What are your thoughts about the U.N., and why? Was it swift-boated

[babylonsister]

in favor of the war with Iraq, or has it outlived its usefulness?
I think it's necessary, with an administration that appreciates it.

[yourout]

1. The long term survival of the planet may hinge on an...

effective and active UN. It seemed to function just fine when Clinton was in office. Only now when the USA is ran by facist pigs intent on empire building is the UN a problem because they will not buy what Bushco is selling.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Efforts to screw the UN and the rest of the world go back to AT LEAST

Jesse Helms, during the Nixon era.

I think the John Birchers were in that groove, too.

[tn-guy]

18. sorry, I can't let that go by

To pretend that the serious problems with the UN are something new that started with the G.W. Bush administration is total fantasy.

Vile though he may be, I find it hard to believe that Bush is responsible for UN "peacekeepers" sexually exploiting refugees in Africa and Kosovo. I also doubt that the involvement of several UN officials in "oil for food" payoff schemes is Bush's fault. Likewise, I find it hard to believe that the petty corruption of Kofi Annan and his son, Kojo are somehow the result of something Bush did.

The UN faces serious, deep-seated problems that keep it from fulfilling its promise. Ignoring the obvious or trying to blame it on "BushCo" will only serve to delay necessary reform.

How can anyone take seriously an international organization that would name China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia to the Human Rights Council? Is any further evidence of the UN's lack of credibility necessary? One must wonder why they left out North Korea. I seriously doubt if the good the UN and its agencies have done outweighs the bad.



Edited for grammar.

[Mind_your_head]

3. The UN will only be as good as the ambassadors appointed to it

(by the UN's various members).

The principle of the UN is a good one. However, powerful states can subvert this good purpose by sending "un-diplomatic" ambassadors as their representatives. That is indeed, I believe, what has happened. I don't think I need to give 'white-mustached' examples....but that wouldn't be the only one/or the only country to send a 'disruptive'/uncooperative ambassador.

IMHO,
M_Y_H

[babylonsister]

4. So it's being perverted, perhaps by our own country. Duh. I am

looking for and want a damn diplomat in this admin, somewhere, anywhere, dammit! Is the word 'diplomat' a new curse word? For that alone these heathens need to get out of my country! :grr: :grr:

[Mind_your_head]

5. I believe the word subvert is more appropriate than pervert

People think that such minor distinctions are unimportant. But, in fact, they are of enormous value. These shades of distinction of a phrasing are indeed the world in which a diplomat lives....and the attuned 'hearer' (also a diplomat/negotiator) knows where he/she stands. It's all a dance....beautiful and dangerous.

Then, there are the PNAC'ers. No diplomacy, no talk, 'my way or the highway' brute force a**holes who are threatening to blow up civilization. I won't be 'polite' or 'diplomatic' here. They're totally crazy.....and if they are allowed to continue with their agenda,

......it won't be good (to say the least).

Again,

IMHO,
M_Y_H

Main Entry: sub·vert
Pronunciation: s&b-'v&rt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French subvertir, from Latin subvertere, literally, to turn from beneath, from sub- + vertere to turn -- more at WORTH
1 : to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : RUIN
2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith

-----------------

Main Entry: 1per·vert
Pronunciation: p&r-'v&rt
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French pervertir, from Latin pervertere to overturn, corrupt, pervert, from per- thoroughly + vertere to turn -- more at PER-, WORTH
1 a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : CORRUPT b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : MISDIRECT
2 a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : MISUSE b : to twist the meaning or sense of : MISINTERPRET
synonym see DEBASE
- per·vert·er noun

edit: can't type

[AllieB]

6. We need the UN more than ever

especially with this administration in power. The Birchers have been trying to get rid of the UN since the 1960s.

[babylonsister]

7. This needs to be addressed, so I'll kick it til the cows come home! nt

[FrenchieCat]

8. What's being done to them....is the same thing done to the French and

the Democratic party.....

All it takes is the media on your side, pure spin, and a bunch of lies.

Yes...the U.N. has been getting swiftboated for quite some time now. Guess it's an easy thing for the Repigs to do since they've got the assistance of a Corporate bought for media.

[AtomicKitten]

9. it's a concerted effort by the hypocritical rightwing in this country.

What they are accusing the UN of, the GOP has done in spades vis a vis our government. They are po'd because they can't control the UN and the UN won't support Junior's capricious war-mongering. Funny how Bolton sides with Russia and China on covering up human rights violations, and yet those countries are still scapegoated as being the bogymen when it comes to other issues. Bolton is a bad rash. Isn't his recess appointment up yet?

[The2ndWheel]

10. It needs to go

But then I'm not much of a fan of corporations, nation-states, corporate states, or any other concentrated power. Humans have become too institutional, and it's no wonder the world is as screwed up as it is, has been, and will be.

[riona]

11. The modern world needs an effective UN

One huge problem is that this administration has defanged it with the Iraq war and its general go it alone attitude. I think the appointment of Bolton was the administration's way of expressing its disdain. Of course there will always be dictators, there will always be renegade countries, but taking into consideration the powerful wmd that exists today, if we don't have some sort of body that takes care of the planet, mankind will ultimately destroy itself.

[The2ndWheel]

13. This administration?

It's always been

1. US
2. UN
3. Everybody else

Has the UN stopped war? Has it prevented humanity from poisoning its own life support system? Stopped global corporations from exploiting desperate people?

Like I said, humans are too institutional. We keep building things bigger and bigger, because we've lost control. More powerful WMD's, bigger entities to control them, bigger governments, global corporations, more people, more consumption, etc. Yet, we're destroying diversity.

My way of thinking, the fact that we even have WMD, or even came up with the idea in the first place, is a good indication that we're going to destroy ourselves eventually anyway, UN or no UN. Those weapons will be used again.

This modern world needs an effective UN like it needs an effective Monsanto. Just my opinion though. Neither one is going anywhere, I'm fully aware of that.

[Bridget Burke]

15. Removing the UN would not end all institutions....

It would just give the corporations & nation-states greater power. Nation states can be good things with decent elected officials--but sometimes a balancing force is needed. I'm not sure that corporations can ever be really good--just regulated to cause less damage.

Destroying the UN would not lead a world full of organic, individualized peaceful communities of yurt-dwellers, raising organic food & meditating.

[The2ndWheel]

16. Well the UN isn't the only thing that needs to go

But I'm not expecting anything I say to happen. That would go against thousands of years of progress. We'll just keep building bigger and better. Where it's all headed, who knows. Maybe it will be a time with no war, polution free skies, and 9, 10, 14 billion people living in luxury until they're 143 on average with no medicinal help.

[bennywhale]

12. The UN is vital to the survival of civilisation. No Less

Globalisation has brought countries into ever more accute contact with eachother and competition over resources and markets. Letting the world operate as a free market, letting it operate officially with no set rules (anarchy) would be a disaster, as has been shown in the past.

Issues need to agreed upon, planned and enacted on a global scale.

Global warming is now the issue that the UN needs to take a lead on. It can't be solved by one or two countries and it won't be solved by the US doing nothing.

A UN agreement on reducing pollution and climate change must be reached and the US should be FORCED to accept it for the aske of the planet.

If the US does not (as if other countries do not) they should face global sanctions to force them to. This is the biggest threat to humanuty possible

[Solon]

14. I think the UN needs some serious reform...

It and its sub-organizations have done great things, however it has proven, time and time again, to be completely powerless to stop true wars of agression between one superpower versus a militarily weak nation. It is great as a general abitration tool, the the US and the USSR most likely would have destroyed each other long ago without it, however, it is becoming ineffective in today's world.

First things first, the biggest and most obvious problem, the Security Council, the fact that the five permanent members(US, Russia, China, France, Great Britian) on it have VETO power over any security issue has been an unmitigated disaster. Time and time again one nation or another would hold the entire council as being ineffective due to the use and abuse of this power. This is true of the US, this was true of the USSR, and while we applaud China's and Russia's along with France's stance on issues like the Iraq war, most likely the US would have lost that vote without the veto to begin with. Now they are talking about expanding the Five members to about Seven, with Japan and Germany also being granted veto power, much to the chagrin of China.

I say disband the idea of having any single member being granted veto power, let it be by majority vote with a rotating membership, like for all the other members of the Security Council. Other ideas, let's see, how about allowing for direct votes to the General Assembly? Every citizen of every nation on Earth being able to vote in one representative to the General Assembly to represent their nation. These are just a couple of ideas, nothing more or less.

[Igel]

17. Yes and no.

Not all outing of inconvenients truths constitutes swift-boating (although that's part of the word's meaning, IMHO). Not all of the things that were said were true, and not all the truths were complete. But some were.

You will not get country X to allow harsh actions taken against a country Y that violate Y's sovereignty if it harms country X's perceived self interest and goals. It doesn't matter if X is the US, France, Russia, or China.

You will not get country X to allow a binding resolution to pass if it requires that X do something that it finds unpleasant, unless that unpleasantness is judged necessary for pursuing its perceived self-interest and goals. It doesn't matter if that country is the US, France, Russia, or China.

As long as countries are allowed to decide or veto resolutions and activities concerning which they have conflicts of interest or vested, non-altruistic interests, the UN will be dysfunctional. The reverse would be no better: If only those countries which have no stake apart from 'high ideals' in a given matter decide what the UN must do, then the frivolousness and caprice of the decisions would be unbridled.

On edit: Of course, this applies only to "UN Central." Out in the field you get the usual nonsense--sex-for-aid in Liberia and the Congo, for example, the corruption and diversion of funds for personal use, infiltration by groups who subvert the agencies' presence 'on the ground' to their own ends, and the like.

[bigtree]

19. I wonder how long they are going to allow themseles to be juked by Bush

before they begin to act against the U.S. with the same rhetoric about a threat that they signed on to for Iraq, and are considering for Iran?