Improving the UN.

[OxymoronP]

That is just an exclusive club for friendly powers to circle-jerk each other, not deal with international issues. The point of the U.N. is provide a system to handle the impossibly difficult challenge of world affairs. Like it or not, many of the worlds leaders are dictatorial scum bags and keeping them out of your club won't make them go away. You have to deal with them one way or another, and the U.N. is a lot cheaper than alternative methods.

I dont care about dictators, I care about Western interests.

 

[rathi]

I dont care about dictators, I care about Western interests.

That doesn't change that the fact there are dictators and that we do have to deal with them. They won't stop being a pain in the but just because they aren't part of the special club. Furthermore, as the foremost power today, stability is a major benefit the U.S. The U.N. has helped promote stability and actually succeeded a few times over the years. Emulating ostriches is not a solid approach for foreign policy.

 

[OxymoronP]

That doesn't change that the fact there are dictators and that we do have to deal with them. They won't stop being a pain in the but just because they aren't part of the special club. Furthermore, as the foremost power today, stability is a major benefit the U.S. The U.N. has helped promote stability and actually succeeded a few times over the years. Emulating ostriches is not a solid approach for foreign policy.

UN hasnt done anything beneficial to the Western Powers since Korea.

As far as dictators we have no problem dealing with them, especially when they dont have China to back them up in the UN.

 

[Tashah]

The UN does do some decent humanitarian work. But beyond those noble endeavors lurks bias, incompetence, impotence, and corruption.

 

[rathi]

UN hasnt done anything beneficial to the Western Powers since Korea.

How many ceasefires has it orchestrated since?

As far as dictators we have no problem dealing with them, especially when they dont have China to back them up in the UN.

China is going to back NK (in certain circumstances) regardless of what the U.N. does.

The fact is that leaving the U.N. provides absolutely no tangible benefits whatsoever. It simply leaves us unable to influence its proceedings.

 

[OxymoronP]

How many ceasefires has it orchestrated since?

Ceasefires are not great solutions to problems.


]

 

[rathi]

Ceasefires are not great solutions to problems.

And never ending warfare is?

 

[Tashah]

How many ceasefires has it orchestrated since?

Let's look at one recent ceasefire... UN Resolution 1701 in 2006.

It is now three years later and Hizb'Allah has trebled its weapons inventory.

Grandé impotence.

 

[OxymoronP]

And never ending warfare is?

Cease fires lead to never ending wars, full scale wars brought to finality lead to present day peaceful Europe and Japan.

 

[rathi]

Let's look at one recent ceasefire... UN Resolution 1701 in 2006.

It is now three years later and Hizb'Allah has trebled its weapons inventory.

Grandé impotence.

Would you prefer the U.N. had enough power to threaten Israel with invasion in order to back its resolutions? You may whine about how weak it is, but you don't want the U.N. to have any real power either. The U.N. is impotent because that is how everyone else wishes it.

Not to mention that a ceasefire is still better than unending conflict.

 

[rathi]

Cease fires lead to never ending wars, full scale wars brought to finality lead to present day peaceful Europe and Japan.

How many ceasefires have been broken in the post war period? We fought Japan and Germany to end because they were real threats. Smaller powers fighting minor wars don't have a need for such expensive conflict.

 

[OxymoronP]

How many ceasefires have been broken in the post war period? We fought Japan and Germany to end because they were real threats. Smaller powers fighting minor wars don't have a need for such expensive conflict.

one word AFRICA.

 

[rathi]

one word AFRICA.

How would you fix Africa? It isn't even capable of waging total war in the first place because the nation state isn't strong enough. Much of the conflict is internal as well.

 

[Tashah]

Would you prefer the U.N. had enough power to threaten Israel with invasion in order to back its resolutions? You may whine about how weak it is, but you don't want the U.N. to have any real power either. The U.N. is impotent because that is how everyone else wishes it.

Israel honored its commitments to 1701 sans the UN having any real power. Lebanon has not. As I said, Hizb'Allah has trebled its weapons inventory with no UN recrimination whatsoever.

Not to mention that a ceasefire is still better than unending conflict.

I disagree. The above illustrates that 1701 was bastardized and is merely a pause to re-arm. It is UN window dressing. The result is that the next contratempts will be expoentially greater in violence. THEN and only THEN you will hear then UN cry and whine to the high heavens.

 

[rathi]

Israel honored its commitments to 1701 sans the UN having any real power. Lebanon has not. As I said, Hizb'Allah has trebled its weapons inventory with no UN recrimination whatsoever.

In this instance yes. However, you know better than I do about the history of when Israel and the U.N. came into conflict.

I disagree. The above illustrates that 1701 was bastardized and is merely a pause to re-arm. It is UN window dressing. The result is that the next contratempts will be expoentially greater in violence. THEN and only THEN you will hear then UN cry and whine to the high heavens.

Do you think the U.N. should have its own army to invade people who don't follow resolutions?

 

[Tashah]

Do you think the U.N. should have its own army to invade people who don't follow resolutions?

Lordy no. The UN should do strictly what it does best... humanitarianism.

 

[obvious Child]

Interesting, so when has this happened?

Guess how many people the president of Iran got to go with him? :2wave:

Remember how we made it extremely difficult for Qadaffi to enter the US?

As one who has seen the damage the UN causes 1st hand I 100% disagree, it needs to be disbanded and ran out of town.

And replaced with what? An alternative that is worse than situation is not a solution.

uhm, i addressed the portion that adressed me, if you want me to address your whole post, perhaps you should not suggest my position of what I get or don't get.

Except I was right here. Furthermore, you made an argument to Rathi regarding costs yet did not include the benefits you were informed of.

These leases currently are being signed to to a needed upgrade at the rotting UN building.

Uh, no they aren't. Read the link. Foreign governments are buying or leasing property to be close. That drives up office space premiums. Guess who wins? American office space suppliers.

Tell me, you have the resources, do you have any links backing up your notepad math, that shows the actual complete economic impact on the city including police, tickets, other services provided, along with how much its members spend in the city?

I don't have complete economic impact. I am, as I have shown, willing to do the math to show that it is not one sided as you argued. Where is your data on costs?

please exclude the diplomats who live in places like NJ. and those outside the 5 boroughs, thanks.

Because...you don't think they don't spend money in NYC?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Guess how many people the president of Iran got to go with him? :2wave:

Remember how we made it extremely difficult for Qadaffi to enter the US?

quadaffi has a mansion in englewood..... :doh

And replaced with what? An alternative that is worse than situation is not a solution

.


cool show me evidence that nothing like the un would be worse. i'll wait...

Except I was right here. Furthermore, you made an argument to Rathi regarding costs yet did not include the benefits you were informed of.

what benefits, your unconfirmed speculation?

Uh, no they aren't. Read the link. Foreign governments are buying or leasing property to be close. That drives up office space premiums. Guess who wins? American office space suppliers.

what percent of the nyc metro economy do they represent?

I don't have complete economic impact. I am, as I have shown, willing to do the math to show that it is not one sided as you argued. Where is your data on costs?

you speculated, sure. if you have anything concrete, id be interested in seeing it.

Because...you don't think they don't spend money in NYC?

strawman..... i am sure they do. never said they didnt. since the nyc metro area's economy often eclipses the economies of many un nations, id be interested in you quantifying any actual impact these few people have on the nyc economy, if you can not, lets leave this as your own unsubstantiated speculation.....

 

[Ahlevah]

The UN should have more power to deal with world problems individual countries like US, China or UK can't or refuse to deal with.
Like world starvation/AIDs/Genocides.

China's method of helping the people of Darfur is by investing in Sudan's oil industry and buying 2/3rds of its output. Meanwhile, while wiping NATO's ass in Afghanistan, the U.S., even under Darth Vader, still managed to send billions of dollars in aid to Africa:

[As of January 2008], roughly 1.4 million AIDS patients have received lifesaving medicine paid for with American dollars, up from 50,000 before the initiative. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent foes, among them Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his 2004 Democratic challenger, find it difficult to argue with the numbers.

“It’s a good thing that he wanted to spend the money,” said Mr. Kerry, an early proponent of legislation similar to the plan Mr. Bush adopted. “I think it represents a tremendous accomplishment for the country.”

Announced in the 2003 State of the Union address, the plan called for $15 billion for AIDS prevention, treatment and care, concentrating on 15 hard-hit nations in Africa and the Caribbean. An enthusiastic Congress has already approved $19 billion.

In Global Battle on AIDS, Bush Creates Legacy

President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa - washingtonpost.com

Screw the UN. Whether it's a bomb or a sack of wheat, if it comes from America, it should have a label on it that says, "A gift from the people of the United States of America."

 

[obvious Child]

quadaffi has a mansion in englewood..... :doh

Fair enough, it wasn't him, but Roberto Micheletti got denied.

cool show me evidence that nothing like the un would be worse. i'll wait.

So no forum to air grievances, no global forum to publicly coordinate actions, no global forum to publicly raise money for military actions, nothing. Tell me how that is better. Explain to me how having no forum like the UN is a better outcome. I'll wait. Or maybe I won't.

what benefits, your unconfirmed speculation?

What costs, your unconfirmed speculation?

It's real easy to calculate wages, spending and multipliers. Now it is your job to prove that the costs of hosting them are more. You argue that it is a net loss for NYC to have the UN building there. I gave spending multipliers which come out to over $300 million as well as increasing office space rents. It is your job to provide the costs.

what percent of the nyc metro economy do they represent?

Relevancy? You argued that it is a net loss, that it costs the city more in economic activity then it provides. You should at least be able to speculate and give some tabulations as to how you came to such a conclusion. I was willing to put the effort in. Why won't you reciprocate? If you really believe the UN costs more then it gives out, then you should be able to at least provide basic costs to the city.

you speculated, sure. if you have anything concrete, id be interested in seeing it.

Watch: you speculated, sure. if you have anything concrete, id be interested in seeing it.

I did not need to change a single word in that (but I should have corrected your grammar) to turn that against your own argument.

I gave some tentative math. How about you do some of the same?

strawman..... i am sure they do. never said they didnt.

Except that you asked me to remove the diplomats and staff who do not live in NYC. If I did that, I would be removing their spending and its associated multipliers, thus I would be computing a final number as if they did not spend any money in the city. So do you still believe you never said they didn't when you asked me to remove them from the spending calculations?

since the nyc metro area's economy often eclipses the economies of many un nations, id be interested in you quantifying any actual impact these few people have on the nyc economy

I already did. I gave you conservative pay scales for staff and diplomats, took out taxes and savings and then ran a multiplier. I then did a realistic pay scale and staff levels and redid the numbers. Thus, I quantifies the actual impact that 2,688 people have as well as multiplier effects. I have done exactly what you asked for. Please review the thread before asking for things that have already been given to you.

 

[JW Frogen]

The only way to make the UN work is this, if you are a democratic government which has a real press and real rule of law, you vote.

If you are not, you can squawwwk but you can not make any decisions.

Governments in the UN that do not have the consent of the governed make a mockery out of the entire premise.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Fair enough, it wasn't him, but Roberto Micheletti got denied.

Wow, one person.

So no forum to air grievances, no global forum to publicly coordinate actions, no global forum to publicly raise money for military actions, nothing. Tell me how that is better. Explain to me how having no forum like the UN is a better outcome. I'll wait. Or maybe I won't.

If the UN is the only option, or some global forum packed with third world dictators, then how come we negotiate out of it?


Seriously, the league of nations was a failure, so is the UN, somehow we survive in spite of them.

What costs, your unconfirmed speculation?

It's real easy to calculate wages, spending and multipliers. Now it is your job to prove that the costs of hosting them are more. You argue that it is a net loss for NYC to have the UN building there. I gave spending multipliers which come out to over $300 million as well as increasing office space rents. It is your job to provide the costs.

Awsome,then calculate this. Lets say you tear down the UN, and put up 2 40 story buildings on site, that area of midtown rent often goes for $5000+, in order to pay that rent and live in the city, you would need to make lets say $200,000 a year.


Which is going to bring in more revenue? people who drive to the un to work US tax free, or residential appartment skyscrapers which would add thousands of residents to ny and bring in tax and economic benefits.

The UN, is a drag on the city, the real estate is being wasted on the international house of dictators.

Relevancy? You argued that it is a net loss, that it costs the city more in economic activity then it provides. You should at least be able to speculate and give some tabulations as to how you came to such a conclusion. I was willing to put the effort in. Why won't you reciprocate? If you really believe the UN costs more then it gives out, then you should be able to at least provide basic costs to the city.

Good for you, you put the effort in but is was an incomplete picture. you speculated, wrongly I might add about what diplomats spend in the city, and you failed to see the difference between having a building full of no tax paying freeloaders vs a residential housing skyscrapers that would eclipse any contribution the UN makes to the economy of ny.

Watch: you speculated, sure. if you have anything concrete, id be interested in seeing it.

I did not need to change a single word in that (but I should have corrected your grammar) to turn that against your own argument.

I gave some tentative math. How about you do some of the same?

cop out, you made a speculative calculation and excluded primary points to arrive at a poor conclusion.


Answer, which would bring more to the economy of NYC, apartments there, or the UN?

Except that you asked me to remove the diplomats and staff who do not live in NYC. If I did that, I would be removing their spending and its associated multipliers, thus I would be computing a final number as if they did not spend any money in the city. So do you still believe you never said they didn't when you asked me to remove them from the spending calculations?

You don't get how it works around here do you. When you live in NJ and work in ny, most of the time, you spend very little money in the city....

I already did. I gave you conservative pay scales for staff and diplomats, took out taxes and savings and then ran a multiplier. I then did a realistic pay scale and staff levels and redid the numbers. Thus, I quantifies the actual impact that 2,688 people have as well as multiplier effects. I have done exactly what you asked for. Please review the thread before asking for things that have already been given to you.

no, you just speculated how much they make. you have shown no evidence what they actually spend in the city, nor did you consider if the UN was the best value for the land.


sorry man, doing math on the internetz doesn't mean much when you cant correlate it into the economy...

 

[rathi]

The only way to make the UN work is this, if you are a democratic government which has a real press and real rule of law, you vote.

So you already get rid of China and Russia right off the bat. Its even more impotent than the league of nations.

If you are not, you can squawwwk but you can not make any decisions.

Except dictators tend to start wars and kill people, not squawk. And if China and Russia start stuff, the members of your U.N. are going to be in deep ****.

Governments in the UN that do not have the consent of the governed make a mockery out of the entire premise.

The purpose of the U.N. is be an forum to deal with international issues. If dictators run the country, you have to deal with them, because they call the shots. Power is what rules the world, not democracy.

 

[Gardener]

. Power is what rules the world, not democracy.

Which, of course, is the most salient argument you can offer AGAINST the U.N.

 

[rathi]

Which, of course, is the most salient argument you can offer AGAINST the U.N.

Exactly why? The U.N. isn't democratic and certainly doesn't rule the world. Its purpose is to handle the power-brokering between nations, which it does better than what came before.