Is the U.N. Useless, Should The U.S. Get Out

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 6 years ago

   Jumping off from ahorseback's declaration; "Trump , Get us out of the UN now ."
   I think a consideration of the value of the U.N. as a political and public relations tool will justify our participation.
   
   I do not believe the U.N. serves the function of its charter, and if that were what I perceived its value to be, I would agree with ahorseback. But, my view is that as a tool for political pressure, and cover, and, as a benchmark of status to be achieved, (by growing nations), in the global arena, it serves a very necessary purpose.
   
   Political actions, regarding other nations, can be either justified, or "covered" by U.N. sanction. The pressure of World Opinion - as supported by U.N. sanction can also be a powerful force. Even though most nations ignore U.N. decrees when it doesn't suit their purposes - consider the power of persuasion the U.N. can support when nations don't want to appear, on the world stage, to be a bad guy, or a rogue nation? Or, when they do want to appear to be acting in the good humanitarian interests of the U.N.'s perceived charter.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I believe we should continue our role in the United Nations for all of the reasons you stated.  If we leave, we would be renouncing any chance of influencing the UN to be a global force of our liking.
      
      [And, can you believe ahorse called Nikki Haley fat, lazy and entitlement distracted?]

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Actually Nikki Haley is the best thing that's happened to American diplomacy in decades in the U.N. ... That girl tells it like it is , it's almost as if Donald is sitting in that chair though isn't it !   I actually believe she should be in the white house though , she'd be a far better servant to us than to them .

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            On this we can agree.  She would be far better than Trump.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Who thinks like me and says .............someday maybe ! I like her .

               replyreport
      2. 88

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "... influencing the UN to be a global force of our liking."
         
         Bingo!
         
         Hopefully you will see a better exploitation of that "Bingo!" in my response to Jessie.
         
         GA

         replyreport
      3. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Why am I reminded of a thirteen year old gossiping at a slumber party ?

         replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I have to concur with that assessment, GA. The bombing is Syria is only palatable because thoughtful leaders like the current French President and Prime Minister Theresa May of Great Britain are on board. I would never trust Trump or unilateral American military action otherwise.
      
      Sorry to have drifted a bit off topic.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Credence , THAT is exactly why I knew Trump would make a good leader , more because of those behind him who are "in the know ", those that are always in the shadows or in the sun .

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Understood, I certainly don't trust Trump's judgement, but the judgement of the credible world leaders whom I consider 'in the know'.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I'm on board with you, Credence. But I want to clear something up...
               
               Having support from our allies is typically a good thing, especially if the leaders among our allies are bi-partisan. What makes us think their involvement is reassuring in this matter? Being "in the know" seems ambivalent to me.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Hiya, Jessie.
                  
                  What I am really saying is that I favor the "coalition" approach, involving France and Great Britain is part of that. France and Great Britain have reflective leaders at the helm and I am more confident that they would not go just along, taking a rash stand in this matter. I don't have that of kind confidence in Trump and that is unfortunate.
                  
                  The Desert Storm thing under Bush I (1990) was a fine example of the world coming to consensus in taking military action. That way we all share the responsibility for the outcome, and no one can say that as a lone wolf, we seek merely a Pax Americana, whose objectives could be considered self-serving.

                  replyreport
      2. 88

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         That wasn't too much of a drift Cred, It was a Syrian thread that prompted this one. And yes, whether pro or con on the Syria action, it is good that it wasn't a unilateral action.
         
         ... and getting back to the point of the thread, it was also the UN support of that coalition that added a bit more legitimacy, (P.R. credibility), to the action.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   G.A.  greetings .  The power of  coalition representation would be far more powerful one and  two  more effective ,  If it were rather a secret coalition .    The problem with  rogue states and terror supporting countries is that they are all P.R-.ing the weaker U.N.   Especially given the dealing with today's greatest threat--terrorism .
   
   Of the what , 180 something nations in the world it is ridiculous that the U.S. percentage of running the U.N's cost  is 22-25 % of it's operating budget which I'm sure , given it's US. location ,  that THAT lame number is far higher than 25%..

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand the reasoning of your "secret coalitions" thought ahorseback. By my reasoning the public posture of public coalitions is the purpose of viewing the U.N. as a tool.
      
      We don't need the U.N. for covert partnerships.
      
      As for what we pay to the U.N. ... I can see your logic of expecting more support from the other nations, but, if the costs are considered as fees for the platform, I think we get our money's worth.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         By' secret coalition ' ,my point is that they would be far more effective than telegraphing every political move that the UN makes. Every political dissention ,every objecting vote for the rogue nation or leader is a black eye for the UN. , 
         
         More importantly , today's mass , instant and modern communications ability alone dictates that such a public forum as the U.N. is thus rendered obsolete , when the U.S. HAS been made to solely support and provide  the UN defence  or retaliatory military systems  without any help from others , we may as well save our U.N. money and operate with only super power nations. It's probably a good thing that we actually DO often operate free of UN entanglements.
         Perhaps a ten nation U.N , who individually pay their own bills.

         replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   One further note ,  given today's instant forms of world communications ,the original reason for the  forming of the U.N. is mostly outdated . Twitter or U-Tube is more effective a communication process than waiting for a few hundred fat, lazy, entitlement distracted  diplomats to return to the U.N. seating for an emergency meeting  .

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I guess I don't know how you mean that ahorseback. I don't think "instant communications" had anything to do with the chartered purpose of the U.N. Even to consider that idea would ignore the infamous "Hot Lines" that most nations had, (or have), in place, which would also serve as an instant communication between members.
      
      To your perception of the UN ambassadors, I don't get that either. They only serve as the voice of their nations. There may be times when  they are  "distracted" - by the circumstances of their responsibilities, but I doubt they are "lazy,"  (relative to their primary job). Don't take that to mean I think they are all great folks, I have the impression that many of them are a good fit for the scoundrel and scheming governments they represent.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I know it won't be replaced anytime soon but imagine ;
         "......the chartered purpose of the UN........"  the original is outdated because of instant communication accessibility today over a not much better than paper communication then , as if  would we need a hand crank ringing wall phone in our office today to effectively communicate with the rest of the world , perhaps to order something on amazon ? No .  An organization now symbolic that once organized was replaced by the big red phone on the desk , now deserves no less than a serious upgrading . Think about how obsolete it is having an embassy for each nation with dozens of intelligence attaches or operatives unaffected by our laws roaming wherever they want, doing whatever they want  .
         
         Face- time electronic diplomacy could replace the entire U.N. easily , What purpose a man at a desk that a computer can't handle ?

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I understand what you are saying ahorseback, but I sure don't agree. I can't even see where your "instant communications," or even our new modern communication abilities has anything to do with it.
            
            My perception is that intra-communications, (within the member representatives), isn't even an important factor. My view is that it is the imprimatur, ( ala "The Good Housekeeping Seal"), of the UN, and the ability to use it as a soapbox to influence world opinion that is its value.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I know the U.N's going nowhere soon  yet  that "good housekeeping seal " works in reverse too and we've seen that . Russia for one  always the predictably dissenting vote ,  five or six superpowers max. play soldier , pay the bills and  thus suffer the PR debility .Why not just trim the fat ?  Got to pay down our own debts too you know.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I suppose our perspective of the UN's usefulness boils down to a cost benefit ratio. My view is that the benefit justifies the cost. (not that I wouldn't support a more equitable  realignment of those costs)
                  
                  I think you are right about the number of major players, (superpowers), but I don't recall when their actions have reflected poor PR towards the U.S. (at least as UN actions are portrayed in the U.S. - it is probably a different picture in other superpower nations)
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     I think  you're right about that cost -benefit  , Negative  PR however , It does give our news media copious amounts of ammunition to use against our own government when they start tallying the negative U.N. votes,  I suppose media dissention is a must have too but I  wish for a day when  we stood behind our leaders , at least our media was neutral about our honest intent to quell world leaders who are so demonic . Either the U.S.'s intent is always noble and accepted by our own as such or we fail miserably in the UN.original intent  anyway.

                     replyreport
4. 65

   Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years ago

   Okay so the function of the U.N. is almost similar to that of the U.S. branches of government which are designed to keep checks and balances on nations in the global arena. But it doesn't seem to work. There is almost always gridlock. We want gridlock, but not in matters of potential global conflict.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Except  50 states are much easier to coagulate and organize from within  than a couple hundred nations ,differing  cultures , religions , entirely different and differing governments  , it means we DO need a U.N. of some kind just not one that has become an entity or even a rogue confederation all by itself.     The individual representatives of the U.N. have become all too powerful entities thus polarizing the overall good of the original intent of the union itself .

      replyreport
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see it that way Jessie, but I have not taken a deep dive into the entire UN charter. Maybe something along the lines of your thought are there, (*shrug*), but my perception of its purpose is from a perspective of the basics.
      
      For instance; (my apologies for a cut & paste), here is their #1 purpose, under their charter:
      "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;" Source: U.N. Charter; CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
      
      There are another 10 listings under that heading, but they all tie into the theme of #1, and they all read like something put together around Saturday night's Kumbaya campfire.
      
      The UN is toothless. Its only arm of force is its status as a collectively supported "neutral" world soapbox. Its "peacekeeping forces" are only a collective of soldiers other nations provide.  History has shown their value to be as a stabilizing and maintenance force - not a coercive one.
      
      Anyway, that was not intended as a lecture, (I already went back and cut two further paragraphs LOL). It was only intended to allow us all to be talking from the same page, (mine).
      
      It is when all that is digested and applied to the reality that their assemblage of nations is like a pack of dogs that my perspective seems valid, (at least to me). The big dogs don't care about the rules, because they make them. Or the referees - unless they serve a Big Dog purpose.  But the little dogs have to pay a bit more attention because the Big Dogs will kick their butts if they don't.
      
      To that point; Israel has been sanctioned. What came of that? Nothing. On the other hand, Yugoslavia was sanctioned and Kosovo happened.
      
      So ... to my original point. The UN is only useful as a political and public relations tool for the Big Dogs. And the US is arguably the biggest UN Big Dog. I don't think we should abdicate that position.
      
      GA.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for this learning curve. Much appreciated

         replyreport
5. 65

   Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years ago

   GA, You're also notorious for doppin' bombs and fleeing the scene. You got a life or something? lol
   

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Jessie, I can see why it may seem like that, but I do have an explanation. Most days, I only have brief moments to pop in and out of the forums. It is late evenings when I have more time to hang around.
      
      Contributing to my "disappearances" is the recent trend of the Politics and Social Issues threads. This forum has become a CNN clone; All Trump - All The Time, and I usually don't participate in Trump-specific threads. So I end up just cruising any updates, and moving on to other Net' projects.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Jessie L Watsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah my last posted turned into that quite rapidly.

         replyreport
6. 76

   Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago

   Anything that looks like NWO, disassemble it. Smaller Governments and smaller companies serve the pubic best.
   
   UN agenda is to bring the world population down to 2 billion. Bill Gates says bring the world population down to 1/2 billion. Also he says replace all energy with nuclear power, rrrrighttt that will work.lol.

   replyreport