galenrox said:You see, the difference is you see a pompous asshole as a reformist, while I see him as a pompous asshole.
I'm sure you know about America's current standing in foreign opinion, do you think sending a guy that couldn't get a recomendation from a comitee controlled by the President's party would improve it at all, or do you think that logic would lead us to the fact that the guy is really just an asshole, and thus shouldn't be a diplomat.
Plus, doesn't the fact that the white house is hiding information on him imply that he has something to hide, probably about how he is not qualified to be an ambassador?
And he can't reform a damn thing if no one listens to, and the majority of people don't listen to people who go out of their way to be assholes.
Squawker said:Actually, LaMidRighter is right, matay_brit. The Global warming Koyoto Treaty and World Court are meant to do exactly that. So far our leaders have rejected both, but the day will come.
So what is it Matay? you said the U.N. isn't trying to control the U.S. then admit that these things are designed to do just that.matay_brit said:yes they are meant to do exactly that! Damn right too.But, as you well know, it gives a pass to developing and undeveloped nations who are already the biggest per capita polluters and punishes the U.S. and other developed nations who have pollution control laws such as the U.S. so it is basically useless.The koyoto treaty as u obviously no is to try to limit pollution.We care about our economy as well, and the Kyoto treaty would basically turn it into S#$t, so we wisely did not sign it, unlike many U.N. members.As proven by your Government you don't care about pollution as a topic because if you really wanted to you could make the targets.Wrong, we are a sovereign nation with a stable government in place, so the only thing that should be shoved is "it" which we should readily invite the U.N. to do.In some circumstances like this an external force needs to shove u into line.
All it's going to take is another pansy like Clinton for that day to come when the U.N. gets it's way, hopefully we can put that off until we can get rid of that godforsaken travesty of a world body.the day will come. - no it won't.
Gandhi>Bush said:So let's say a genocide is occuring in... ohh, I don't know... the Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything about it, we should ignore it(THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING ANYWAY)?
Should we just go with it?
Perhaps you neglected to read the opening statement. The US did not merely join the United Nations, it created the UN. Why do you think the UN organization is headquartered in New York?WiseRufus said:That's why we joined the "UNITED NATIONS"! Because we wanted to make decisions as a "UNITED" entity.
My point was...we (The U.S.) does not want to do things as a "UNITED" entity, then we shouldn't be a part of the "UNITED NATIONS" organization.
It's pretty silly to be a member of a group that is called "UNITED" and when we disagree with the majority, we just go it alone.
The best way to help nations develop while limiting pollution and improving public health is to promote technologies for generating energy that are clean, affordable and secure.Matay Brit said:Your the biggest polluter America, granted not too long, China.
Tashah said:The best way to help nations develop while limiting pollution and improving public health is to promote technologies for generating energy that are clean, affordable and secure.
That approach is reflected in an explosion over the last three years in the United States in new technological advances which are seeking to feed the planet's desire for development while reducing pollution.
It includes cleaner coal technology, the development of hydrogen fuel cells - where the sole waste product is water - and the production of clean-burning methane. In this field, America is far ahead of the game.
If China was to adopt the same level of technological innovation as in America, it would be worth the same reduction in emissions as four or five Kyoto's.
Thank you for your input akyron. Unfortunately, I believe the UN is well past the point of rehabilitation. From its original charter mission, it has morphed into an organization incapable of enforcing its resolutions, preventing genocide, preventing WMD proliferation, eradicating slavery networks and drug cartels, and advancing humanitarian values to name but a few of its shortcomings.akyron said:Do you think the UN is a lost cause and we should start a new club of United Democracies? Can it be salvaged from the sorry state it is in now? I am in favor of salvaging it if possible. Why waste money on a new building? The top ten floors are wasted anyway per Bolton.
So what purpose would the current UN serve if any?Tashah said:Thank you for your input akyron. Unfortunately, I believe the UN is well past the point of rehabilitation. From its original charter mission, it has morphed into an organization incapable of enforcing its resolutions, preventing genocide, preventing WMD proliferation, eradicating slavery networks and drug cartels, and advancing humanitarian values to name but a few of its shortcomings.
The US could remain a UN member while also organizing a new institution dedicated to the ideals of freedom/democracy and which would seek to address many of the serious issues iterated in the above paragraph.
matay_brit said:What bothers me is that you think that for some reason America is the only country who don't have to answer to anyone while every other nation does.
The only succinct purpose of the UN would be to serve as a waystation between the democratic community and everyone else.akyron said:So what purpose would the current UN serve if any?
Clearing the UN of *dross* is tantamount to its deconstruction.akyron said:By merely presenting a forum where differing nations can meet in neutral territory it could be argued that it is serving its main function and could yet be reformed once cleared of dross.
Tashah said:The only succinct purpose of the UN would be to serve as a waystation between the democratic community and everyone else.
Clearing the UN of *dross* is tantamount to its deconstruction.
As an American I reject the UN ........ As an Israeli I detest the UN.teacher said:I believe there is someone out there who hates the UN as much as I.
Tashah said:As an American I reject the UN ........ As an Israeli I detest the UN.
Such strong language. I just think the UN sucks.
matay_brit said:You tried to play both sides, you said the U.N doesn't have enough power then said it isn't trying to control the U.S. then said that some of it's legislation is designed to control the U.S. when confronted with fact, and backtracked, then you complain that the U.S. will not be controlled without a fight, that is basically whining that your globalization friendly U.N. isn't getting it's way.no i didnt say that, i said the UN didnt have enough power. I never said the UN wasn't trying to control the UN anyway.We contribute around 60% of funds to the U.N. if my figures are correct, so I think we've earned our opinion and sovreignity besides the fact that we have fought for it 200 plus years ago, so why should we care about what an out of control 60 year old wants. By the way, if sovreignity doesn't mean that much to you, then by all means go ahead and allow other nations to mind your business or influence your policy, but leave us out of it.There obviously not, your just obsessed about having your sovereignity breached, oh poor old America, lets all cry because the naughty UN want to check your not ruining the world.Why am I so miffed! That's a simple answer, the simple arrogance of a body that we mostly fund and back telling us what to do, that's like an employee trying to give orders to a boss, it's arrogant, dangerous, and stupid. You mentioned earlier about us as a country ruining the world, nothing could be worse than a one world government, which is what the U.N. desires, all people on the globe should be happy that we won't let that happen.Oh you are, oh well! The UN can't do a *****ing think about it at all, so i don't no why ur so miffed about being checked on, like every other *****ing country is, what makes you so special.
I believe this one has already been adressed and you are wrong. I don't like to engage in personal attacks but since you drew first blood I will redirect, MORON!Ok biggest per capita polluters. HA now thats twisted facts if i've ever heard it! idiot! as u full well know the reason they are the biggest per capita polluters is because they earn so *****ing little. Your the biggest polluter America, granted not too long, China.
So let me get this straight, you think it's our job to punish ourselves for success just so the world can feel good about themselves, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Jealous much?The kyoto treaty would not "turn your economy to ****". America is just stubborn enough not to change as the other nations have at least tried to do. It's a simple case of American politics having no sense of equity whatsoever.
You assume too much, I don't want the U.N. to violate any stable countries sovreignity, but the U.N. is so spineless it won't engage troubled countries often because that would be difficult, it tries to change already established countries who use a diplomatic channel which makes it useless.What bothers me is that you think that for some reason America is the only country who don't have to answer to anyone while every other nation does.You're not even worth debating with really, you are the naive one my friend if you think that sovreignity means that I am overly patriotic, we as a country have our ways, just as you Brits have yours, and I will be damned if someone in Tanzia gets together with a Canadian diplomat to tell my countrymen we are not doing things the right way because they don't agree with it, for the most part we leave others alone and if the world can't reciprocate that respect then too bad.You keep blurting on about soverignity but the truth is you have this nieve patriotic belief that the UN is infringing on your rights when it clearly isn't.Because it only takes the wrong representation for that to change.The UN so far as stated a few times on this forum can't really do anything so why are u pissed about it?
With the U.N. we have the current state of modern terrorism in the middle east, it started with the formation of Israel, personally I like the Israelli government but the U.N. conveniently forgot to make sure the Muslim population was treated fairly, we made a mistake in that area as well, but either way you slice it, the U.N. created a new deadly situation that is harder to track than the two world wars of which it was supposed to prevent.conclusion whether you like it or not America at the moment undermines any attempt at making any international body work properly because of its stubborness. For those of you that say who cares. Without it everyone will die!DoubtfulWell no not quite but conversation and diplomacy will stutter. Wars and scuffles would quite possibly become more frequent due to to the non-pressence of pressure on unstable Nations. In short the world would become more unstable.
If I misunderstood I apologize, but the speed at which this forum moves can create fast reads, we probably had a communication mishap.matay_brit said:I have took the view that the UN does not have enough power, i have never back-tracked. Where have i back-tracked when i'm "confronted with fact" I believe that the UN should have more power then it has, i havent tried to play both sides.
I don't mind other opinions towards U.S. foreign policy, don't get me wrong, but I cannot stand when another country or body dictates what we should do within our borders. We will probably just have to disagree on that.Yes you have earned your opinion, yet your opinion should not over-rule everyone else's. I'm sorry i didnt understand the last sentence of that, i'm 18.
We will have to definitely disagree on this one, the thing is that the U.S. is trying to get limited to non-polluting technologies in place, but again, if we tank our economy or hurt it that can only slow down our progress, the tech sector requires rediculous amounts of money which could be lost through the Kyoto treaty(an opinion I subscribe to).other nations should definetly influence your policy, how can you not see that? Can't you see that if you only look out for urself then everyone else may and probably will suffer as a result. kyoto treaty example.
Don't misunderstand here, I don't think we should control the U.N. but it should stay out of our internal business and matters of safety, debate and diplomacy are fine, and in fact essential, but it should stay at that particular stage.Oh so you think because America has the most money that it automatically should control the UN and the world is that it?Alright, that was said out of anger, basically to expand on that I feel that we are not getting value for our investment, in other words the more we give in terms of money, troop contributions and political concession, the more is asked of us, the reason I used that particular analogy was not to say any member countries are less than us, rather to say that we as big contributors often get the shaft, we are asked to step things up on behalf of the U.N. and in fact do, but when it comes down to diplomatic efforts we get alot of daggers lobbed at us, we constantly get smeared, and frankly, a growing number of Americans are getting sick of it. Most of the heat comes from countries who are upset at U.N. initiatives and after we take the flak, the hands come out again. Sorry if that sounded arrogant in shortened form.please especially make a point of this one. Americas the boss and we have the arrogance to not do what you say. hmmm
That is the way it is supposed to work, the idea looks great on paper, but one thing that is showing about all of the differing opinions is that many differing opinions are based on a particular regions agenda, these are the votes that make action in said reason difficult. Also, many different agendas collide and make it almost impossible to take decisive action on anything, it's almost like trying to order the same kind of pizza for a party, no one agrees.The very point of the UN is that it's ruled by everyone not just America or anyone else, yunno many opinions.?
Cutting back on pollution will come naturally, but it could be impossible to regain economic ground lost because of a bad treaty, thus not a good deal, we do take an interest in others opinions and in fact lead the world in charitable giving and do much for peacekeeping efforts, but as I said earlier, it is never considered enough, the hands always come back out. Also, if world opinion leads to something that could damage our country, then we must do what is right for ourselves, much like all people worldwide, we can listen, but ultimately must do what's conducive to our needs as all countries do.If punishing yourself means cutting back on pollution, and taking an interest in what every other country in the world thinks, then yes, you should punish yourselves.
This goes back to the internal affairs argument, I don't mind if a country thinks we are dealing unfairly with other countries or thinks we could do things a better way, please, by all means share the opinion. But like I stated earlier, these opinions should not pertain to our laws, economic system, or way of life.You obviously interpret what i believe wrongly. If the majority of people think its wrong, then yes i think it is. So if that tanzanian joined up with canadian, british, australian, brazilian, chinese, Japanese, French, German and Swedish chief foreign diplomats then possibly yeah. You don't seem to realise just how much you actually influence everyone else.
Iraq needs to be reformed, the U.N. has been complaining about the country for over a decade, we just set things into action, Afghanistan and the Taliban needed to be done, they were terrorists allies and were our business(Yes, I know we created them, we effed up) As far as economics go, we control alot of that because we are well off, most of it comes from investment and I won't deny that some abuse is probably there, but that's quite different from meddling in others affairs.Worst statement ever! erm Iraq, Afganistan, globalisation the fact that America basically controls the world through business, thats not leaving the world alone!I don't think anyone really knows the true effects of pollution because there are so many conflicting reports for multiple sources, that's a tricky debate.Pollution! affects everyone not just U.Like I said, economics are a totally different animal, we do trade with Africa, but because of economic law it will be done at a mutually agreed on price, most of the problem with Africa's economy comes from despotic governments that control the money, ultimately the laborers and powerless suffer, maybe we shouldn't trade with them, but they have many things that we need, another tricky situation.Taking advantage of Africa through trade, yeah ok you've proved that you leave everyone else alone.
Israel was created through the U.N. but I think on a Brittish initiative, we still backed the process though, like I said, the Israellis are great people and the biggest problem is that the muslims surrounding them were given the shaft, it's a problem and hard to fix.erm no Israel was our fault, the British, yeah sorry about that one guys, point taken that it doesnt do enough of the right stuff in Israel.Yes, the U.N. was, it was meant to replace the League of Nations which failed miserably after WWI, thus, WWII happened. The big problem is that the U.N. was set up so that WWIII couldn't happen but hard feelings in the muslim world were not considered at the time, also, the big problem with the U.N. is that you will have hard feelings because of radical differences in opinion and agenda, this could, but hopefully won't lead to rampant conflict. Time will tell though.The UN yeahhh i'm sure that was after the 2 world wars wasn't it huh?
Apology accepted and also extended. Yes America does look out for ourselves, but we do many things that benefit others, as any country does.oh by the way i'm sorry for my being rude to you i get an ickle bit accentuated sometimes, my point is basically America only looks out for America, that's bad. in my opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?