U.S. out of the U.N.?

Foxfyre wrote:

So-called scandal? I think only a true, diehard, totally committed neoliberal could twist this scandal into something inconsequential.

Psssst...Foxfyre...as long as certain Libs have Halliburton as their icon for corruption, they see no need to acknowledge the mess at the UN. :wink:

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Einherjar, sorry, but I just don't see how the point raised by Walter and endorsed above by yourself is at all relevant to the incontravertable fact The US is the largest single donor the UN, and by itself contributes more than do Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Regardless your opinion, those are the facts. Following the dictum "Lead by example", should not the others themselves do more if they wish The US to do more? I find it a bit disingenuous for those who do less to criticize the one who does the most for not doing more.

It would seem to me that it is the ones who do the most each (citizens of say Holland and Japan) who are criticizing, and those who do far less than what would be expected from economic comparisons, who are receiving criticism. Each US citizen contributes far less than each citizen of the Netherlands. How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

So What? Your "per capita" point of view is irrelevant. The U.S. help to maintain the U.N. financially, far more than any other country, regardless of our population.

Yes, and I'm sure California pays more in federal taxes than any old red state.

The UN floats a number of peacekeeping missions and aid programmes, and need funds from it's members to do so. Distributing cost of such programmes equally among member states would be unfair, as it would disproportionately tax people from unpopulous states. Such costs should instead be distributed proportionately to wealth. (the equivalent of a flat tax)

0 Replies

The US leaving the UN would be tragic. We never seem to learn from history. One of the reasons that the League of Nations was such a short-lived failure was because the US refused to join it. Congress put the kybosh on that despite the fact that it was Pres. Woodrow Wilson who had originally proposed the establishment of such a body. And one of the resons that World War II became inevitable was because there was no longer a League of Nations to put the brakes on Hitler.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
So-called scandal? I think only a true, diehard, totally committed neoliberal could twist this scandal into something inconsequential.

Psssst...Foxfyre...as long as certain Libs have Halliburton as their icon for corruption, they see no need to acknowledge the mess at the UN. :wink:

I can't remember the last time I mentioned Halliburton. Having said that, one person's guilt does not erase another's guilt. Halliburton is a company that is in America and it is something that we actually can do something about. Halliburton rips off the very people sent over to Iraq on the President's order. It is more personal than some countries that may or may have done some or all of the allegations that have made from (who?).

kflux, the only thing that makes it a partisan issue is the fact that republicans in congress are making it one by involving themselves. That alone makes me skeptical about any of it being as they are protraying.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

Well, that's the US' opinion, and as is said:
"Thou shalt have no other opinions than mine."

0 Replies

kflux wrote:

seeing as you do not know much about this issue , please alow me to clarify the problem a bit . This is not a democrat or republican issue , this is not just about our country , any nation represented in the UN should be consernd . high officials in the UN have been acused of acts witch break the rules the UN it's self created , it is not just a matter of them pissing of the US . the leaders and representatives of many countrys have been acused of stealing money payed into the UN buy Tax payers , for the aid innocent iraq civilians . they have also be acused of trading weapons to sadom , knowing they would be used for the mass murders of innocent people within iraq . This was not an empty acusation , there is substatial evidence implementing guilt . it is too early to make a definitive statement , every person acused should have the chance to defend themselves after an investigation has been completed and reveiwed . however in no way can this be ignored by any country involved with the UN . if crimes were committed , those reponsable must be held acoutable. if they are not the UN will lose all standing with the people it is supposed to represent . it should not matter if you pay in a billion dollars or only a penny , theft is theft , and if the money was not used in the way dictated by UN vote , all of it's members should show great concern.

I got tired reading this....it really hurts your credibility as a messenger of this message.

0 Replies

candidone1, would it be incorrect to infer from your criticism of kflux's posting style that in your estimation packaging outweighs both content and context?

0 Replies

i can not count the # of post i have read in this form that use abbrevations not recognize by dictionarys , improper grammar , and misspellings . forgive me , i thought i was takeing 30 seconds to post an opinion while trying to sort out the mess of having 50 family members swarming around me , trying to keep 2 dozen children from sticking their fingers into the pies , make sure the turkey doesn't burn , and keep things clean without messing up my hair. If i were aware i would be graded i may have taken a bit more time . Get a life man.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

candidone1, would it be incorrect to infer from your criticism of kflux's posting style that in your estimation packaging outweighs both content and context?

If you're talking about consumer goods, no. If you're referring to finding a mate, they are equal. If you're referring to papers submitted in greater academia, the "packaging" is part and parcel (pardon the pun) of the content.
I have never submitted anything to a University professor, nor have I ever accepted a paper that was laden with grammatical mistakes and incoherent sentences.
The "packaging", as you put it, becomes part of the content, in a way similar to a shining curriculum vitae being printed on fluorescent green paper. The are unaviodably inseparable, especially considering the fact that it is a visual medium.

Didn't mean to be a prick...but I guess I was.
I apologize for that....

0 Replies

timber, you know as well as anyone here what value packaging has.

You've just been through an election campaign in the U.S. where you had two virtually identical parties and candidates trying to differentiate themselves by how they were presented/marketed.

You're being disingenuous.

There is no doubt that in serious discussions here at A2K that some weight is placed on the quality of the writing. This is not a forum at GOPUSA or one of it's Democratic counterparts, where the quality of argument and writing is, simply put, depressingly poor.

People aren't serious and careful with every post, but this is a demanding crowd. People shouldn't be surprised when the quality as well as the content of a post is analyzed. Even the trivia and word games here are tougher than on many other sites.

0 Replies

ehBeth
I disagree it is the content not the package that is important. Consider, could Bush have been reelected if the package was important.
Damn, He got elected with both bad packaging and content. Question

0 Replies

au, when you're looking from the outside in - the content of your two candidates was virtually indistinguishable. right and right of right. Packaging was really all they had to work with. They'd both have been loss leaders in other countries - not top of aisle items.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Instigate wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Einherjar, sorry, but I just don't see how the point raised by Walter and endorsed above by yourself is at all relevant to the incontravertable fact The US is the largest single donor the UN, and by itself contributes more than do Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, China, Russia, and Argentina combined. Regardless your opinion, those are the facts. Following the dictum "Lead by example", should not the others themselves do more if they wish The US to do more? I find it a bit disingenuous for those who do less to criticize the one who does the most for not doing more.

It would seem to me that it is the ones who do the most each (citizens of say Holland and Japan) who are criticizing, and those who do far less than what would be expected from economic comparisons, who are receiving criticism. Each US citizen contributes far less than each citizen of the Netherlands. How can you consider it fair for contributions to be compared without taking this into account?

So What? Your "per capita" point of view is irrelevant. The U.S. help to maintain the U.N. financially, far more than any other country, regardless of our population.

Yes, and I'm sure California pays more in federal taxes than any old red state.

The UN floats a number of peacekeeping missions and aid programmes, and need funds from it's members to do so. Distributing cost of such programmes equally among member states would be unfair, as it would disproportionately tax people from unpopulous states. Such costs should instead be distributed proportionately to wealth. (the equivalent of a flat tax)

The U.N. is more of a bane to the U.S. than anything. It has a limited purpose, but it has become a joke in recent years. We get one vote in our councils, just as China and Russia get one vote, yet we pay far more for that 1 vote than all others do. Its like taxation without representation. What youre basically saying is that because we have more, we should pay more. The U.S. is looked upon with disdain by the U.N. Why should we put up with paying more for their scorn? Getting booted of the Human Right Commision, to be repalced by Sudan Genocide Central, is ridiculous.

0 Replies

I have to agree with Candidone1. It's not just about 'packaging.' Some typos and even obvious misspellings are acceptable from time to time. But obviously tortured grammar and misspellings by the boatload make the content difficult to grasp for anyone but the most committed of readers. I'm notorious for the number of typos I make. (Right, ehVeth?) But, unless some care is taken to be at least grammatically intelligible, the meaning of the message becomes moot.

0 Replies

OK - for those big on packaging, here's something that oughtta be more palatable:

Quote:

CONGRESS EYES U.N. FUND CUT

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

au, when you're looking from the outside in - the content of your two candidates was virtually indistinguishable. right and right of right.

Most Americans view them as left and left of left.

No kidding at all here, George W. Bush's spending priorities are those of a typical liberal. In my view, he's as far to the left as you can be in America and be legitimate. The only happy ending I see in the picture at all would be for the dem party to die out altogether and the choice on ballots be between Republicans and Libertarians, i.e. between a legitimate left-center party which worries about things like morality and a legitimate laissez-faire party which (usually) doesn't.

I check out as being most of the way towards being a libertarian on tests and would probably vote libertarian in most cases. Nonetheless somebody would have to be working overtime to come up with a reason for having voted for a libertarian over W. this last time out. This basic issue in this election was pretty simple, i.e. do you want to live, or would you rather die. Those who preferred to go on living generally voted for Bush.

0 Replies

Quote:

Most Americans view them as left and left of left.

Yeah, no they don't.

Quote:

This basic issue in this election was pretty simple, i.e. do you want to live, or would you rather die. Those who preferred to go on living generally voted for Bush.

I don't know which election you're referring to, but it certainly wasn't the US one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Instigate wrote:

The U.N. is more of a bane to the U.S. than anything. It has a limited purpose, but it has become a joke in recent years. We get one vote in our councils, just as China and Russia get one vote, yet we pay far more for that 1 vote than all others do.

You get a veto, so stop complaining.

It's not about paying for votes, poor countries are reciveing money. I agree that the votes of small countries should not carry as much weight as they do, but that is the way the UN was designed, and there is no easy way to change it. What exactly is not being run to your satisfaction in the UN that you think increased US influence would change?

Quote:

Its like taxation without representation. What youre basically saying is that because we have more, we should pay more.

Yes. I think everyone should pay the wages for their own representatives to the UN, and mantinence for the UN building could well be distributed like a lump sum tax. I do however think that the more resourcefull countries should contribute more to the aid programmes and peacekeeping missions run by the UN. How would you see these programmes financed? Would you cancel them so that monacco could affort membership in the UN, or would you limit membership to those industrialised nations that could afford a set premium?

Quote:

The U.S. is looked upon with disdain by the U.N. Why should we put up with paying more for their scorn?

The UN represents world oppinion, and "scorns" the US for a reason. It didn't in the clinton years, and won't when you have cleaned up your act again. The UN is founded on principles you pay lip service to all the time, and as such you should support it. Oh, and you should pay more because you as priviledged people have something of a responsibility to help improve conditions in the third world.

Quote:

Getting booted of the Human Right Commision, to be repalced by Sudan Genocide Central, is ridiculous.

Well, perhaps if you put a little more effort into not violating human rights...

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
This basic issue in this election was pretty simple, i.e. do you want to live, or would you rather die. Those who preferred to go on living generally voted for Bush.

I don't know which election you're referring to, but it certainly wasn't the US one.

Cycloptichorn

Looks like gungasnake is fantasizing about the US being a fascist dictatorship again.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

The UN represents world oppinion, and "scorns" the US for a reason. It didn't in the clinton years, and won't when you have cleaned up your act again. The UN is founded on principles you pay lip service to all the time, and as such you should support it. Oh, and you should pay more because you as priviledged people have something of a responsibility to help improve conditions in the third world.

And you are able to type that about the UN wanting the US to "clean up its act" with a straight face in light of all the scandals going on at the UN right now? Perhaps the point is the UN is paying lip service to those principles you're talking about, and it's the UN that needs to clean up its act?

0 Replies

U.S. out of the U.N.?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know