Comments on: McCain Proposal For Screw The UN Gains Support

By: SOC

SOC — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:36:14 +0000

Sounds like more of the same and the US taxpayer will foot the bill. How about a new approach to the UN, say like leaving it and kicking all the spies out of the US and using the building to house the homeless. Take the billions we would save an with that form a Union of Democratic nations. Unify, trade, protect each other,”Might for Right!”

By: GregGS

GregGS — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:39:24 +0000

While it sounds like a good idea… So did the UN and the league of nations before the UN.
Since all institutions, including ones that start out with noble Ideals are all subject to subterfuge and inevitably so. Why create another monster that will become the UN.

By: bd

bd — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:43:05 +0000

How about an Anglo-Sphere League?

By: KBoomr113

KBoomr113 — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:52:36 +0000

It is a good idea if it remains a military oriented organization, like an expanded NATO. It could be involved in MMOTW operations as well as standard combat operations, while we cut out the regimes that we don’t want to deal with. The problem is that the democrats will invariably infiltrate it and subterfuge the operation of it with bureaucracy and other nonsense, like they do everything else.

Its easy to hate the UN, but it did provide a very useful political tool during the Cold War to keep the Soviets and Chinese in check. Even John Bolton has found it useful to engage and fight our enemies in the open. We just need to use the UN properly to our own advantage like others do, and it is effective from a political perspective. Remember - Iraq violated 17 UN mandates, which was a major reason why the UN itself authorized ’strong measures’ to be taken in the first place. It definitely legitimized our war in Iraq. It is full of spies, but I’d rather not have it in Moscow or Beijing. I’m sure the spying goes both ways…and we get plenty of information out of our enemies UN offices that doesn’t make it into the news.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:13:22 +0000

Move the UN to the Middle East or better yet Monrovia, Liberia one of the “successes” of the UN, or wait send them to Mogadishu to set up shop, un-fuck another of their messes we are going to have to address in the coming years.

I here the nightlife in the Mog hasn’t changed much since my days there years ago.

By: sully

sully — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:15:31 +0000

Huh? It’s useful cuz it sucks??? Hmmmm….. you mean like Susan Sarandon could be “useful” with some rope and duct tape???
Nah…….

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j97/stars5501/UN-1.jpg

By: steve m

steve m — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:28:12 +0000

great pic sully

I’m w/KBoomr113 - how can the inevitable “bureaucratic creep” be stopped?…though one thing about the UN has always bugged me, giving equal voice to non-democratic gov’ts is sickening.

By: sully

sully — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:37:16 +0000

Thanks but the irreconcilable problem of the U.N. is it makes predatory dictatorships and/or theocracies the moral equivalent as democracies; thereby encouraging (demanding) compromise of democratic ideals and morality. There is nothing I can see that we should be compromising. You?

By: Kurt(the infidel)

Kurt(the infidel) — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:18:01 +0000

Sully

you’re right. it gives legitimacy to governments who do not deserve it and puts them on par with the rest of the civilized world.

The UN should be just be disbanded. there are too many spies protected under the umbrella of ‘diplomatic immunity’. these cockroaches need to be sent back to their own countries. So many countries make up the UN and yet we pay 25% of the bill and we get 100% of the bullshit that comes with it

By: jasjfarrell

jasjfarrell — Fri, 30 May 2008 21:55:51 +0000

It will still be mostly our money and our military risking their lives.

By: Kim

Kim — Fri, 30 May 2008 23:50:29 +0000

The UN is the result of the League of Nations which started as like-minded, freedom loving countries banning together to fight any future enemy that would come against them. It since has become the hideous, self-protecting UN no longer made up of common allies, but a conglomerate of ideologies given moral equivalency as Sully pointed out.

It seems any organization of people becomes self-serving, and power hungry over time. However, we do need allies who will take seriously the war on Islamofacism. Perhaps an Ad Hoc structure, made up of allies with this common goal and streamlined for maximum flexibility, like a reactionary force. And some provision for expelling members that are caught sleeping with the enemy.

By: Tom in CO

Tom in CO — Sat, 31 May 2008 06:11:42 +0000

How about we just leave the UN completely? We’re paying for all of it, and all it does is rape children.

By: Brian H

Brian H — Sat, 31 May 2008 08:42:15 +0000

Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at Carnegie, said “the world has no appetite for a U.S.-led league and many countries do not want the U.S. going around the U.N.”

No shit, Sherlock! Those would be the countries that want to keep their local kleptocracies intact, maybe?

As to the “bureacratization” worry, ever hear of The Iron Law?

[Jerry] Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

By: gary

gary — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:33:45 +0000

> Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at Carnegie,
> said “the world has no appetite for a U.S.-led league and
> many countries do not want the U.S. going around the U.N.”

I have no appetite for a US-lead league either, but I don’t think that’s the intent. The very definition of democracy implies leadership by the group, not the US.

As for “going around the UN”, I would agree with many of the comments that we should not only go around, but disband it. It’s fundamentally against the principle of democracy when you give dictatorships equal seating. And the results of running an organization that way have shown what is predictable…complete failure.

Here’s another idea for you to ponder…

http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

This is my own vision of a redefined UN. Feedback is welcome…

gary