in favor of weakening nation-states because I think that going back to a system based on universalism would be incredibly dangerous and a bad thing to do. The best thing to happen to the world was the downfall of the "empires." When areas begun to identify themselves as nations rather than subjects of the emperor, we begun to see the dawn of the era that brought about many of the truths we hold near and dear now--individualism, representation in government, fair taxes, freedom to practice religion, free market economies, democracy. Additionally, particularism, or the politics of group identity that trumps universal rights, and therefore the rights of minorities or any other kind of “other," is yet another dangerous slope. In Particularism the decisive factor of politics becomes religious and ethnic identity and the interests of the communities defined by these bonds instead of the ideas and values of political pluralism, with its emphasis on universal rights, separation of religion and the government, and an ethic of religious and ethnic tolerance. Examples of this phenomenon are multi-national corporations, inter-government organizations, non governmental organizations (the UN, the EU, NATO) and terrorist groups making contributions and demands.[/quote]

[quote name='kujo']As for the the UN's declaration of human rights, I would direct everyone to their stances on abortion and contraception.[/quote]

amen

Edited April 10, 2008 by goldenchild17

[CatherineM]

It may not be perfect, but it is probably the best thing we can come up with until the Vulcans come and we can start the United Federation of Planets.

[Galloglasses]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1496606' date='Apr 10 2008, 04:38 PM']It may not be perfect, but it is probably the best thing we can come up with until the Vulcans come and we can start the United Federation of Planets.[/quote]
Subtle burn.

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1496606' date='Apr 10 2008, 06:38 PM']It may not be perfect, but it is probably the best thing we can come up with until the Vulcans come and we can start the United Federation of Planets.[/quote]

Why do we need an institution for diplomacy anyway? Why can't countries be responsible for their own foreign policy? I understand that it is important for countries to come together and dialogue and work things out. But I just wonder why this specific venue is still necessary in our post-Cold War world.

[CatherineM]

They have this thing they do for people in AA who just don't believe in the whole "higher power" thing. They tell them to just go through the motions and act like they do, until they do start to feel it or believe. Maybe the UN is our version of it. We really don't get along as nations, but as long as the UN is there, there is always the hope that people will just start getting it. It's like having a treadmill or bike in the garage that you rarely use. You won't get rid of it because there is always the hope that someday you will use it.

[BG45]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1496606' date='Apr 10 2008, 06:38 PM']It may not be perfect, but it is probably the best thing we can come up with until the Vulcans come and we can start the United Federation of Planets.[/quote]

Very nice.

As to the OP, I mostly support the ideals of the UN, but not the organization itself. It has too much time on its hands to persue trivial matters such as [url="http://www.maxbarry.com/2008/04/02/news.html"]telling the game Nationstates to cease and desist using its copyrighted emblem and name after five years.[/url]