UN Helping US Budget
EdsonNascimento
Posts: 5,522
UNESCO votes to let Palestine in invoking LAW (yes, it's a law) that prevents the US from funding any part of UN that puts Palestine in. So, there's $60 million we just saved. Cool. Now if we could just get them to move the UN out of Manhattan to another country, we'd be all set....
BTW, side note on this: A bit of a commentary on diplomatic prowess of the current administration. France voted against our wishes and Britain abstained. We couldn't even get Britain to vote with us. This after we implored our allies to vote it down in accordance with past peace accords.
Agree or disagree with the fact that Palestine should be allowed in. But, we just saved $60 million. Here's to hoping the useless UN votes them into everything else. There's another billion in spending just sitting waiting not to be spent on this worthless organization. Perhaps we could start to collect on all those unpaid parking tickets. Solve the NYC budget while we're at it.
BTW, side note on this: A bit of a commentary on diplomatic prowess of the current administration. France voted against our wishes and Britain abstained. We couldn't even get Britain to vote with us. This after we implored our allies to vote it down in accordance with past peace accords.
Agree or disagree with the fact that Palestine should be allowed in. But, we just saved $60 million. Here's to hoping the useless UN votes them into everything else. There's another billion in spending just sitting waiting not to be spent on this worthless organization. Perhaps we could start to collect on all those unpaid parking tickets. Solve the NYC budget while we're at it.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You can promote statehood for Palestine, but the fact remains they are not one. So, you propose that any group that calls themselves a country should get representation in the UN? Well, that makes it even less meaningful than I already thought.
I am the country of stupidistan. I want to enroll in the UN!
That is if the UN actually meant anything.
Regarding Obama - the sentiment I expressed is from both sides if the aisle.
i get the feeling that you are upset that france and the brits did not vote with the US like the good little lapdogs they are supposed to be. they can think and act for themselves. they are not required to protect the interests of the united states.
and when making up a fictional country you should probably be a little more creative than "stupidistan". there are muslims on this board, as well as others like myself that may possibly be offended by that...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
what are your thoughts on france and gb being autonomous instead of protecting american interests aside from it being all obama's fault? what other possible reasons can there be for them voting the way they did? i believe it is because they have come to their senses and realized that automatic american vetos at the un are not only unfair, but unethical and immoral as well.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Wow! That's quite the interpretation. It's PC gone wild. No wonder it's such a problem. The PC police can no longer tell when there's been a "violation."
First - the indication of my post is I am clearly not a big fan of the UN (putting it mildly).
Second - Palestine is not a country as of now. I then go on to say agree or disagree wether they should be - indicating that I am putting THAT argument to the side.
Third - I then make up a completely made up name that includes the word stupid. To that point in my commentary, what exactly have I indicated that I think is stupid? Palestine? Certainly not. As a matter of fact, I clearly set the discussion about them aside. It is the UN that has been shown to be stupid in my points above (and below, for that matter) the made up country name. So, any reasonable person would realize the UN is what is being alluded to in the made up name, and not a person, people or non-country.
Finally - the 2 main points are this - Palestine is not a formally recognized country, and until they are, they should not have a formal role in a "confederation of countries," which the UN supposively is. And - I want the US out of the UN completely, so we can save the money we spend there (and collect on diplomat parking tickets).
That is an extremely good point. But, I wonder who you are alluding to that have the significant powers.
The whole discussion of the UN is funny. If the US is so terrible, why do the diplomats love living here? Why don't all those folks that think the US sucks volunteer to put the UN (and all it's inherent expenses) in their country?
my post wasn't intended to be a slight on the US alone ... there are 5 members who are permanent on the security council ... each and every one of them has a shitty history in one form or another whether it be imperialism or human rights ... two things I think the UN should be preventing ... so, it's no wonder that these countries ultimately are only keen on protecting their own self interests ...
i'm not sure on this ... but what expense are you referring to? ... i assume the operating costs of the UN are covered by the UN fees ... yes, the US probably pays the most there but having it in your "backyard" has way more benefits than problems ... i am pretty sure, that most countries would gladly house the UN ...
Unfortunately, when you are "king" (the 5 members you allude to), you are forced to make the hard decisions. I think everyone can agree that mistakes (and that's not even a strong enough word, but let's not get inflammatory) are made. The question is, on balance have those members made the world better? Note: Not perfect, but better given the limitations inherently involved with having so many constituents with so many different ideals.
Yes, heavy is the head that wears the crown. And with power comes great responsibility (and numerous other cliches we could all come up with). There's always going to be folks that disagree with particular decisions. And, unfortunately, lives are in the balance on pretty much every decision.
But, on balance, what's the score card? I think if you're being honest, you would say we've (as in a collective global we) have come out ahead. Is there still work to do. Of course. There always will be. Will there be mistakes (or whatever you'd like to call it), sure. But, it's not like all this is simple. There are always numerous things to balance (i.e. Qadafi is dead, but did Al Qaida kill him/try to fill the vacuum? And if so, was it worth it?). We should continue to let our voices be heard. But, we should also realize it's not a game of Risk where you roll dice to determine the winner and your oppenent is fine with the outcome.
As for the finances of the whole thing - the US has a disproportionate share. But, even setting that aside - that's a very nice tract of land the UN building is taking up. NYC and the US could make quite a few tax dollars off of it.
There's also the little matter of diplomats being pretty much above the law. While I'm sure most are respectful of the local laws, there are plenty of public good sort of things being ignored by some. NYC and the US should be allowed to enforce it's laws.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Just because something is useless, doesn't mean good things NEVER happen. Why is that so hard to understand? I mean just because I think the UN is a waste of time does not mean I think that countries shouldn't work together.
Would Qadafi have been killed with or without the existence of the UN? I think the Magic 8 Ball says chances are good.
But, the fact that Obama cannot even get strong allies like Britain to help his cause points to an utter lack of respect in the international community. That's not saying that Britain has to do everything we say. But, in general, we respect their opinions, and they respect ours. Abstention was publically saying - you're an idiot, and we're not going along with you. Do you think Britain has never thought us the idiot (and vice versa)? A better international diplomat could have saved himself the embarassment.
If folks think Palestine should be a country - they should continue working to do so. They should not circumvent the process and prior peace accords. I support Obama in this stance. It's a simple stance. Why can't he get even his allies to understand the benefits of this? That's diplomacy.
And again - I think this is all good. We should kick the UN the hell out of the US and use that tract of land to open an indoor Disney World.
sooo ... what's your gripe?
soo ... your gripe is really another partisan attack on obama!? ... under the guise of an ineffective UN?
america has been on the WRONG side of the israeli-palestinian conflict for a looong time now ... the rest of the world has slowly awoken to what is really going on over there ... this has nothing to do with obama's effectiveness on the international stage ... if anything, he has restored somewhat the reputation of the US globally ...
Actually, no - I was drawn into that by another post. But, it's fine you responded with your opinion (not that you needed my permission).
I have no gripe. Let's exit the UN and let them move to somewhere else. Deal?
well ... what is your gripe then? ...
Oh.. Good one.
"BTW, side note on this: A bit of a commentary on diplomatic prowess of the current administration. France voted against our wishes and Britain abstained. We couldn't even get Britain to vote with us. This after we implored our allies to vote it down in accordance with past peace accords."
nobody drew you into anything.
the un is necessary whether people like it or not. and it has done some good.
can you not just concede the point that france and gb went their own way on this? it is most likely because they feel the united states' poition is wrong in this situation and not the result of a lack of american strongarming them. remember "freedom fries"? france did not go into the wars, despite our best efforts to coax them into them. so they have not been the staunch "follow the us' lead" on everything" allies. there is some autonomy there.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Why?
And can it be just as necessary somewhere else?
it is founded on the following tenets:
peace and security
human rights
humanitarian affairs
international law
development
http://www.un.org/en/
personally i would rather have it here in the us. it is already here, why move it now? that would not make any sense at all....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... bt/660.php
And I find it completely pathetic - yet suitable - of you completely disregarding the past century or so struggle of Palestinians for nationalism. They aren't some random group pretending to have some arbitrary claim to a piece of land. This is a movement that was legitimized long before your father was in the cradle, so why don't you show some goddamn respect, if not for Palestinians who struggle every day for this, for atleast the historical record and the facts?
As for the rest of your points, I've no care for those who sit here and complain about us shoving money into the UN or whatever. the fact is that if you really want to fix our budget, you have to cut the defense budget, and end the useless wars overseas. you know who's against our operations overseas? the international community. if the UN had the power it should, to truly represent the beliefs of all nations independently, perhaps we wouldn't be in this shitty economic position, let alone our moral standing in this world which was diminished ages ago through the many, many wars we have conveniently found ourselves fallen into. the UN is what it is because of the U.S., not the other way around, so criticisms of the UN are often worth ignoring.
Just curious- why move it? And where? The only neutral place to put it would be the middle of the ocean or Antarctica. Who would show up?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
the traffic sucks all the time there ...
frig - you guys have to hire traffic cops because a) the timing of the signals would cause gridlock and b) it's a free for all with many drivers