U.N. Number Two slams United States' attitude to world body

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you suggest the UN gets replaced with?

I think the world is a better place with some world body attempting to impose some kind of International Law.

I lost faith completely in the UN in 1998 after they suppressed part of a UN report on Cannabis after alleged US diplomatic pressure. link

I have to agree with Malloch Brown - the US attitude to the UN stinks. The sooner the US stops being a bully to the rest of the planet the better off we'll all be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UN is worthless precisely because the US and UK are the only ones willing to commit significant troops and funds to anything. The UN as a whole considers the war in Iraq illegal, what are they going to do about it? Nothing. They don't do anything of significance unless the US or UK initiates and funds it.
The only thing the UN is really good at is passing non-binding resolutions against Israel. It's worthless, they should rename it the League of United Nations and allow it to die.

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I lost faith completely in the UN in 1998 after they suppressed part of a UN report on Cannabis after alleged US diplomatic pressure. link

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to keep perspective. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Darfur, genocide, whatever. Corruption, ineptitude, terrible human rights abusers on the UN human rights body, no problem. But suppressing a report on cannabis?? That just crosses the line

[/ QUOTE ]

My new favorite post.

[kurto]

Why does it seem you could listen to Rush or a similar program and then guess Irvman's stance on nearly every issue?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
CNN

[ QUOTE ]
Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, of Great Britain, [in his Tuesday] speech defended U.N. peacekeeping missions in 18 places round the globe. He criticized the United States for voting against the creation of a new Human Rights Council. It was joined by just three nations, with 170 countries voting for the body.
<font color="white"> . </font>
He acknowledged that the U.N. desperately needs an overhaul -- in the Security Council, over its budget, and even the headquarters building itself, which hasn't been renovated for decades. But the U.S. tendency to criticize the United Nations and to take "maximalist positions," rather than seeking the middle ground, has made other nations suspicious of its intentions, Malloch Brown said.
<font color="white"> . </font>
In the speech, Malloch Brown said the United States relies on the United Nations as a diplomatic tool but doesn't defend it against criticism at home. That policy of "stealth diplomacy" is unsustainable, he said.
<font color="white"> .</font>
While praising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessors, Malloch Brown lamented that the good works of the U.N. are ignored. "Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," he said.


[/ QUOTE ]Apparently, American Ambassador John Bolton went ballistic with the speech. But the U.N. man was plainly speaking the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Bolton was very calm in his response, I saw a video tape of it. I also saw a video tape of Malloch Brown talking to reporters asking him questions and he completely backtracked from his statements. Kofi Annan supported them however which shows clearly that Brown is nothing more than an Annan hatchet man. My understanding is that the U.S. contributes $3 billion plus to the U.N. each year. What a complete waste of money and yet we'll not hear a peep from the leftists complaining about this waste of money that could be better spent on the disenfranchised in the U.S. one would think.

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it seem you could listen to Rush or a similar program and then guess Irvman's stance on nearly every issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, I haven't listened to a Rush broadcast in over 10 years.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I lost faith completely in the UN in 1998 after they suppressed part of a UN report on Cannabis after alleged US diplomatic pressure. link

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to keep perspective. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Darfur, genocide, whatever. Corruption, ineptitude, terrible human rights abusers on the UN human rights body, no problem. But suppressing a report on cannabis?? That just crosses the line

[/ QUOTE ]

the cannabis article was what brought how useless the UN is really to my attention - 8 years ago I took a lot less interest in politics than I do these days.

FWIW I think if cannabis (and therefore Hemp) was completely legal the word would be a much better place all round.

Hemp will change the world if properly used - switching to Hemp for paper production - and using Hemp as fuel to make electricity from or to run cars on (technology that's been around for fifty years at least) would drastically reduce CO2 emissions and reduce demand for oil - which could mean that less wars might get fought over oil resulting in less innocent people dying in the long run.

Everything is connected - dismissing laws on cannabis as simply drug issues is kind of shortsighted.

Time and again the UN proves it is a toothless organisation. The sooner the American Empire declines (as all empires do eventually) and America stops bullying the rest of the planet around because it can - and the sooner something like the UN grows some teeth and can make resolutions that actually count for something I think the better off we will all be.

[canis582]

Basically, the UN likes peace and the US LOVES war. This is unacceptable to US military planners, so our propaganda machine has to discredit the UN.

America has had to veto hundreds of security council resolutions li1ke "stop killing so many central americans, Reagan." or "leave the palistinians alone."

[irvman21]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, the UN likes peace and the US LOVES war. This is unacceptable to US military planners, so our propaganda machine has to discredit the UN.

America has had to veto hundreds of security council resolutions li1ke "stop killing so many central americans, Reagan." or "leave the palistinians alone."

[/ QUOTE ]

The UN is completely and has always been ineffective at peacekeeping. UN peacekeepers left the Israeli border as ordered by Nasser so Egypt could better prepare to invade prior to the Six Day War. The UN did nothing to prevent France from testing nuclear arms. The UN has done nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The UN was unable to prevent or sanction what it considers to be an illegal war in Iraq. I can think of nothing the UN is actually effective at doing, other than taking bribes, wasting money and passing non-binding resolutions against Israel.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The sooner the American Empire declines (as all empires do eventually) and America stops bullying the rest of the planet around because it can - and the sooner something like the UN grows some teeth and can make resolutions that actually count for something I think the better off we will all be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two reasons a lot of Americans dislike the UN:
-The UN, as it stands currently, is not very good at achieving collective security or the amelioration of poverty in the Third World, or much else.
-A popular belief is that a lot of people view the UN as a mechanism to undermine the power and interests of the US.

While the first problem is serious, I don't think there's any evidence that the UN couldn't be much more effective. After all, the UN organized the effort to defend South Korea. If the modern UN decided that it should end the genocide in Darfur, and did so effectively, I think it would quickly begin to lose its image as a do-nothing organization.

The second problem is more troublesome. I don't think there's much prospect of a UN that's more than a glorified peacekeeper/charity if it's viewed as a force intentionally inimical to US interests. Doubtless it's partially an issue of exaggerated perceptions, but I think there are also severe structural issues, notably the hordes of crappy dictatorships that all have equal votes and the denial of permanent Security Council seats to countries like Japan and India.

[John Ho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, the UN likes peace and the US LOVES war. This is unacceptable to US military planners, so our propaganda machine has to discredit the UN.

America has had to veto hundreds of security council resolutions li1ke "stop killing so many central americans, Reagan." or "leave the palistinians alone."

[/ QUOTE ]

The UN is completely and has always been ineffective at peacekeeping. UN peacekeepers left the Israeli border as ordered by Nasser so Egypt could better prepare to invade prior to the Six Day War. The UN did nothing to prevent France from testing nuclear arms. The UN has done nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The UN was unable to prevent or sanction what it considers to be an illegal war in Iraq. I can think of nothing the UN is actually effective at doing, other than taking bribes, wasting money and passing non-binding resolutions against Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

UN sanctions forced Saddam Hussein to give up his WMDs even if he wanted his country and others to think he still had them.

Then we invaded Iraq against the wishes of the UN. How's that working out? Wouldn't it be be nice if the international goodwill we spent to invade Iraq could be used to quash Iran's nuclear ambitions?