UN Helping US Budget
EdsonNascimento
Posts: 5,531
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
-
0 -
regarding the bolded part. what makes you think that france and britian have not come to their senses and realized that the united states' positions relating to palestine are morally wrong? it says nothing of obama's leadership. i believe that the vote against and the abstain-vote are evidence of changing opinions on the israel/palestine issue, which in my opinion is a great thing.EdsonNascimento wrote: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."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:regarding the bolded part. what makes you think that france and britian have not come to their senses and realized that the united states' positions relating to palestine are morally wrong? it says nothing of obama's leadership. i believe that the vote against and the abstain-vote are evidence of changing opinions on the israel/palestine issue, which in my opinion is a great thing.
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.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
i am not going to debate whether or not palestine is a state in this thread. the borders are disputed and israel will not accept the 1967 borders that the international community has agreed upon and accepted.EdsonNascimento wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:regarding the bolded part. what makes you think that france and britian have not come to their senses and realized that the united states' positions relating to palestine are morally wrong? it says nothing of obama's leadership. i believe that the vote against and the abstain-vote are evidence of changing opinions on the israel/palestine issue, which in my opinion is a great thing.
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..."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
:? How would a made up name offend someone? If it does, you're looking for something and need to get a life.gimmesometruth27 wrote:i am not going to debate whether or not palestine is a state in this thread. the borders are disputed and israel will not accept the 1967 borders that the international community has agreed upon and accepted.
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...Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
think about it. you are opposed to palestinian statehood, and you make up a fake country name in a region that is mostly populated by muslims. that would be like me making up the name "the united states of stupid" and expecting people to get a life if they take offense to that.EdsonNascimento wrote:
:? How would a made up name offend someone? If it does, you're looking for something and need to get a life.gimmesometruth27 wrote:i am not going to debate whether or not palestine is a state in this thread. the borders are disputed and israel will not accept the 1967 borders that the international community has agreed upon and accepted.
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...
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."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
the UN is only so effective as its members ... one can look towards certain countries who have significant powers to see that often they are the problem rather than the organization itself ...0
-
gimmesometruth27 wrote:think about it. you are opposed to palestinian statehood, and you make up a fake country name in a region that is mostly populated by muslims. that would be like me making up the name "the united states of stupid" and expecting people to get a life if they take offense to that.
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.
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).Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
polaris_x wrote:the UN is only so effective as its members ... one can look towards certain countries who have significant powers to see that often they are the problem rather than the organization itself ...
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?Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
EdsonNascimento wrote: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 ...0 -
polaris_x wrote: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.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
polaris_x wrote:
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 ...
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.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
I'm just amazed that two very open-minded and rationally thinking cultures have not been able to figure out a peace treaty in 20 years. Or is it 2000 years?Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0
-
edson you are contradicting yourself. you rip the un and want the united states out of it, essentially alluding to it as useless and stupid, but then acknowledge that it has done some good things. even under obama's watch..."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:edson you are contradicting yourself. you rip the un and want the united states out of it, essentially alluding to it as useless and stupid, but then acknowledge that it has done some good things. even under obama's watch...
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.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
EdsonNascimento wrote: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.
sooo ... what's your gripe?0 -
EdsonNascimento wrote: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.EdsonNascimento wrote: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.
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 ...0 -
polaris_x wrote:soo ... your gripe is really another partisan attack on obama!? ... under the guise of an ineffective UN?
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).Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
polaris_x wrote:sooo ... what's your gripe?
I have no gripe. Let's exit the UN and let them move to somewhere else. Deal?Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help