[RhinofromWA]

I have been thinking about this for only a short while so don't expect any revelations.

If the UN is the ultimate in security for teh world at large. What role should teh US play in it? Seems to me the US has been the UN's muscle for the most part. Putting $ and Men into situation to a much larger extent that other nations.

I say when things go back to the UN that the US only make up maybe 10% of the UN forces and support. Surely the rest of the UN can make up the rest. Let them spend the $ and mens lives to fill the gap the US would leave.

If we are so bad they can foot most of the bill and responsiblity themselves. We will be a participating part of the UN but not stickour neck out any more than anyone else. We shouldn't be the worlds policeman anymore....let the Pony Up...we aren't an army for hire anymore.

I wonder how the rest of the UN would handle that?

Would the US pulling back levels of participation be just?

Would the world be better off?

Would Islamist extremists like us better?

Rhino"the Rambler"fromWA

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Last I checked, the US hadn't exactly been on top of paying it's "membership dues" to the UN....lol....even though as you correctly pointed out...we do provide the muscle, we are the muscle, and we sit on the team of big muscle within that organization.

If the US wants to continue it's trend of participating in global affairs, then it needs to do just that - participate - not try to control. Now I'll admit, even with my time at the state department and working in the Foreign Service Office there, my education came through liberal international programs that frown upon the level of control the US seeks when negotiating with the rest of the world on issues that truly belong to someone else.

I very much approve of and support the reasons for the UN's creation, however, I also believe that if it is to truly be a successful organization and to play the role well-intentioned leaders of the world intended, then nations like the US need to take a step back. We have a HUGE degree of influence over every one else simply because of the amount of power that we already have, but we force the issues instead of simply arguing our points and letting others do the same and letting our influence and well trained diplomats sway the audience.

 

[LordOpie]

United Nations
Abbr. UN
1. A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.

2. A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.

3. Informal. An ineffectual, powerless, or unmasculine man.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Last I checked, the US hadn't exactly been on top of paying it's "membership dues" to the UN....lol....even though as you correctly pointed out...we do provide the muscle, we are the muscle, and we sit on the team of big muscle within that organization.

If the US wants to continue it's trend of participating in global affairs, then it needs to do just that - participate - not try to control. Now I'll admit, even with my time at the state department and working in the Foreign Service Office there, my education came through liberal international programs that frown upon the level of control the US seeks when negotiating with the rest of the world on issues that truly belong to someone else.

I very much approve of and support the reasons for the UN's creation, however, I also believe that if it is to truly be a successful organization and to play the role well-intentioned leaders of the world intended, then nations like the US need to take a step back. We have a HUGE degree of influence over every one else simply because of the amount of power that we already have, but we force the issues instead of simply arguing our points and letting others do the same and letting our influence and well trained diplomats sway the audience.

In a perfect world....but the UN has seemed to be less effective at enforcement. And diplomats are old men arguing and pissing each other off. What happens it the US removes the "muscle" portino of their role in the UN. Will the UN function as a world monitor better? It has seemed fairly ineffective in the recent past....what are they doing? World still seemed pretty crappy....yet they hold themselves as being a watch group of sorts. A bunch of large nations policing themselves and the world.

I don't think the UN will have half as much influence without the US muscle....even with the US sitting on the panel.

I have lots of respect for diplomats and their job, but most of the time it seems inneffective but for small victories. Talk a county to give back an incarcerated tourist....or stopping N.K. from selling nuclear components.

How much power/influence does the UN really have?

Should they stop taking action that they think it is right, even if it will make extremists mad at them? I don't know.

 

[Just Lookin'...]

i get the feeling from two of the posts here that some of you guys thing the UN is useless or very nearly so.

curious, but where do you think it deserves this?

i respectfully request that all references to the current situation in Iraq be avoided in this thread.

firstly, because the UN was never involved in the decision to invade it, and secondly, because it still has not been proved (even to supporters) that the invasion was fully justifiable.

so let's just leave it out, k?

the UN is an open forum where members can air grievances, among other things.

how is that useless?

and that is directed to LOpie, since i assume his hilarious reference to an eunuch was to that aim.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
In a perfect world....but the UN has seemed to be less effective at enforcement. And diplomats are old men arguing and pissing each other off. I have lots of respect for diplomats and their job, but most of the time it seems inneffective but for small victories. Talk a county to give back an incarcerated tourist....or stopping N.K. from selling nuclear components.

How much power/influence does the UN really have?

Should they stop taking action that they think it is right, even if it will make extremists mad at them? I don't know.

Being as I worked for the US Foreign Service Office in the State Dept...I think maybe I should take offense to the thought that they are inneffective old men pissing each other off....

Most "diplomats" are highly trained and extremely skilled negotiators who are well versed the histories, and current politics of any government they work with. Most "diplomats" only work with the nation they are trained to be in and they stay there for a period of not less than 3 years and not more than 9 before returning to the mothership. Most "diplomats" range from the late 20s to 50s in age.

Don't underestimate the power of talk, and working to understand another person's perspective before coming to a decision about how you will work with them. Most (I said most) conflict can be avoided if there is actual communication between nations, between people. Most conflict arises because of a lack of willingness on one side or the other or both to understand what the issue really is and meet one another's needs and come to mutual accord.

Most people who were raised with, or came to the conclusion that power is not often wielded by the bully, but is more effectively demonstrated by the one who remains quiet and only demonstrates its strength swiftly, suddenly, visciously and only when fully justified. The US does not NEED to demonstrate its power to the world through massive attacks that are not well thought out and not discussed with its allies (even the most powerful force needs its allies), it does not need to through temper tantrums when it does not get what it wants. In organizations like the UN, the US' military strength and might is well understood, it should act accordingly. If we do our job well and respect other nations for who and what they are, we will receive their respect in turn because we have earned it, not because we can beat them up.

(again, more rambling...but I'm trying to be concise with my points)

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
i get the feeling from two of the posts here that some of you guys thing the UN is useless or very nearly so.

curious, but where do you think it deserves this?

i respectfully request that all references to the current situation in Iraq be avoided in this thread.

firstly, because the UN was never involved in the decision to invade it, and secondly, because it still has not been proved (even to supporters) that the invasion was fully justifiable.

so let's just leave it out, k?

the UN is an open forum where members can air grievances, among other things.

how is that useless?

and that is directed to LOpie, since i assume his hilarious reference to an eunuch was to that aim.

Useless AND powerless.

Iraq is an issue because (for one example when Saddam invaded Kuwait) the UN was the ultimate policeman. The US and others pushed them out of Kuwait and stopped shor tof removing from power a tyant who actually thought wh could just waltz on in to take over a small country without much trouble. resolutions passed and Saddam is "allowed" to stay in power if he abides by the rules agreed to for him to stay. Not to long later Iraq is playig games challenging how far they can go. the UN steps up and points at a peice of paper. Saddams throws them the bird. UN initiates sanctions and stops shippments to Iraq to teach saddam a lesson. Well Saddam skipped school that day. Over a decade passes and weapon inspectors are not allowed access to areas, when they have free roam of the country. The UN does nothign but talk. Talking falls on deaf ears. The UN is ineffective at policing itself and making good on removing Saddam from power after he refuses to acknowledge the resolutions he aggreed to way back when.

So please excuse me for taking into perspective the last decade or so to help show who the UN has been ineffective in a BIG way. My comments have less to do with teh current situation and more with the years leading up when the UN should have policed Saddam and kept him in check.

Being an open forum for greivencess is swell....it is much like the PD forum. Lot of sh!t is said and not many minds change. Effective? No. Useless? No comment. Fun for us? heck yeah! lol

To ignore the UN's role in Iraq is comical.

What is the UN's role? A gripe session? it is more than that....yet they fall short pass that point.

 

[LordOpie]

sticking with Iraq per Just Annoyin's request...

I actually think the UN inspections were working. I mean, they were keeping Saddam in check and really, that's all that was needed.

My issue is that the UN's big stick is the US, wait for US to smack around those who need it, and then get all indignant about it.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Being as I worked for the US Foreign Service Office in the State Dept...I think maybe I should take offense to the thought that they are inneffective old men pissing each other off....

Most "diplomats" are highly trained and extremely skilled negotiators who are well versed the histories, and current politics of any government they work with. Most "diplomats" only work with the nation they are trained to be in and they stay there for a period of not less than 3 years and not more than 9 before returning to the mothership. Most "diplomats" range from the late 20s to 50s in age.

Don't underestimate the power of talk, and working to understand another person's perspective before coming to a decision about how you will work with them. Most (I said most) conflict can be avoided if there is actual communication between nations, between people. Most conflict arises because of a lack of willingness on one side or the other or both to understand what the issue really is and meet one another's needs and come to mutual accord.

So who dropped the ball with Iraq, N.K., etc? If we have 20yo diplomats we are in trouble. Communication should be attempted and encouraged. But to often talks are nothing more than that. It is good to hesitate to use force....but even well trained diplomats fail....and often. It is a tough job.

It is a rosey world you give them diplomats. I am not saying they don't have a place, but they are not effective unless both sides are open. When one closes down talking is useless, but should still be attempted.

Most people who were raised with, or came to the conclusion that power is not often wielded by the bully, but is more effectively demonstrated by the one who remains quiet and only demonstrates its strength swiftly, suddenly, visciously and only when fully justified. The US does not NEED to demonstrate its power to the world through massive attacks that are not well thought out and not discussed with its allies (even the most powerful force needs its allies), it does not need to through temper tantrums when it does not get what it wants. In organizations like the UN, the US' military strength and might is well understood, it should act accordingly. If we do our job well and respect other nations for who and what they are, we will receive their respect in turn because we have earned it, not because we can beat them up.

(again, more rambling...but I'm trying to be concise with my points)

The US does not need to fight 95% of the battle for the rest of the world....because we can. The US has just as much the responsibility as every other nation to put up the resources and men to enforce the decision the UN makes. Just not essentially all of it. Saddam didn't respect other nations, as he invaded another to take as his own and shunned any real talks with the UN because he felt he owed nothing (being left in power?) to anyone. Talks don't work all the time and the UN is proof. I just don't think the US should fight the UN's battles to the extent they do anymore. Let the UN building take a nuke right in the sphincter then they will wake up

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
I actually think the UN inspections were working. I mean, they were keeping Saddam in check and really, that's all that was needed.

Well he wasn't allowing them.....working or not. If they were, why stop them? He was a sicko. If he was such a sicko than how can the thought of him hiding something bad not have to be seriously considered? And knowing they were working now is different than being held up by Iraq police and military while truck come in and move items from the building.

My issue is that the UN's big stick is the US, wait for US to smack around those who need it, and then get all indignant about it.

*DING*

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I have been thinking about this for only a short while so don't expect any revelations.

If the UN is the ultimate in security for teh world at large. What role should teh US play in it? Seems to me the US has been the UN's muscle for the most part. Putting $ and Men into situation to a much larger extent that other nations.

I say when things go back to the UN that the US only make up maybe 10% of the UN forces and support. Surely the rest of the UN can make up the rest. Let them spend the $ and mens lives to fill the gap the US would leave.

If we are so bad they can foot most of the bill and responsiblity themselves. We will be a participating part of the UN but not stickour neck out any more than anyone else. We shouldn't be the worlds policeman anymore....let the Pony Up...we aren't an army for hire anymore.

I wonder how the rest of the UN would handle that?

Would the US pulling back levels of participation be just?

Would the world be better off?

Would Islamist extremists like us better?

Rhino"the Rambler"fromWA

lol, do u really think all that money and soldiers are given to the UN for free????????.
dont be so inocent.

firstable, the US owes UN a crapload of money. 2nd, if the US gives the muscle to the UN, is because the US decides so, because its the best in their interest. in a way the US owns the party. dont tell me UN, or subsidiaries dont almost always do what the US says, from cuba embargo to trade agreements.

if the US cuts back to 10% of the UN, then it would loose its power of vote.
of course the US wont pull out. they have too much to loose by losing the grip of the UN, with the EU and china behind.

the us army is not the policemen of the world. i would see it as the private guards of the ultra fancy house in the middle of a hood.

but yes, the US is an army for hire, and has been for a long time. too bad most american soldiers still think they are figthing for their country most of the time.

 

[Toshi]

sweet jeebus, kevin, one would hope that the calamities of the last few years has shown that AMERICA dropped the ball on iraq, not the UN.

 

[MMike]

This is a distrubing thread. It would however explain a whole lot.

 

[MMike]

So basically, to o back to the title of the thread, it would seem that the UN just really has no place at all. (that building in New York is taking up a lot of valuable real estate). The UN's work I guess just doesn't result in enough "rockets' red glare"?

"You guys ain't blowed enough stuff up. You suck!"

 

[drtbikrr]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I wonder how the rest of the UN would handle that?

Would the US pulling back levels of participation be just?

Would the world be better off?

Would Islamist extremists like us better?

Rhino"the Rambler"fromWA

1. They would miss our muscle
2. Yes, the UN is really just a way for France to ask for help when they get too big for their britches
3. Tought to say, we aren't really doing much, I know France would be pissed cause then they can't rely on us when they fvck up again (for those of you that don't know, France was why Viet Nam started)
4. No, they have pretty much always hated us.
BTW I'm in a French bashing mood, just read all kinds of funny French jokes I got in an email.

My Fav
What kind of gearing do French Army trucks have?
4 speeds for reverse and 1 for forward (incase the enemy is behind them)
Disclaimer:
I don't hate French people, just most of their policies

 

[TheInedibleHulk]

The statement that islamic extremeists have always hated is us not quite accurate in that islamic extremeists groups coming into power has been a relatively recent occurance (Think last 30 years or so). Resentment or the US has arisen for numerous reasons, some legitmate, many not, but pulling back our involvement in the UN woulnd t be likely to make muc of an effect. Anti-US sentiment most likely would drop if our involvement in the middle east would diminish, but it would take quite a while.

Thread Hijack- On a semi-related issue, since the Iraq war began, US funding and manpower for the reconstruction of Afghanistan have leveled off and are far below what is needed to finish the job. As I understand it from what Ive read and one direct source in the form of a lecture given by Ahmed Rashid (sp?, CNN guy, not ESPN guy) the acceptance of the US presence in Afghanistan was overwhelmingly postive, yet the cause there was almost immmediately forgotten once the Iraq issue arose. SO... WTF? As I see we have in Afghanistan a potential foothold of pro-US sentiment in the middle east where we could show that we are not just out to serve our own ends and turn a profit. But rather than rebuilding we choose to go blow some more stuff up. I dont know what the real motivations for going to war in Iraq were, but the fact that Afghanistan is a small and poor nation with no oil reserves and Iraq is large and wealthy by middle east standards has me feeling a bit leery about what exactly we are trying to do over there.

 

[blue]

Originally posted by drtbikrr
1. They would miss our muscle
2. Yes, the UN is really just a way for France to ask for help when they get too big for their britches
3. Tought to say, we aren't really doing much, I know France would be pissed cause then they can't rely on us when they fvck up again (for those of you that don't know, France was why Viet Nam started)
4. No, they have pretty much always hated us.
BTW I'm in a French bashing mood, just read all kinds of funny French jokes I got in an email.

My Fav
What kind of gearing do French Army trucks have?
4 speeds for reverse and 1 for forward (incase the enemy is behind them)
Disclaimer:
I don't hate French people, just most of their policies

I don't get the French bashing...yeah they're arrogant pantywaist bastards, but so are the Americans.

The French and the Americans are very similar, one just has a bigger army to sh!t on people with.

 

[drtbikrr]

Originally posted by xbluethunderx


I don't get the French bashing...yeah they're arrogant pantywaist bastards, but so are the Americans.

The French and the Americans are very similar, one just has a bigger army to sh!t on people with.

Ch yeah! I just had a funny email and it got me in a mood, and it's one just has an army, the other...well you know

 

[MMike]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't get why, when bashing the french, they bring up WW2. Ok if you're so bent out of shape over something that happened over 60 years ago, then why aren't you pissed at the Germans and Japanese? They were the actual enemy. At least the french were...um..."neutral". And what about that big green statue in New York they gave you? That was nice, wasn't it?