Comments on: The UN and the US are together for better or worse

By: cialis online

cialis online — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:50:35 +0000

cialis online…

news…

By: Swaraaj

Swaraaj — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:44:01 +0000

Talking about civilization, what exactly is civilization? When M.K. Gandhi was asked what he thought about American civilization, his reply was “I think it is a good idea.”

PING:
TITLE: Design and Hosting
BLOG NAME: Design and Hosting
Read more about Design and Hosting

PING:
TITLE: Day memorial
BLOG NAME: Day memorial
Read more about Day memorial

PING:
TITLE: Alfuzosin
BLOG NAME: Alfuzosin
Read more about Alfuzosin

PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/rsb5
BLOG NAME:
Read more about

PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/lo62
BLOG NAME:
Read more about

PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/5ah9
BLOG NAME:
Read more about

PING:
TITLE: Macie
BLOG NAME: Macie
Read more about Macie

PING:
TITLE: Kiara
BLOG NAME: Kiara
Read more about Kiara

PING:
TITLE: Raegan
BLOG NAME: Raegan
Read more about Raegan

PING:
TITLE: effexor
BLOG NAME: effexor
Read more about effexor

PING:
TITLE: hickey
BLOG NAME: hickey
Read more about hickey

PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease

PING:
TITLE: balding
BLOG NAME: balding
Read more about balding

PING:
TITLE: detoxification
BLOG NAME: detoxification
Read more about detoxification

PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads

PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease

PING:
TITLE: skin-condition
BLOG NAME: skin-condition
Read more about skin-condition

PING:
TITLE: Rinspeed
BLOG NAME: Rinspeed
Read more about Rinspeed

PING:
TITLE: Kia
BLOG NAME: Kia
Read more about Kia

PING:
TITLE: Mitsubishi
BLOG NAME: Mitsubishi
Read more about Mitsubishi

PING:
TITLE: Holden
BLOG NAME: Holden
Read more about Holden

PING:
TITLE: Lotus
BLOG NAME: Lotus
Read more about Lotus

PING:
TITLE: Jeep
BLOG NAME: Jeep
Read more about Jeep

PING:
TITLE: Chrysler
BLOG NAME: Chrysler
Read more about Chrysler

PING:
TITLE: Subaru
BLOG NAME: Subaru
Read more about Subaru

PING:
TITLE: Aston martin
BLOG NAME: Aston martin
Read more about Aston martin

PING:
TITLE: Chrysler
BLOG NAME: Chrysler
Read more about Chrysler

PING:
TITLE: Infiniti
BLOG NAME: Infiniti
Read more about Infiniti

By: interested

interested — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:23:58 +0000

Yeah pretty much like the Peace Corps – on Steroids.

Of course you will have the routine problems – i.e. seems like we are imposing our style of Democracy. So maybe a Peace Corps type of initiative would be better received. The other problems is in the leadership of those countries where it is not always in the leaderships best interests to have a well educated, advancing civilization.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:24:43 +0000

interested:
I like the model of aid tied to economic reform, particularly when it is a program like this which specifically targets the economic infrastructure. I agree with you though, that there are still many people that will fall through the cracks and that there should be alternate aid programs to reach them. I would think the type of thing you’re referring to would be covered by the Peace Corps, but it’s been a while since I’ve seen anything of what they are doing these days. Seems to me like that program and the MCA one could complement each other quite nicely, if enough were invested in each (and possibly a way to increase the resources there would be to internationalize these programs, not necessarily though the UN but by seeking contributions or investments from other nations.

By: interested

interested — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:23:33 +0000

C.Stanley,

I think it’s not a bad thing. I’ve always liked linking aid with how a country treats it’s populations. e.g. why should we in effect reward a nation that promotes genocide. Most of the aid wouldn’t get to the people anyway.

But on the other hand, we’re not helping those people and we’re not putting the countries population into a position to decide to make a choice. And those countries are often the worst off.

Kind of like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. One level has to be achieved before another one such as expanding democracy or economical steps can be seriously tackled.

This may mean going into countries where we are not that happy with the way they treat their population – and creating irrigation systems, sending a better crop seed. Educating the population on better farm or building techniques. And sustain that level of aid for decades.

These are things the UN should have done and should be doing with great vigor. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen in the world at all. It just does not happen nearly enough. Maybe we could take that UN Money, spend it more wisely and in the end do exponentionally more for the world.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:01:35 +0000

Yes it is true the UN is corrupt and dysfunctional-but we also have had significant corruption in our own Congress-no one would support disbanding it.

Kim,
The problem with that analogy is that we are dissatisfied with Congress over the way that they are doing business, not with the very structure of it. But with the UN, the charter is at the root of many of the problems (putting dictators at the table, giving the five members of security council veto power so that any one of them can cancel out the will of the international community based on its own interests, etc)

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:58:52 +0000

Wilky, Austin Roth- Yes it is true the UN is corrupt and dysfunctional-but we also have had significant corruption in our own Congress-no one would support disbanding it. It needs reform, but I don’t believe because we pay for 22% of the costs that we can expect it to act like an agent for the US.

The US needs to face up to the fact that many of our alliances have been weakened. If we are to fight terrorism we need international cooperation. That means that international bodies like the UN, World Bank and IMF, as well as regional alliances like NATO should be shored up.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:01:49 +0000

interested:
I think that the Millenium Challenge Accountis a unilateral attempt by the US to meet these goals, although Congress hasn’t funded it at the level that Bush requested and even at his levels I honestly have no idea if it is enough to be significant or if it’s just window dressing.

What are your thoughts on it?

By: interested

interested — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:01:39 +0000

If the UN succeeds in securing a lasting peace in southern Lebanon, it will be an exceptional achievement. However, that won’t mask the fact that it should not be the exception, but the rule.

Indeed. I think the single greatest issue facing the world is the amount of world poverty, and generation after generation being brought up in conditions that are breeding grounds for diseases &terrorist actions.

I would also be at a loss to recall what the UN has done to help this. Perhaps the US should pull out of the UN and form a tight knit alliance purposefully targeting those goals. Much like Blair’s G8 Summit, except on a continuous basis.

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:53:02 +0000

We should keep our fingers crossed but also recognize that the habitual denigration of UN diplomacy by many American legislators and some media stems from arrogance and obfuscation.

Some of it comes from that, but the majority comes from legitimate concerns over the UN’s long history of failure, failures which have cost tens of thousands of lives, the sexual enslavement of children, and millions of dollars in corruption. You don’t have to be a US cheerleader to be suspicious of the UN’s track record over the last few years.

If the UN succeeds in securing a lasting peace in southern Lebanon, it will be an exceptional achievement. However, that won’t mask the fact that it should not be the exception, but the rule.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 10:27:48 +0000

So if it fails it will be the UN’s fault right? Really though, the UN had to step in and do what it could because otherwise it would of shown just how useless it is. I’m glad they are finally getting something, anything done. It’s been quite a while since it has happened.

I don’t feel that most people want the UN to be an instrument of the US. I think they just want it to do something, anything. If the UN would back up it’s resolutions the conflict never would of happened. Period.

How can the UN be anything but ineffectual? Look how it’s set up. If any one of the big 5 say no go then that’s to bad. No matter what china or russia or even the US does the UN can’t do anything at all. Wow, that’s real effective. The UN is very inclusive tho, any tin pot dictator can join, and hey why not have them on the human rights commission while your at it?

All this and the US is required to pay for it. I’m not saying we shouldn’t, but is it our choice? Yea right, no one would mind if we stopped.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:31:20 +0000

When it comes to Kofi, my first thought (and second, and third,…) is how exactly did he use the situation to enrich himself and his cronies.

He is as completely corrupt and reprehensible an ‘International Leader’ as any you care to name. I can’t say how, and I can’t say when, but eventually, this deal too will be exposed as a sham.

By: Wilky

Wilky — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:28:23 +0000

Actually the UN is bigoted in the sense that it legitamizes dictators. It gives them equal footing with the civilized world. Heard anything about the oil for fraud program lately. Nay, that baby has pretty much been swept under the rug. Maybe if the UN moves to a third world country and quit acting like fat cats in NYC maybe they would do a better job.

Yea, they brought diplomacy to the process for Lebanon. Great. What has the UN done on Kofis home continent. Nada. Zip. Zelch. Oh wait, they send peacekeeping forces in, then stand by and watch as the as the killing marches on, often right in front of their eyes. They send in peacekeeping forces that offer food to starving refugees, in exchange for sex. I don’t want the UN to be an instrument of our foreign policy and its not that we have to pay 22% of the budget. The problem is the UN gets it right about as often as a broken clock.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:40:33 +0000

Holly and Gatt:
Neither of you addressed anything in Bk’s post. You went off on bizarre tangents completely unralated to BK analysis. The UN is not bigoted because it won’t ALWAYS support Israel. The UN caanot take away our guns. Maybe the UN and Kofi Annan will make peace work in Lebanon, it beats the alternative – the last war.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:29:50 +0000

Holly are you saying that because they don’t support Israel? I thought the compromise worked out by Kofi Annan was a fair one with Lebanon and Israel.

By: Holly in Cincinnati

Holly in Cincinnati — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:24:37 +0000

Most Americans are pretty disgusted with the bigotry in and of the UN and don’t find it “indispensable” at all.

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:14:23 +0000

We do not need the United Nations to spend our money on terrorist groups, funding schools that offer lecture spots for suicide bomber advocates, or ‘peace keeping groups’ that fly their flag feet from that of a terrorist group’s colors. We do not need them violating trade embargoes to line their own pockets, we do not need them using diplomatic privlages to buy sports cars for their offspring. We do not need unelected officials with the ability to permanently hide any misdoings telling us what’s right and wrong.

We do not need New World Orderists to tell us that a woman defending herself and/or her property is a violator of human rights.

The United Nations needs us. Our money is very well the only thing keeping it up, and our military and trade influence the only thing keeping some degree of meaning to its actions.

If it doesn’t provide a meaningful display, I see no reason why we should support a group which actively opposes sectors of our own Constitution.

By: interested

interested — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:12:06 +0000

We can’t leave it,

but it should be debated in Congress. This article is a good example. Out of 15 paragraphs. One sentence says anything remotely resembling that the US vital to the UN.

By: Kim Ritter

Kim Ritter — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:01:39 +0000

This article supports my belief that despite its obvious problems, the UN is still both necessary and relevant. The US in the past has played the role of ally to Israel and regional peacekeeper-. Because of our strong alliance with Israel, it is better if ME conflicts that don’t directly affect us are handled by an international institution.

There are many other areas where working with the UN has proven to be a major frustration-agreeing on sanctions for Iran and N. Korea is one good example of this-but in this instance, a delicate peace was preserved by skillful diplomacy. Now if we could just change the composition of the Security Council!