Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

America&Allies should withdraw from the UN

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 6:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will set up a brief summary of my views and get more in to depth later:

The UN does not serve the ideals of democracy, fair treatment, human rights, transparency, and basically does not serve any western interests at all. It is also extremely corrupt, inefficient, reliant on the same western powers it denies for funding, and is just altogether almost as bad as the League of Nations, if not worse.

A lot of my arguments come from a primary source, one of our very own from the US who worked at the UN for years, Pedro Sanjuan has written a book about the large scale corruption and incompetence of the UN. In his book I will outline some of the things that struck me as most absurd:

-Drug dealings by diplomats occurred frequently in the UN parking garage, as they are diplomatically immune.

- The UN Secretary General allowed the Soviet Union to use the UN HQ in New York as a spy network for the KBG.

- One of the more notorious things known about the UN, the ex-nazi member Kurt Waldheim was actually a UN-Secretary general, what you don't know is that the USSR, USA and other major powers knew that before the public did and used his past to exploit him and use him for favors.

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

- It is rumored that radical islamists used the UN HQ in new york to plan 9/11.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.

There are many things I did not mention, but these are just a few of the things he mentions about the UN's gross incompetence and corruption.

I also have multiple criticisms of the UN not mentioned that I will use later if need be.

I understand he may have some bias, but he is a primary source, he was there and witnessed all of this occurring.

Responses from my over zealous, UN loving globalists?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 7:32:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 6:36:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I will set up a brief summary of my views and get more in to depth later:

The UN does not serve the ideals of democracy, fair treatment, human rights, transparency, and basically does not serve any western interests at all. It is also extremely corrupt, inefficient, reliant on the same western powers it denies for funding, and is just altogether almost as bad as the League of Nations, if not worse.

Erm, the UN has been working since its inception for democracy, fair treatment, and human rights, which are Western ideals. As for Western interests, 1) the world is not entirely comprised of the Western world, and 2) I think it's repulsive to suggest that an organization for ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD should specifically serve one set of nations' interests.

A lot of my arguments come from a primary source, one of our very own from the US who worked at the UN for years, Pedro Sanjuan has written a book about the large scale corruption and incompetence of the UN. In his book I will outline some of the things that struck me as most absurd:

-Drug dealings by diplomats occurred frequently in the UN parking garage, as they are diplomatically immune.

That's more of an issue with diplomatic immunity, not with the UN.

- The UN Secretary General allowed the Soviet Union to use the UN HQ in New York as a spy network for the KBG.

What does that even mean?

- One of the more notorious things known about the UN, the ex-nazi member Kurt Waldheim was actually a UN-Secretary general, what you don't know is that the USSR, USA and other major powers knew that before the public did and used his past to exploit him and use him for favors.

So you're blaming the UN for the fact that AMERICA exploited his past for favors?

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

Yes, the UN does have some issues with its bureaucracy and does need some reform. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater.

- It is rumored that radical islamists used the UN HQ in new york to plan 9/11.

A rumor, plain and simple. It's also rumored that the Elders of Zion rule the world.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.

Do you have any other source besides Sanjuan to back this up? Also, it could be that the US perceives the UN as being antisemitic because the US has developed a cultural mindset of being pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim.

There are many things I did not mention, but these are just a few of the things he mentions about the UN's gross incompetence and corruption.

So...rumor, a single man claiming antisemitism, and obvious issues with bureaucracy that everyone, including MANY within the UN, agree need to be reformed?

I also have multiple criticisms of the UN not mentioned that I will use later if need be.

I understand he may have some bias, but he is a primary source, he was there and witnessed all of this occurring.

Yes, he was a SINGLE primary source.

Responses from my over zealous, UN loving globalists?

Well now you've just left a bad taste in my mouth. A bit more respect would be nice.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 8:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 7:32:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:36:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I will set up a brief summary of my views and get more in to depth later:

The UN does not serve the ideals of democracy, fair treatment, human rights, transparency, and basically does not serve any western interests at all. It is also extremely corrupt, inefficient, reliant on the same western powers it denies for funding, and is just altogether almost as bad as the League of Nations, if not worse.

Erm, the UN has been working since its inception for democracy, fair treatment, and human rights, which are Western ideals. As for Western interests, 1) the world is not entirely comprised of the Western world, and 2) I think it's repulsive to suggest that an organization for ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD should specifically serve one set of nations' interests.

A lot of my arguments come from a primary source, one of our very own from the US who worked at the UN for years, Pedro Sanjuan has written a book about the large scale corruption and incompetence of the UN. In his book I will outline some of the things that struck me as most absurd:

-Drug dealings by diplomats occurred frequently in the UN parking garage, as they are diplomatically immune.

That's more of an issue with diplomatic immunity, not with the UN.

I guess I can grant you that, but shouldn't there be cameras set up and people documenting what is going on so that they can catch these drug dealers and use that as evidence when they aren't in a place where they aren't diplomatically immune?

- The UN Secretary General allowed the Soviet Union to use the UN HQ in New York as a spy network for the KBG.

What does that even mean?

What do you mean? It means that the Sec. General of the UN had the knowledge of, and did nothing to stop the USSR/KGB from using the UN HQ in New York as a place to collect intelligence on the US. They used the UN library to call private companies that manufactured weapons and vehicles of war for the USA and requested information regarding these things. The UN Sec. General had knowledge of this and did not inform the US, nor did he attempt to do anything to stop it, this was not 1 UN Sec. General, this was all of them from the 60's up until the USSR dissolved in the early 90's.

- One of the more notorious things known about the UN, the ex-nazi member Kurt Waldheim was actually a UN-Secretary general, what you don't know is that the USSR, USA and other major powers knew that before the public did and used his past to exploit him and use him for favors.

So you're blaming the UN for the fact that AMERICA exploited his past for favors?

The USSR and other major powers too. Also, once he was found to be a fvcking nazi, it should have been released to the public and he should have been put in jail for war crimes! Instead he was exploited for his past, leading to further corruption within the UN. This was just released a couple years ago, even after he was relieved of Sec. General, no one told, he became the fvcking President of Austria!

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

Yes, the UN does have some issues with its bureaucracy and does need some reform. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's a major issue, the money they get doesn't appear from the sky, it is money the government takes from citizens who have no say in if they think their nation should be in the UN or not.

- It is rumored that radical islamists used the UN HQ in new york to plan 9/11.

A rumor, plain and simple. It's also rumored that the Elders of Zion rule the world.

He doesn't supply substantial evidence, so I will just drop that one.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.

Do you have any other source besides Sanjuan to back this up?

Senator Kassebaum, who was in charge of overseeing US contributions to the UN, Pedro Sanjuan answered to her.

http://books.google.com...

Also, it could be that the US perceives the UN as being antisemitic because the US has developed a cultural mindset of being pro-Jewish and anti-Muslim.

Victim blaming now, are we?

The fact that the UN almost never met their Israeli quotas over the years doesn't prove antisemitism to you?

Here are a few other sources, a prominent figure in the UN spouts Jewish conspiracy theories:

http://www.timesofisrael.com...

More proof of antisemitism:

http://www.unwatch.org...

http://www.nationalreview.com...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...

http://www.jpost.com...

Here is one where if you don't agree it's antisemitism, I might be convinced you are an antisemite yourself:

http://cnsnews.com...

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

http://www.nydailynews.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://beforeitsnews.com...

http://www.bloomberg.com...

Oh, so Sanjuan isn't the only person who has pointed out the UN's antisemitism?


There are many things I did not mention, but these are just a few of the things he mentions about the UN's gross incompetence and corruption.

So...rumor, a single man claiming antisemitism, and obvious issues with bureaucracy that everyone, including MANY within the UN, agree need to be reformed?

A single man? I am being a little bit of a smart a$$ here, but no, you are blatantly wrong, one man is not claiming antisemitism, half the freaking major news sources of the world are. Also, their intentions are nice, Queen Elizabeth of Russia wanted to implement enlightenment ideals in russia, her intentions were nice, but look at the actual results. Intentions=/=Results.

I also have multiple criticisms of the UN not mentioned that I will use later if need be.

I understand he may have some bias, but he is a primary source, he was there and witnessed all of this occurring.

Yes, he was a SINGLE primary source.

Responses from my over zealous, UN loving globalists?

Well now you've just left a bad taste in my mouth. A bit more respect would be nice.
Kiroen
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 8:56:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'An organism which purpose is to extend democracy and human rights isn't inefficient. Let's abandon it.'

Sure. We can do those things with FREEDOM nukes anyway.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 9:59:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 8:56:20 AM, Kiroen wrote:
'An organism which purpose is to extend democracy and human rights isn't inefficient. Let's abandon it.'

Sure. We can do those things with FREEDOM nukes anyway.

^This. The above may be true that the UN is inefficient. It obviously would be though as it is trying to bring democracy to nations wholly committed to going against it, while democratic countries are amazed that people disagree with its ideals. Especially the US, which general relationship with other nations is either "Do as I say" or "I am bombing you now".

Countries in Africa have benefited immensely from the constant peacekeeping missions such as in Sudan, or Kosovo, or East Timor, or South Sudan, or Chad, or Libya, or Golan Heights, or Cyprus, or Croatia, or Georgia.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 9:58:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 8:01:12 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I guess I can grant you that, but shouldn't there be cameras set up and people documenting what is going on so that they can catch these drug dealers and use that as evidence when they aren't in a place where they aren't diplomatically immune?

I'm not sure that would actually even work.

What do you mean? It means that the Sec. General of the UN had the knowledge of, and did nothing to stop the USSR/KGB from using the UN HQ in New York as a place to collect intelligence on the US. They used the UN library to call private companies that manufactured weapons and vehicles of war for the USA and requested information regarding these things. The UN Sec. General had knowledge of this and did not inform the US, nor did he attempt to do anything to stop it, this was not 1 UN Sec. General, this was all of them from the 60's up until the USSR dissolved in the early 90's.

The USSR and other major powers too. Also, once he was found to be a fvcking nazi, it should have been released to the public and he should have been put in jail for war crimes! Instead he was exploited for his past, leading to further corruption within the UN. This was just released a couple years ago, even after he was relieved of Sec. General, no one told, he became the fvcking President of Austria!

Looking it up, evidence that he committed war crimes is... vague. The most that can be said is that he really ought to have known that there were war crimes happening. Certainly a d!ck.

As far as his involvement, it was known in 1985, caused him to become persona non grata in the USA, and I can only find sources that say that the CIA knew about it.

That's a major issue, the money they get doesn't appear from the sky, it is money the government takes from citizens who have no say in if they think their nation should be in the UN or not.

Yes, they do. It is called an election.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.

You know, I'd just like to note something ironic.

In Israel, it is more socially acceptable to criticize Israel's approach towards Palestinians than it is in the United States.

Here are a few other sources, a prominent figure in the UN spouts Jewish conspiracy theories:

http://www.timesofisrael.com...

No, that's the head of an NGO which the UN accredited.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 12:21:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 9:58:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:01:12 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I guess I can grant you that, but shouldn't there be cameras set up and people documenting what is going on so that they can catch these drug dealers and use that as evidence when they aren't in a place where they aren't diplomatically immune?

I'm not sure that would actually even work.

What do you mean? It means that the Sec. General of the UN had the knowledge of, and did nothing to stop the USSR/KGB from using the UN HQ in New York as a place to collect intelligence on the US. They used the UN library to call private companies that manufactured weapons and vehicles of war for the USA and requested information regarding these things. The UN Sec. General had knowledge of this and did not inform the US, nor did he attempt to do anything to stop it, this was not 1 UN Sec. General, this was all of them from the 60's up until the USSR dissolved in the early 90's.

The USSR and other major powers too. Also, once he was found to be a fvcking nazi, it should have been released to the public and he should have been put in jail for war crimes! Instead he was exploited for his past, leading to further corruption within the UN. This was just released a couple years ago, even after he was relieved of Sec. General, no one told, he became the fvcking President of Austria!

Looking it up, evidence that he committed war crimes is... vague. The most that can be said is that he really ought to have known that there were war crimes happening. Certainly a d!ck.

According to Eli Rosenbaum, in 1944, Waldheim reviewed and approved a packet of anti-Semitic propaganda leaflets to be dropped behind Soviet lines, one of which ended, "enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over."[12]

information about Waldheim's wartime past was also previously published by a pro-German Austrian newspaper, Salzburger Volksblatt, during the 1971 presidential election campaign, including the claim of an SS membership

Remember, the US and other major intelligence agencies (most of whom were perm. UNSC members) had knowledge of this.

(Declassified CIA documents show that the CIA had been aware of his wartime past since 1945.[24] )

So once again, he was aware of the 'final solution' and promoted it, this should have been enough alone to exclude him from the UN, if the UN didn't have an extreme antisemitic bias, that is.

As far as his involvement, it was known in 1985, caused him to become persona non grata in the USA, and I can only find sources that say that the CIA knew about it.

The source in the book I cite (Pedro Sanjuan) claims that the KGB/USSR also exploited his past and used him for favors.

That's a major issue, the money they get doesn't appear from the sky, it is money the government takes from citizens who have no say in if they think their nation should be in the UN or not.

Yes, they do. It is called an election.

-Assuming the majority of UN member states are democratically elected.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.

You know, I'd just like to note something ironic.

In Israel, it is more socially acceptable to criticize Israel's approach towards Palestinians than it is in the United States.

Why are you stating something that's both irrelevant to this and on the fringe of victim blaming. It's perfectly fine to criticize Israel, but you don't see even a slight hint of antisemitism when israeli quotas for UN workers are almost always unmet? If not you are in denial.

Here are a few other sources, a prominent figure in the UN spouts Jewish conspiracy theories:

http://www.timesofisrael.com...

No, that's the head of an NGO which the UN accredited.

The other sources?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 12:23:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He was also a few miles away from a concentration camp. I'll cede that there wasn't much he could have done about it, but he should have told people about this and made them aware instead of waiting until he was caught red handed. There are far better choices for the UN Sec. General than an ex-nazi.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:42:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/6/2013 12:21:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
So once again, he was aware of the 'final solution' and promoted it, this should have been enough alone to exclude him from the UN, if the UN didn't have an extreme antisemitic bias, that is.

You're assuming that the UN as a whole knew about it.

The source in the book I cite (Pedro Sanjuan) claims that the KGB/USSR also exploited his past and used him for favors.

Well, I have no problem believing that.

-Assuming the majority of UN member states are democratically elected.

No, assuming that the ones that fund it are.

Why are you stating something that's both irrelevant to this and on the fringe of victim blaming. It's perfectly fine to criticize Israel, but you don't see even a slight hint of antisemitism when israeli quotas for UN workers are almost always unmet? If not you are in denial.

'Israeli quotas for UN workers'? What are you talking about?

In any event, I don't see how it's 'victim blaming' to note that, in the United States, criticizing Israel on human rights grounds is less acceptable than in Israel. Israeli studies say that they have problems with systematic discrimination, and members of the Israeli government routinely say things that, if said in the United States, would result in them being accused of anti-Semitism, or being anti-Israel.

The other sources?

I assumed you were talking about the one directly below.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 11:38:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Very nice discussion.

At 9/4/2013 8:01:12 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/4/2013 7:32:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

Yes, the UN does have some issues with its bureaucracy and does need some reform. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's a major issue, the money they get doesn't appear from the sky, it is money the government takes from citizens who have no say in if they think their nation should be in the UN or not.

That the UN gets $2 billion in wages from a global economy the annual output of which is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars would strongly suggest that the UN is underfunded, not overfunded.

More proof of antisemitism:

[tons of sources]

I read the Forbes source, which was an op-ed. The author complains how the UN continues to dignify Tehran and some of its fellow anti-Semitic despotic states with a slew of important UN posts, while treating Israel as a pariah state." While this is a valid complaint, and that UN is indeed dignifying anti-Semitic speech by dignifying Iran's presence on the council, it does so for the interests of global representation. It is a rather explicit statement that anti-Semitism exists, and the UN is allowing it to be heard in the interests of representation, not necessarily in the interests of advocating such a position.

I read the Bloomberg piece as well, which discussed a UN resolution that did not put Israeli policies against Palestinians in a flattering light. The question that then begs to be asked is whether or not it is possible to be critical of Israeli policy without being charged as an anti-Semite? Are we supposed to think, out of "political-correctness" that the Israeli government is perfect?

---

At 9/5/2013 9:58:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

You know, I'd just like to note something ironic.

In Israel, it is more socially acceptable to criticize Israel's approach towards Palestinians than it is in the United States.

Although I have not lived in Israel and do not read Israeli publications regularly, I'm at this point inclined to agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 11:40:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 11:38:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That the UN gets $2 billion in wages from a global economy the annual output of which is [approaching one hundred trillion dollars] would strongly suggest that the UN is underfunded, not overfunded.

Corrected.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 12:56:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 6:36:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I will set up a brief summary of my views and get more in to depth later:

The UN does not serve the ideals of democracy, fair treatment, human rights, transparency, and basically does not serve any western interests at all. It is also extremely corrupt, inefficient, reliant on the same western powers it denies for funding, and is just altogether almost as bad as the League of Nations, if not worse.

A lot of my arguments come from a primary source, one of our very own from the US who worked at the UN for years, Pedro Sanjuan has written a book about the large scale corruption and incompetence of the UN. In his book I will outline some of the things that struck me as most absurd:

-Drug dealings by diplomats occurred frequently in the UN parking garage, as they are diplomatically immune.

- The UN Secretary General allowed the Soviet Union to use the UN HQ in New York as a spy network for the KBG.

- One of the more notorious things known about the UN, the ex-nazi member Kurt Waldheim was actually a UN-Secretary general, what you don't know is that the USSR, USA and other major powers knew that before the public did and used his past to exploit him and use him for favors.

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

- It is rumored that radical islamists used the UN HQ in new york to plan 9/11.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.



There are many things I did not mention, but these are just a few of the things he mentions about the UN's gross incompetence and corruption.

I also have multiple criticisms of the UN not mentioned that I will use later if need be.

I understand he may have some bias, but he is a primary source, he was there and witnessed all of this occurring.

Responses from my over zealous, UN loving globalists?

Response:

Neither does the World Trade Organization support freedom, democracy or other values important to the US. Why are you not advocating removing ourselves from that organization that legally binds us to its decisions regarding trade disputes with other countries like China?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 7:35:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 10:42:51 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/6/2013 12:21:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
So once again, he was aware of the 'final solution' and promoted it, this should have been enough alone to exclude him from the UN, if the UN didn't have an extreme antisemitic bias, that is.

You're assuming that the UN as a whole knew about it.

I'm not, I'm saying it added to the idea that one bad egg could taint the UN, and usually it's not one, it's the majority of multiple that exploit the UN for their own interests and don't give two sh!ts about the UN charter. Yes, the US is an example of this, but claiming the US is the only nation, or only one of a few nations to exploit the UN would be both absurd and further your ignorance on the issue.

The source in the book I cite (Pedro Sanjuan) claims that the KGB/USSR also exploited his past and used him for favors.

Well, I have no problem believing that.

-Assuming the majority of UN member states are democratically elected.

No, assuming that the ones that fund it are.

Why are you stating something that's both irrelevant to this and on the fringe of victim blaming. It's perfectly fine to criticize Israel, but you don't see even a slight hint of antisemitism when israeli quotas for UN workers are almost always unmet? If not you are in denial.

'Israeli quotas for UN workers'? What are you talking about?

There are quotas for UN workers (At UN envoys, there are multiple) that are supposed to be at least moderately representative of the populous of the world. The Israeli quota is rarely met.

In any event, I don't see how it's 'victim blaming' to note that, in the United States, criticizing Israel on human rights grounds is less acceptable than in Israel. Israeli studies say that they have problems with systematic discrimination, and members of the Israeli government routinely say things that, if said in the United States, would result in them being accused of anti-Semitism, or being anti-Israel.

That wasn't what I said was victim blaming, in fact I agree with you. It's the fact that you are trying to deflect my claims by making your own that have little to no relevance to this discussion. It's like me saying, "I don't like Christians" and then you say "Well muslims are evil too!! No fair!"

The other sources?

I assumed you were talking about the one directly below.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 7:49:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 11:38:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Very nice discussion.

At 9/4/2013 8:01:12 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/4/2013 7:32:11 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

Yes, the UN does have some issues with its bureaucracy and does need some reform. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That's a major issue, the money they get doesn't appear from the sky, it is money the government takes from citizens who have no say in if they think their nation should be in the UN or not.

That the UN gets $2 billion in wages from a global economy the annual output of which is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars would strongly suggest that the UN is underfunded, not overfunded.

This is just the UN HQ in New York, not including the multiple other envoys. Also if we had this mentality for every expense we had, that 100 trillion dollars that you claim is so much money wouldn't stretch that far. 100 trillion dollars is still not that much, that is roughly $12,000 per person in the world, but obviously military expenses, wealth disparity and waste by countries that can afford it probably cuts that at least a quarter. Wrich, you typically make good arguments, but that was pretty weak.


More proof of antisemitism:

[tons of sources]

I read the Forbes source, which was an op-ed. The author complains how the UN continues to dignify Tehran and some of its fellow anti-Semitic despotic states with a slew of important UN posts, while treating Israel as a pariah state." While this is a valid complaint, and that UN is indeed dignifying anti-Semitic speech by dignifying Iran's presence on the council, it does so for the interests of global representation. It is a rather explicit statement that anti-Semitism exists, and the UN is allowing it to be heard in the interests of representation, not necessarily in the interests of advocating such a position.

This is a reasonable point, but the UN does not just hear these antisemitic rants to, as you put it (as lightly as you can so as to promote your somewhat warped view that Jews are babies that over exaggerate their problems) be representative of all nations views, they promote it. Promotion of racism and religious persecution is in complete contradiction of the UN charter, which is essentially the document the UN lives by. If the UN, for a long period of time fails to carry out the goals or represent the views in the UN charter, it should be abolished. The UN is too politicized, which allows high ranking officials to take their racist and despotic views and convince the council to make them resolutions. The UN Charter clearly attempts to point out that it has a goal of spreading tolerance and democracy, but yet the UN member states overwhelmingly made a vote for heavy internet and media censorship. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they were overwhelmingly in favor of censorship of the press and internet.

I read the Bloomberg piece as well, which discussed a UN resolution that did not put Israeli policies against Palestinians in a flattering light. The question that then begs to be asked is whether or not it is possible to be critical of Israeli policy without being charged as an anti-Semite? Are we supposed to think, out of "political-correctness" that the Israeli government is perfect?

I am pretty sure that calling a state in its entirety a racist state is not appropriate dialogue for a conference against racism. Even if these views were sincere (highly doubt that), and not meant to promote a political end, you don't try to combat racism or change a racists mind about something by saying they are an evil racist, it just doesn't work.


---

At 9/5/2013 9:58:56 PM, Citrakayah wrote:

You know, I'd just like to note something ironic.

In Israel, it is more socially acceptable to criticize Israel's approach towards Palestinians than it is in the United States.

Although I have not lived in Israel and do not read Israeli publications regularly, I'm at this point inclined to agree.

I agree too, but the fact that he blatantly and intentionally deflected my statement to make his own irrelevant one is immature.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 7:51:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 12:56:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/4/2013 6:36:18 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I will set up a brief summary of my views and get more in to depth later:

The UN does not serve the ideals of democracy, fair treatment, human rights, transparency, and basically does not serve any western interests at all. It is also extremely corrupt, inefficient, reliant on the same western powers it denies for funding, and is just altogether almost as bad as the League of Nations, if not worse.

A lot of my arguments come from a primary source, one of our very own from the US who worked at the UN for years, Pedro Sanjuan has written a book about the large scale corruption and incompetence of the UN. In his book I will outline some of the things that struck me as most absurd:

-Drug dealings by diplomats occurred frequently in the UN parking garage, as they are diplomatically immune.

- The UN Secretary General allowed the Soviet Union to use the UN HQ in New York as a spy network for the KBG.

- One of the more notorious things known about the UN, the ex-nazi member Kurt Waldheim was actually a UN-Secretary general, what you don't know is that the USSR, USA and other major powers knew that before the public did and used his past to exploit him and use him for favors.

- The UN is a blown up bureaucracy with money mismanagement that has a huge staff of thousands and spends roughly 2 billion a year just on staff wages.

- It is rumored that radical islamists used the UN HQ in new york to plan 9/11.

- The UN has an extreme antisemitic bias, the quotas for Israeli and Jewish staff are frequently left unmet, and our source (Pedro Sanjuan) commonly faces extreme antisemitism from prominent UN figurs.



There are many things I did not mention, but these are just a few of the things he mentions about the UN's gross incompetence and corruption.

I also have multiple criticisms of the UN not mentioned that I will use later if need be.

I understand he may have some bias, but he is a primary source, he was there and witnessed all of this occurring.

Responses from my over zealous, UN loving globalists?

Response:

Neither does the World Trade Organization support freedom, democracy or other values important to the US. Why are you not advocating removing ourselves from that organization that legally binds us to its decisions regarding trade disputes with other countries like China?

Why are you, like many others on here, deflecting hard evidence against the UN? If you want to debate about the WTO, make a thread on it. This thread is about the UN. The fact that you don't even attempt to refute or deny the evidence presented indicates that you are simply trying to re direct the debate to a subject you are more comfortable on, since you can't refute the evidence in this debate.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 7:53:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 8:56:20 AM, Kiroen wrote:
'An organism which purpose is to extend democracy and human rights isn't inefficient. Let's abandon it.'

Sure. We can do those things with FREEDOM nukes anyway.

Your post is indicative of an inference that you did not read half of what is in here. Yes, an organization that blatantly and wittingly contradicts the charter it was built upon for an extended period of time should be abolished or completely and utterly gutted and reformed. I don't mean like Kofi Annan's rather poor attempt, I mean sincerely and within a year or so.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 7:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 9:59:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/5/2013 8:56:20 AM, Kiroen wrote:
'An organism which purpose is to extend democracy and human rights isn't inefficient. Let's abandon it.'

Sure. We can do those things with FREEDOM nukes anyway.

^This. The above may be true that the UN is inefficient. It obviously would be though as it is trying to bring democracy to nations wholly committed to going against it, while democratic countries are amazed that people disagree with its ideals. Especially the US, which general relationship with other nations is either "Do as I say" or "I am bombing you now".

Countries in Africa have benefited immensely from the constant peacekeeping missions such as in Sudan, or Kosovo, or East Timor, or South Sudan, or Chad, or Libya, or Golan Heights, or Cyprus, or Croatia, or Georgia.

I can agree that the UN has had some successes, but the both recent and past failings of the UN far outweigh the successes. The UN has not only in modern times utterly failed to do anything but put out useless codemnations and resolutions is indicative of it's ineffectiveness in projecting it's ideals and power. The thing is, I would be scared as fvck if the UN actually had the capability to project true power, as the ideals of the majority of active UN member states are not in line with the UN charter, or for some even relatively close.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My point is that what you, having been raised in the United States, consider unacceptable criticism of Israel is disputed by Israelis. Therefore, I take 'extreme anti-Semetic bias' with a huge grain of salt, because there are people who would throw that at people who argue things like:

1. Arabs are discriminated against in Israel.
2. The settlements are hurting the peace process.
3. Iran is not actually much of a threat to Iran.

despite the fact that Israeli politicians argue that these things are the case.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:47:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:33:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
My point is that what you, having been raised in the United States, consider unacceptable criticism of Israel is disputed by Israelis. Therefore, I take 'extreme anti-Semetic bias' with a huge grain of salt, because there are people who would throw that at people who argue things like:

1. Arabs are discriminated against in Israel.
2. The settlements are hurting the peace process.
3. Iran is not actually much of a threat to Iran.

despite the fact that Israeli politicians argue that these things are the case.

You may stick to your convictions that you, in this post pretty much refuse to justify or back, this is not my problem.

I uphold beliefs that are, for the most part considered extremely radical in the United States, my empathy towards jews in certain parts of the world and empathy for Israel is based on the hypocrisy and racism of certain elements of the international community. It seems to me that you are not an antisemite, I would not pull that card on you or anyone unless they blatantly and explicitly show antisemitism, but it is very feasible that you are an antisemitic apologist. Israel definitely has its flaws, I do not deny this at all, but I believe that in most arab nations, the hatred towards Israel is ground from a hatred towards Jews that dates back centuries. I think you have sympathies for Muslims because you are brought up to believe this way, since they are a protected group in the US, but in places where they are dominate, you can see their true intentions. In the very book Muslims live by (which is largely plagiarized by the old and new testaments, lol) is a proponent of enslaving anyone as chattel who is not a Muslim.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:04:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:47:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
It seems to me that you are not an antisemite, I would not pull that card on you or anyone unless they blatantly and explicitly show antisemitism

Didn't know that, because I don't know you.

but it is very feasible that you are an antisemitic apologist.

Not really. It's true that I'm not, in the same breath, condemning Muslim countries, but most of us can agree that Saudi Arabia and Iran are screwed up. If I saw someone actually supporting anti-Semitism here, I would speak out against it.

Israel definitely has its flaws, I do not deny this at all, but I believe that in most arab nations, the hatred towards Israel is ground from a hatred towards Jews that dates back centuries.

Undoubtedly. My problem is when they say that it's the entire world, including vast parts of western Europe and the USA. Again, Hanlon's Razor. I'm more inclined to attribute it to ignorance and single-mindedness rather than actual malicious hate, unless I have a reason to think otherwise.

I think you have sympathies for Muslims because you are brought up to believe this way

No, not really. I was brought up to believe that humans are human, and should be judged individually.

since they are a protected group in the US

Only in the sense that all religions are.

but in places where they are dominate, you can see their true intentions.

The true intentions of the Sufi couple over downtown who run the awesome vegetarian restaurant and also have a free condom dispensary? It has excellent pastries, is their goal to make us all overweight so that they can roll us off cliffs onto sharp rocks while we are helpless to defend ourselves due to our pudgy bodies?

Because if so, it's not working.

In the very book Muslims live by (which is largely plagiarized by the old and new testaments, lol) is a proponent of enslaving anyone as chattel who is not a Muslim.

As someone Jewish, and as someone who was raised Jewish, has read significantly from the Torah, and is familiar with the seedier aspects, I can tell you that the very book Jews live by is a proponent of stoning people who wear two types of fabric. It also has a passage where the killing of infants by braining them is praised as a delight.

Obviously, almost every single Jew thinks this is fvcking stupid. You can see that via the Midrash. I would guess that most Muslims have similar reasons for disregarding parts of the Koran, albeit reasons that aren't necessarily codified into a separate book.

Perhaps it's a good idea to not judge people by the book they say they follow, but what things in that book they actually pay attention to.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 3:35:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 7:56:44 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/5/2013 9:59:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/5/2013 8:56:20 AM, Kiroen wrote:
'An organism which purpose is to extend democracy and human rights isn't inefficient. Let's abandon it.'

Sure. We can do those things with FREEDOM nukes anyway.

^This. The above may be true that the UN is inefficient. It obviously would be though as it is trying to bring democracy to nations wholly committed to going against it, while democratic countries are amazed that people disagree with its ideals. Especially the US, which general relationship with other nations is either "Do as I say" or "I am bombing you now".

Countries in Africa have benefited immensely from the constant peacekeeping missions such as in Sudan, or Kosovo, or East Timor, or South Sudan, or Chad, or Libya, or Golan Heights, or Cyprus, or Croatia, or Georgia.

I can agree that the UN has had some successes, but the both recent and past failings of the UN far outweigh the successes. The UN has not only in modern times utterly failed to do anything but put out useless codemnations and resolutions is indicative of it's ineffectiveness in projecting it's ideals and power. The thing is, I would be scared as fvck if the UN actually had the capability to project true power, as the ideals of the majority of active UN member states are not in line with the UN charter, or for some even relatively close.

Almost Every failure of the UN has been because other countries, especially the united states and the western world, has refused to put their money and troops where their mouth is and fight for moral reasons. Name me an example of the UN failing, and I'll name an example where the united states did next to nothing and watched. To blame the UN in many situations is to pass off the blame that other countries need to shoulder. The UN doesn't have a standing army or any ability but was designed to be a scapegoat, and is trying to loosen it's shackles and become a force for good, evident by its numerous interventions, each successful.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 5:12:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 7:49:46 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/9/2013 11:38:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That the UN gets $2 billion in wages from a global economy the annual output of which is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars would strongly suggest that the UN is underfunded, not overfunded.

This is just the UN HQ in New York, not including the multiple other envoys. Also if we had this mentality for every expense we had, that 100 trillion dollars that you claim is so much money wouldn't stretch that far. 100 trillion dollars is still not that much, that is roughly $12,000 per person in the world, but obviously military expenses, wealth disparity and waste by countries that can afford it probably cuts that at least a quarter. Wrich, you typically make good arguments, but that was pretty weak.

It's not a weak argument, given the numbers you've proposed. If 100 trillion is roughly $12k per person, then $2 billion is roughly $0.24 cents per person, i.e. the cost of UN governance is wholly trivial and could probably merit an increase. Compare this to taxes...given a flat 10% tax rate, that would come up to $1200 per person for local governance, which is 5000 times more expensive than UN governance.

Given the broad assumption that funding = robustness, my argument is much stronger than you're giving it credit for. If the UN was as robust as local governments, it would be 5000 times more effective than it is currently.

More proof of antisemitism:

[tons of sources]

I read the Forbes source, which was an op-ed. The author complains how the UN continues to dignify Tehran and some of its fellow anti-Semitic despotic states with a slew of important UN posts, while treating Israel as a pariah state." While this is a valid complaint, and that UN is indeed dignifying anti-Semitic speech by dignifying Iran's presence on the council, it does so for the interests of global representation. It is a rather explicit statement that anti-Semitism exists, and the UN is allowing it to be heard in the interests of representation, not necessarily in the interests of advocating such a position.

This is a reasonable point, but the UN does not just hear these antisemitic rants to, as you put it (as lightly as you can so as to promote your somewhat warped view that Jews are babies that over exaggerate their problems)...

I am not making this point, Jews are not making this point, Forbes did not make this point...only YOU are making this point.

...be representative of all nations views, they promote it. Promotion of racism and religious persecution is in complete contradiction of the UN charter, which is essentially the document the UN lives by.

If you read this NYT article about the author of your book, you'll see that the US was routinely treating UN African (black) diplomats as if they were African Americans, with segregation and etc fully in force. Does this mean that the UN was racist, or that the US was racist, and that it just so happened that the US was hosting UN delegates at the time?
http://www.nytimes.com...

If the UN, for a long period of time fails to carry out the goals or represent the views in the UN charter, it should be abolished. The UN is too politicized, which allows high ranking officials to take their racist and despotic views and convince the council to make them resolutions. The UN Charter clearly attempts to point out that it has a goal of spreading tolerance and democracy, but yet the UN member states overwhelmingly made a vote for heavy internet and media censorship. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they were overwhelmingly in favor of censorship of the press and internet.

On the bolded, I would argue that the UN is not politicized enough. It is nothing more than a scapegoat for member nations to justify unilateral action. If it had real political power, nations would actually be afraid to defy UN resolutions...as it is, nations are just afraid to defy the US.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 12:40:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 3:35:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/9/2013 7:56:44 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/5/2013 9:59:35 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/5/2013 8:56:20 AM, Kiroen wrote:
'An organism which purpose is to extend democracy and human rights isn't inefficient. Let's abandon it.'

Sure. We can do those things with FREEDOM nukes anyway.

^This. The above may be true that the UN is inefficient. It obviously would be though as it is trying to bring democracy to nations wholly committed to going against it, while democratic countries are amazed that people disagree with its ideals. Especially the US, which general relationship with other nations is either "Do as I say" or "I am bombing you now".

Countries in Africa have benefited immensely from the constant peacekeeping missions such as in Sudan, or Kosovo, or East Timor, or South Sudan, or Chad, or Libya, or Golan Heights, or Cyprus, or Croatia, or Georgia.

I can agree that the UN has had some successes, but the both recent and past failings of the UN far outweigh the successes. The UN has not only in modern times utterly failed to do anything but put out useless codemnations and resolutions is indicative of it's ineffectiveness in projecting it's ideals and power. The thing is, I would be scared as fvck if the UN actually had the capability to project true power, as the ideals of the majority of active UN member states are not in line with the UN charter, or for some even relatively close.

Almost Every failure of the UN has been because other countries, especially the united states and the western world, has refused to put their money and troops where their mouth is and fight for moral reasons. Name me an example of the UN failing, and I'll name an example where the united states did next to nothing and watched. To blame the UN in many situations is to pass off the blame that other countries need to shoulder. The UN doesn't have a standing army or any ability but was designed to be a scapegoat, and is trying to loosen it's shackles and become a force for good, evident by its numerous interventions, each successful.

You are completely missing the point. I actually told you that I am happy the UN is effective, as if it enforced the views the majority of the countries in it had, the world would be a place accepting of racism, sexism, and despotism. The UN doesn't need more power, the abuse and corruption that comes with their current power proves a UN standing army could be disastrous. I don't need to repeat the many unrefuted points stated in here pointing to UN corruption, they are in previous posts if you are interested in actually reading this before blindly criticizing it.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 12:53:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 5:12:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/9/2013 7:49:46 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/9/2013 11:38:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That the UN gets $2 billion in wages from a global economy the annual output of which is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars would strongly suggest that the UN is underfunded, not overfunded.

This is just the UN HQ in New York, not including the multiple other envoys. Also if we had this mentality for every expense we had, that 100 trillion dollars that you claim is so much money wouldn't stretch that far. 100 trillion dollars is still not that much, that is roughly $12,000 per person in the world, but obviously military expenses, wealth disparity and waste by countries that can afford it probably cuts that at least a quarter. Wrich, you typically make good arguments, but that was pretty weak.

It's not a weak argument, given the numbers you've proposed. If 100 trillion is roughly $12k per person, then $2 billion is roughly $0.24 cents per person, i.e. the cost of UN governance is wholly trivial and could probably merit an increase. Compare this to taxes...given a flat 10% tax rate,

lol, assuming most countries have a 10% flat tax rate. Yes, and I am typing this on a vacation in peru with five dozen peruvian prostitutes next to me while I fly over in my private leer jet dropping water balloons on peasants from the cargo hold. Tax money is supposed to be re distributed back to the people, as I have pointed out here, the UN abuses their over funding and uses it to give their employees salaries in excess of $80,000 and free travelling that is abused to travel frequently to their country of origin.

that would come up to $1200 per person for local governance, which is 5000 times more expensive than UN governance.

This math is based on no logic or reason, these are calculations you concocted in your head to fit your narrative of the poor UN workers that make $80,000+ dollars a year being under paid. Oh yes, and nepotism is allowed and encouraged, so commonly UN workers hire their own wives as secretaries in salaries that are in excess of $60,000.

Given the broad assumption that funding = robustness, my argument is much stronger than you're giving it credit for. If the UN was as robust as local governments, it would be 5000 times more effective than it is currently.

lol, yes and pickles times the quantum of space and time divided by cheap porno flicks= a bunch of bs nonsense I made up. No dude, the UN is over funded, hence the excess of UN workers and how for years the UN over paid for prime real estate in a depressed real estate market. They have not until recently (and their attempts are still poor) shown that they care to budget the money they get voluntarily from member states.

More proof of antisemitism:

[tons of sources]

I read the Forbes source, which was an op-ed. The author complains how the UN continues to dignify Tehran and some of its fellow anti-Semitic despotic states with a slew of important UN posts, while treating Israel as a pariah state." While this is a valid complaint, and that UN is indeed dignifying anti-Semitic speech by dignifying Iran's presence on the council, it does so for the interests of global representation. It is a rather explicit statement that anti-Semitism exists, and the UN is allowing it to be heard in the interests of representation, not necessarily in the interests of advocating such a position.

This is a reasonable point, but the UN does not just hear these antisemitic rants to, as you put it (as lightly as you can so as to promote your somewhat warped view that Jews are babies that over exaggerate their problems)...

I am not making this point, Jews are not making this point, Forbes did not make this point...only YOU are making this point.

You have repeatedly denied, without sources of your own, antisemitism at the UN. I have shown you sources that prove this, such as the UN helping create and using their money to distribute books that spew antisemitic screed in them to Palestinian children.

...be representative of all nations views, they promote it. Promotion of racism and religious persecution is in complete contradiction of the UN charter, which is essentially the document the UN lives by.

If you read this NYT article about the author of your book, you'll see that the US was routinely treating UN African (black) diplomats as if they were African Americans, with segregation and etc fully in force. Does this mean that the UN was racist, or that the US was racist, and that it just so happened that the US was hosting UN delegates at the time?
http://www.nytimes.com...

I am primarily mentioning misdeeds of the UN from later times. I have explicitly pointed out that the US is part of the problem of UN inefficiency and corruption, as the US tolerates it and sometimes encourages it to gain political ends. You are using US and Israel misdeeds in an attempt to inadvertently whitewash other member states of their just as bad, if not worse misdeeds.

If the UN, for a long period of time fails to carry out the goals or represent the views in the UN charter, it should be abolished. The UN is too politicized, which allows high ranking officials to take their racist and despotic views and convince the council to make them resolutions. The UN Charter clearly attempts to point out that it has a goal of spreading tolerance and democracy, but yet the UN member states overwhelmingly made a vote for heavy internet and media censorship. I don't remember the exact numbers, but they were overwhelmingly in favor of censorship of the press and internet.

On the bolded, I would argue that the UN is not politicized enough. It is nothing more than a scapegoat for member nations to justify unilateral action. If it had real political power, nations would actually be afraid to defy UN resolutions...as it is, nations are just afraid to defy the US.

You wish to increase the power of a group that I have proven explicitly is a large scale failure in not abiding by it's charter and instead promoting racism, despotism, sexism, corruption, greed, nepotism, etc.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2013 1:26:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/10/2013 12:53:36 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/10/2013 5:12:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/9/2013 7:49:46 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 9/9/2013 11:38:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That the UN gets $2 billion in wages from a global economy the annual output of which is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars would strongly suggest that the UN is underfunded, not overfunded.

This is just the UN HQ in New York, not including the multiple other envoys. Also if we had this mentality for every expense we had, that 100 trillion dollars that you claim is so much money wouldn't stretch that far. 100 trillion dollars is still not that much, that is roughly $12,000 per person in the world, but obviously military expenses, wealth disparity and waste by countries that can afford it probably cuts that at least a quarter. Wrich, you typically make good arguments, but that was pretty weak.

It's not a weak argument, given the numbers you've proposed. If 100 trillion is roughly $12k per person, then $2 billion is roughly $0.24 cents per person, i.e. the cost of UN governance is wholly trivial and could probably merit an increase. Compare this to taxes...given a flat 10% tax rate,

lol, assuming most countries have a 10% flat tax rate. Yes, and I am typing this on a vacation in peru with five dozen peruvian prostitutes next to me while I fly over in my private leer jet dropping water balloons on peasants from the cargo hold. Tax money is supposed to be re distributed back to the people, as I have pointed out here, the UN abuses their over funding and uses it to give their employees salaries in excess of $80,000 and free travelling that is abused to travel frequently to their country of origin.

$80,000 is chump change for the private sector at that level, where salaries will be low to mid 6 digits, with management approaching 7 digits.

that would come up to $1200 per person for local governance, which is 5000 times more expensive than UN governance.

This math is based on no logic or reason, these are calculations you concocted in your head to fit your narrative of the poor UN workers that make $80,000+ dollars a year being under paid. Oh yes, and nepotism is allowed and encouraged, so commonly UN workers hire their own wives as secretaries in salaries that are in excess of $60,000.

Sigh. C'mon bro. This is simple arithmetic. $2 bil divided by $100 trillion = 0.00002, i.e. $2 billion is 0.002% of $100 trillion. Given YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS that a $100 trillion global economy equates to about $12000 per capita globally, 0.002% of $12000 is about $0.24.

10% of $12000 is $1200. $1200 divided by $0.24 = 5000, i.e. given a 10% tax rate, local governance costs around 5000 times as much as UN governance.

Given the broad assumption that funding = robustness, my argument is much stronger than you're giving it credit for. If the UN was as robust as local governments, it would be 5000 times more effective than it is currently.

lol, yes and pickles times the quantum of space and time divided by cheap porno flicks= a bunch of bs nonsense I made up. No dude, the UN is over funded, hence the excess of UN workers and how for years the UN over paid for prime real estate in a depressed real estate market. They have not until recently (and their attempts are still poor) shown that they care to budget the money they get voluntarily from member states.

The math soundly disagrees with you.

This is a reasonable point, but the UN does not just hear these antisemitic rants to, as you put it (as lightly as you can so as to promote your somewhat warped view that Jews are babies that over exaggerate their problems)...

I am not making this point, Jews are not making this point, Forbes did not make this point...only YOU are making this point.

You have repeatedly denied, without sources of your own, antisemitism at the UN. I have shown you sources that prove this, such as the UN helping create and using their money to distribute books that spew antisemitic screed in them to Palestinian children.

I do not deny or affirm anti-Semitism in the UN, and your articles do not deny or affirm antisemitism in the UN. All your Forbes article asserts is that there are anti-Semite members of the UN.

You're typically much more civil and much less insulting than this. Your recent evolution is an unwelcome change.

...be representative of all nations views, they promote it. Promotion of racism and religious persecution is in complete contradiction of the UN charter, which is essentially the document the UN lives by.

If you read this NYT article about the author of your book, you'll see that the US was routinely treating UN African (black) diplomats as if they were African Americans, with segregation and etc fully in force. Does this mean that the UN was racist, or that the US was racist, and that it just so happened that the US was hosting UN delegates at the time?
http://www.nytimes.com...

I am primarily mentioning misdeeds of the UN from later times. I have explicitly pointed out that the US is part of the problem of UN inefficiency and corruption, as the US tolerates it and sometimes encourages it to gain political ends. You are using US and Israel misdeeds in an attempt to inadvertently whitewash other member states of their just as bad, if not worse misdeeds.

Another ridiculous claim. I am neither affirming nor denying "whitewashing". All I am saying is that the UN will reflect the culture of its constituents, and that for a time, it reflected the racism prevalent in the US before the civil rights movement.

On the bolded, I would argue that the UN is not politicized enough. It is nothing more than a scapegoat for member nations to justify unilateral action. If it had real political power, nations would actually be afraid to defy UN resolutions...as it is, nations are just afraid to defy the US.

You wish to increase the power of a group that I have proven explicitly is a large scale failure in not abiding by it's charter and instead promoting racism, despotism, sexism, corruption, greed, nepotism, etc.

The UN is about global representation. The UN is about "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion..." within the realm of "develop[ing] friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace..."
http://www.un.org...

When these principles conflict, of course the UN is going to prioritize global peace over knee-jerk reactions like yours about permanently withdrawing from the UN and shutting it down. A boycott would be much more appropriate, and the US has indeed boycotted UN venues in the past.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?