Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 77

Thread: Long List of U.N. Failures

  1. #16
    montalban Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AMD4EVER
    I think I remember hearing that the US is behind on it's payments to the UN. Do you happen to have any links to this?
    All I can find so far is
    "United States Arrears to the United Nations System
    Status of Payments Under the Helms-Biden Agreement
    The 1999 Helms-Biden agreement for payment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. provides a total of $926 million for arrears payments to all international organizations. To date, two of three scheduled payments have been made, including an initial $100 million in 1999 and $582 million in late 2001. The third, and final, payment of arrears could occur this year if certain technical changes are made to the Helms-Biden legislation. At stake is the release of $244 million, of which $30 million is intended for the United Nations; the balance is intended to meet longstanding U.S. arrears to several specialized agencies, including WHO, FAO, and ILO. The proposed technical changes include a provision that would permit arrears payments to the organizations as each one implements the required reforms; at present, all organizations must comply with benchmarks before any of them can be paid. "
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/...2/06status.htm

    Which suggests you have now paid up

    However, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/612594.stm

    It states "The UN estimates that the US owes it around $1.5bn. " (but this is from 2000, the one above is from 2002)

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bradenton, FL
    Posts
    1,942
    Was that the money that we withheld when we were kicked off the Human Rights Commission?

    The UN is a doomed organization. Shouldn't they be in all those African nations instead of individual nations? Shouldn't they enforce their own resolutions?

    I saw in the Wall Street Journal that even 53% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of the UN. Of course, the other numbers range 10- 25 points higher.

    Until dictatorships are treated as dictatorships, I want us to pull out of the UN. Syria shouldn't be on the Human Rights Commission. Libya shouldn't be either. Along with all the other UN hypocrisy... it's absurd.
    Conservatism...You liberals have no idea what you're missing!

    "Weren't you wondering why you were getting checks in the mail for not doing anything?"

    "No, I just thought the Democrats were back in power."

  3. #18
    montalban Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Broker
    Was that the money that we withheld when we were kicked off the Human Rights Commission?

    The UN is a doomed organization. Shouldn't they be in all those African nations instead of individual nations? Shouldn't they enforce their own resolutions?
    Ah, no. Whilst the biggest kid on the block (the USA) keeps undermining them, then they'll be a dud. But hey, aren't you the same guy that selectively uses the UN when it suits you - claiming something to be 'illegal' (arms-sales to Iraq after 1991).

    Quote Originally Posted by Broker
    I saw in the Wall Street Journal that even 53% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of the UN. Of course, the other numbers range 10- 25 points higher.

    Until dictatorships are treated as dictatorships, I want us to pull out of the UN. Syria shouldn't be on the Human Rights Commission. Libya shouldn't be either. Along with all the other UN hypocrisy... it's absurd.
    Really, what about all the dictatorships the US back?

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bradenton, FL
    Posts
    1,942
    How is the US undermining the UN?

    Of course the US backs dictatorships. It's for the greater good. What would happen if we didn't back Saudi Arabia? It would be a nation seized by true terrorists. That doesn't mean they deserve equal treatment.
    Conservatism...You liberals have no idea what you're missing!

    "Weren't you wondering why you were getting checks in the mail for not doing anything?"

    "No, I just thought the Democrats were back in power."

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Broker
    How is the US undermining the UN?

    Of course the US backs dictatorships. It's for the greater good. What would happen if we didn't back Saudi Arabia? It would be a nation seized by true terrorists. That doesn't mean they deserve equal treatment.
    The UN and US undermine themselves for the sake of peace and order. In the case of North Korea right now we are aiding them even as they threaten to use nuclear weapons against us. It is sometimes necessary to do something that looks crazy on paper.
    Hail to the ones who came before us

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1
    what obligalion do we have with the un and whats the u.s track record for peace keeping over the un.also what obligaltion to help other then for our selves
    Last edited by skyliner34; 10-07-2003 at 09:31 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by skyliner34
    what obligalion do we have with the un and whats the u.s track record for peace keeping over the un.also what obligaltion to help other then for our selves
    I don't think we have any obligation to the UN or to anyone else. However, it is to our benefit that the UN be efficient and effective and that we concern ourselves with people and places outside of our own borders. We have help spread democracy and the free market throughout the entire world and even into China of all places! This has not only brought about a certain level of peace and stability but it has also helped the US become the most powerful country in the world and the UN become the most powerful organization in the world. It is in our own interest that this trend continues and that is why it is so sad to see the UN failing. Hopefully it will not end as the League of Nations did dissolving in the conflict of a world war. I don't expect that as long as the UN exists as it does today that peace will be enforced as it has been in the past and as North Korea, Iran, and others begin to test the UN's resolve on the world stage I believe the US will find it greatly in their own interest to have the UN come out of this successful but I don't think it will end this way. Our obligation is to ourselves and through that we do benefit from what the UN can offer if it can operate in its intended way. If it cannot then it can no longer be of service to us.
    Hail to the ones who came before us

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4
    Hrm, is it just me or wasn't the US the prime player in creating the UN? We may be behind on our payments to the UN, that is very possible. But considering the fact that we pay what, 25% of the bill, well they can kiss my...you know.

    If we're going to spend that kind of money, maybe we should just do it ourselves, because let me tell you that much dough would go a lot farther in the hands of a capitalist then in the hands of a socialist. I mean, that's why we're the ones who can afford to pay the 25% of the UN operating costs.

    So let's see...U.N. screws up almost everything it's ever touched.

    Also, we pay almost double any other country involved in the UN for cost of operations.

    And the kicker, they didn't sanction this war or support us when we needed them. They have no problem injecting themselves into countries that have serious problems, playing politics and attempting to impose new systems to bring about peace, as long as they never succeed! That's why they're so upset...the U.N. is just a money maker...send people to hot spots once in a while and let the blue hats be seen, and the money keeps pouring in. Results? Who needs em'.

    Have you noticed how not one person on this forum has brought up an instance of a U.N. success story?? Not one single example. They'll talk about all other sorts of things, about how the "U.N. needs to be in Iraq" and the "U.S. could use the help". You know what? We could use the help, just not from them.

    The U.N. will do more damage than it will repair in Iraq, because their main interests will lie in restoring contracts that existed previously...many of which have to do with oil (Yah, someone besides Bush is interested in oil...like France for instance). And I'm not really knocking them for that, I mean hey people have to make a living...but what they can't seem to grasp is that if we succeed in Iraq it will be better for all of us, in terms of finance and security. Stabilizing the oil production systems in Iraq, and just making them more profitable in general by bringing in free market systems, non-nazi educational systems, freedom of press, and further down the line concepts like freedom of religion, is just plain good for the human race.

    In closing, F the U.N. Hard.

  9. #24
    montalban Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mase
    Hrm, is it just me or wasn't the US the prime player in creating the UN? We may be behind on our payments to the UN, that is very possible. But considering the fact that we pay what, 25% of the bill, well they can kiss my...you know.

    If we're going to spend that kind of money, maybe we should just do it ourselves, because let me tell you that much dough would go a lot farther in the hands of a capitalist then in the hands of a socialist. I mean, that's why we're the ones who can afford to pay the 25% of the UN operating costs.

    So let's see...U.N. screws up almost everything it's ever touched.

    Also, we pay almost double any other country involved in the UN for cost of operations.

    And the kicker, they didn't sanction this war or support us when we needed them. They have no problem injecting themselves into countries that have serious problems, playing politics and attempting to impose new systems to bring about peace, as long as they never succeed! That's why they're so upset...the U.N. is just a money maker...send people to hot spots once in a while and let the blue hats be seen, and the money keeps pouring in. Results? Who needs em'.

    Have you noticed how not one person on this forum has brought up an instance of a U.N. success story?? Not one single example. They'll talk about all other sorts of things, about how the "U.N. needs to be in Iraq" and the "U.S. could use the help". You know what? We could use the help, just not from them.

    The U.N. will do more damage than it will repair in Iraq, because their main interests will lie in restoring contracts that existed previously...many of which have to do with oil (Yah, someone besides Bush is interested in oil...like France for instance). And I'm not really knocking them for that, I mean hey people have to make a living...but what they can't seem to grasp is that if we succeed in Iraq it will be better for all of us, in terms of finance and security. Stabilizing the oil production systems in Iraq, and just making them more profitable in general by bringing in free market systems, non-nazi educational systems, freedom of press, and further down the line concepts like freedom of religion, is just plain good for the human race.

    In closing, F the U.N. Hard.
    You've half understood the issue, by showing the truth at the beginning.

    The US was a prime mover; it even gave land in NY to base it.

    Who made the US responsible for it (even the huge payment?) the US did!

    It's like a kid with a club. He agrees to have the tree-house in his backyard. He makes up the rules for joining his club. He gets his mum to provide most the soft-drink.

    But suddenly, against his own rules, he wants to go and knock-off next door's cubby-house. The other kids say that's not in the rules that he had made binding on them before.

    So, he chucks a mental and threatens them that they can't come over to play, and his mum's going to start serving Dr.Pepper instead of Pepsi.

    Even with these threats, they still point out that the rules he helped draft (when they were on holiday in San Fran) don't call for unilateral action, it needs the agreement of all of them; otherwise it's not fair.

    You're response... screw the club!

    But then when you go and attack next doors cubby-house you didn't realise he had a bigger brother. You cry out for help.

    The club members think... why should we fight? We didn't want to be in this in the first place.


    Sorry if my analogy is childish. So is your attitude.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    4
    Umm...righhhht. I love how you act like the US is the ONLY country in the U.N. that doesn't play by the rules. You ARE a funny little man aren't you.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bradenton, FL
    Posts
    1,942
    We played by the rules. Technically, Gulf War II is still Gulf War I. Hussein broke the terms of the GF I ceasefire, meaning hostilities were resumed.
    Conservatism...You liberals have no idea what you're missing!

    "Weren't you wondering why you were getting checks in the mail for not doing anything?"

    "No, I just thought the Democrats were back in power."

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    340
    We should move the UN to Brazil and then get out, sell the UN building to the highest bidder.

  13. #28
    montalban Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mase
    Umm...righhhht. I love how you act like the US is the ONLY country in the U.N. that doesn't play by the rules. You ARE a funny little man aren't you.
    Hmmm? Didn't the US go into Iraq even when the UN was against it?

    Isn't the US now begging the UN to get involved.

    Unfortunately, that isn't very funny at all.

  14. #29
    montalban Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Broker
    We played by the rules. Technically, Gulf War II is still Gulf War I. Hussein broke the terms of the GF I ceasefire, meaning hostilities were resumed.

    Ah no, the UN is the judge in this (according to you; the maker of the rules by which you are playing). Accordingly, although they passed resolutions to act, what that action was, was decided by the UN, but the US decided that wasn't what they wanted and went in anyway.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bradenton, FL
    Posts
    1,942
    The UN didn't define it... they chose no course of action.
    Conservatism...You liberals have no idea what you're missing!

    "Weren't you wondering why you were getting checks in the mail for not doing anything?"

    "No, I just thought the Democrats were back in power."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •