Rumsfeld steps down

[shinerbock]

RA, when the UN begins to represent US interests like it does the enemies of the US, maybe we'll care more.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

RA, when the UN begins to represent US interests like it does the enemies of the US, maybe we'll care more.

Well then I guess you and others like you will never care - because you're missing the point that the UN isn't supposed to represent US or any other one particular country's intrests; it's supposed to represent the interests of the global community.

[pinkies up]

Buh-bye!!! *PARTY* Dummy Rummy is gone!!!

[RACooper]

Hahahaha

Sorry but I'm at RCMI doing planning for Friday's and Saturday's ceremonies... and some of the "happier" members here just did a rendition of 'Ding Dong The Witch is Dead' dedicated to Rummy... I almost don't have the heart to ruin their fun by telling them that Rummy's departure won't mean the end of partisan reps from the Pentagon...

[shinerbock]

RA, I see some of what you're saying, the UN doesn't really need to stick up for the US. However, they take action that is not only not in our best interest, but often seriously opposed to it.

[RACooper]

So? Every country has that happen... including us UN-lovin' Canadians.

[shinerbock]

RA, hmmmm, not so sure about that.

[_Opi_]

Good riddance.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

RA, hmmmm, not so sure about that.

Off the top I've my head I can think of the blocking of UN reforms

But against Canadian interests? Blocking of peacekeeping missions, redirection of humanitarian aid, the "Northwest Passage" not be declared Canadian national waters, a couple of cases where the UN sided with Native Canadians against the government, fishing rights of the east coast (grand banks)... and of course a myriad of other multilateral iniatives - which given Canada's interest in multilateralism and international laws is against Canadian interests...

[shinerbock]

I'd rather the US not avail themselves of UN "law." What peacekeeping missions were blocked that were in Canada's interest?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

RA, I imagine Bolton is far more intelligent than you, so I don't think "moron" reflects well upon yourself. I like his arrogance, I know those in the foreign community would prefer America fund the UN and give it legitimacy without demanding a voice, but thankfully with Bolton that isn't the case.

Fund the UN? Do you have any idea how far behind the US is in paying their UN dues? I'm surprised we still have a vote in the UN, or that they haven't deemed us an an aggressive nation or what ever the term they use is.

[shinerbock]

Kstar, the fact that we "owe" the UN money doesn't mean we're not giving it any. The US donates manpower, equipment, weapons, ships...while most other countries get reimbursed. We're also the largest donor to UN agencies like UNICEF.

Say you started a group which benefits you little, but others a lot. You allow the group to meet at your house. Members in the group even start doing things that are bad for you. They disrespect your house, and get away with it. All while you pay a quarter of the bills for the group, while other wealthy people, who benefit from the group 1000 times more than you, pay a much smaller fraction of the costs...= the UN

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Kstar, the fact that we "owe" the UN money doesn't mean we're not giving it any. The US donates manpower, equipment, weapons, ships...while most other countries get reimbursed. We're also the largest donor to UN agencies like UNICEF.

Say you started a group which benefits you little, but others a lot. You allow the group to meet at your house. Members in the group even start doing things that are bad for you. They disrespect your house, and get away with it. All while you pay a quarter of the bills for the group, while other wealthy people, who benefit from the group 1000 times more than you, pay a much smaller fraction of the costs...= the UN

The idea is that the UN benefits everyone in the world, it might not be directly, but the whole world benefits from the UN. And if anyone has a problem with showing respect, it is the US. We, as a nation, disregarded the UN and didn't let UN weapon's inspectors do their jobs, instead starting a war with another member state. A war that was started on "faulty intelligence" remember?

Where did I state or imply that we haven't paid anything? As the richest nation in the world, we should have to pay more than others. I think it's deplorable that we're in arrears while nations that are broke pay an extremely high percentage of their national budgets to be members.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by kstar

We, as a nation, disregarded the UN and didn't let UN weapon's inspectors do their jobs, instead starting a war with another member state. A war that was started on "faulty intelligence" remember?

You can't be serious here - the "faulty intelligence" is literally the only thing I agree with, or did you forget the 100% corruption involved in the Oil-for-Food shitshow, the lack of backbone for weapons inspectors over the course of a decade, etc etc etc?

Let's not pretend like the UN had any sort of efficacy, control or even a viable plan with Iraq prior to the war - and I'm not arguing 'better off' vs. 'worse off' or anything, but you're being intentionally reductive here because it suits your point.

This is, ironically, similar to how shiner claims member nations take advantage of the US position in the UN, no?

[shinerbock]

If the UN resolutions had any backing, we might not have had to go to war. I also disagree with the idea that simply because we're the wealthiest means we should give 25%. Once we establish fairtax for the US, maybe we can get a reasonable "dues" bracket for the UN. Or, we could just leave, which I'm ok with.