Rethinking the U.N.

[L@mplighterM]

*

[takeo]

huge loads of BS.

the US was indeed among the few nations, along with some ultra-conservative like-minded fundamentalists as SA and Iran (it shows the moral standard of the Bush-administration), to disagree with abortion, homosexuality and children's rights.

"The U.N. should look to America as a beacon of freedom and encourage its member nations to emulate our example in their quest for freedom and prosperity"

LOL


this beacon of freedom was responsible for millions of death people around the world, is the big supporter of free trade and human rights for all nations EXCEPT the US (have just subsidised american farmers and put trade barriers for foreign steel, something they don't accept from any other nation...) . It has a system where wealth is accumulated mainly in the hands of 10% of share-holders while 25 % of americans live in deep poverty, it is a country supporting dictatorships all over the world and supporting coups against elected leaders.
Should this be the example for the world? In that case France has to stop its membership immediately.

yea, the un criticised israel because it refused to cooperate an investigation about alleged war-crimes. Of course israel supporters are systematically propagating that there has never been a war-crime, but investigation? No thanks! (unless all of the members are well-known israel supporters and israel can choose its own witnesses, which is not exactly according to the principles of objective research)

So no nation in the world has the right to criticise israel and the us, whatever those countries have done, whatever violation of international law they committed? of course any criticism of israel is equal to anti-semitism while "freedom-repressing" thirth world countries (all countries not sharing american values are freedom-repressing and terrorist of course, only a sorrow fool would point out that many freedom-repressing systems have been aided and installed by the us and that the US economic policy did not exactly help those poor countries to improove their economic conditions...) should not be taken serious, why in fact have those countries the same rights in the UN as israel or the US??? The uN according to the autor would be legitimate if it only criticised american ennemies AND if it agreed to fit completely in the foreign policy of israel and the us, in fact i think he would favour a security-council with only Israel and the US represented...

The arrogance of some Americans has no limits.

[Morpheus]

LOL

Indeed; 100 % ******** :D

******** /"bUl.SIt/, US abbreviation BS exclamation, noun [U], adjective slightly taboo slang
complete nonsense or something that is not true
********! I don't believe a word of what you've said.
His excuse is a load of ********.
She gave some ******** excuse for not showing up.
Related words

******** /"bUl.SIt/ verb -tt- slightly taboo slang
He tried to ******** me (= persuade me by saying things that are not true) into buying his old car. [T]
Quit ********ting, will you! [I]
Related words



Found this joke on the net. It's an answer on the anti-france commercials.

The world according to America



http://www.msxnet.org/humour/america

[elke]

That was funny, as was the other one :)

http://www.msxnet.org/humour/heaven-and-hell

[L@mplighterM]

The UN has stopped representing Western values and the US should cut all funding to the organization immediatedly.
As a matter of fact so should all western countries with proper values.

Rename it call it the Arab United Nations and move it to Paris.

[Skogan]

while 25 % of americans live in deep poverty

Ah yes, more of the fashionably anti-american propaganda used by europeans to compensate for their irrelevance. That it's not true doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Accourding to the 1998 census bureau report, 14 (not 25) percent of U.S. citizens are "poor". Now even though that is much less then what you state as being in poverty, it is still pretty bad... unless you consider how relative of a term poor is in the U.S.

Consider this about that bottom 14 percent:

In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.

The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.

Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.

The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2

Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.

Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.

Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.

Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.

Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.


The inflated high number of the poor in the U.S. is due largly to errors in accounting by the census bureau. For example, it only counts income from the current year. So if an independent buisness person were to make 1 million last year, but none this year, he would be counted as poor... though he has accumalted quite a bit of wealth. In fact, the reported spending by the poor is higher then the reported income.

For more information on the rich american poor, see the source for above at:
http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1221.html

Skogan

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The UN has stopped representing Western values and the US should cut all funding to the organization immediatedly.
As a matter of fact so should all western countries with proper values.

Rename it call it the Arab United Nations and move it to Paris.

Ohh, man, you are so BS'ing. Arab United Nations, there's already a Arab league. Our so called western values: Is that bombing countries to keep the oil low? Training rebels in Afghanistan (Mujahedin) to kill Soviet-troops? Delivering arms, fighterplanes to Saddam so he could kill more "Iranian" fundemantalists. Guerillia training to terrorist groups in Latin-America to overthrow communist regimes? Is that your so called western values. Get of your high-US horse and see what the world is like. What your "western civilisation" in particular your country has done, what a mess they made ...

Paris ... Islamabad, it's all the same. There are only two countries in the world, not? The US and the rest of the world. First get an education, and than come back, here, ok, lamp?

The US is one of the countries who actually pay almost nothing to the UN? Before 1971, the UN was just a muppet of the US (with France, UK and Taiwan in the sec. council). When China entered the council, suddenly, the US didn't want to go on with the UN. No who's the hypocrit. Please :rolleyes:

[Skogan]

Just for the record,

Western values is getting to vote.
Western values is not getting to beat up your wife.
Western values is the odd notion that being gay, or have sex may be a sin, but its not a crime.
Western values is having a free press who openly, and without fear of recrimination, critisices the government.
Western values lets you worship, (or curse) any god you please, or none at all.


If Islamibad has those values, then congrations, welcome to the modern world. If countries in the west deviate from that, then they aren't practicing those values to perfection.

However, to say that there is no difference between western values and the values of the fundementalist muslim regimes is a joke.

[takeo]

I won't even comment on the as usual ridiculous but quite funny comments of lomplighter.

OK, skogan, you may be right about the poverty, i didn't know, i don't know any poor american, but what i saw in American big cities as new York or Detroit is really poverty and crime you will never see in France, even if many of the caracteristics of american "poor" are actually of a higher standard than average French (only a small percentage of French have airconditioning, even in the hot south, and less than 10% of the french families own two cars, less French people own a house than american poor, few french have two or more rooms per person, etc. ) So maybe those figures are incorrect or the bad neighbourhoods of Detroit and New York are really only representing a small percentage of american population. (they have broken windows, people squatting houses without electricity and completely in a deteriorated condition, people begging in the street, searching in trash cans and clearly people who enjoy the worst possible education, and they also told me those people have not the same access to good health-care as average americans ( in France everyone receives the same healthcare and education, doesn't matter how rich you are, i think that's true for most of western Europe).

"Western values is getting to vote. "

really? so why did the us support Pinochet and other dictators?
by the way in most countries people can vote, yet if the election is fair is another question (and the US is not especially a good example)

"Western values is not getting to beat up your wife. "

This are not only Western values but universal values. But according to me western values means as well not beating your children, somehow the US resisted to add child-protection to other children's rights... many non-western countries agreed with it, the US did not. The same about homosexuality and abortion (well i don't particularly like them but don't think it should be illegal)



"Western values is having a free press who openly, and without fear of recrimination, critisices the government. "

so why do the zionist lobby want to persecute the press for being "biased" because not completely in favor of israel? By the way a press dominated by the big business is not really free either.

"Western values lets you worship, (or curse) any god you please, or none at all. "

OK, but again this are not only Western values.

All that what you call western values are actually not western (untill the 18th century non of this existed in a Western country) but are the values of the enlightenment and the French revolution.


"If Islamibad has those values, then congrations, welcome to the modern world. If countries in the west deviate from that, then they aren't practicing those values to perfection. "

in fact some muslim countries adhere to those values and some don't, as well as some western, Asian, African or latinamerican countries do and others don't

"However, to say that there is no difference between western values and the values of the fundementalist muslim regimes is a joke."

that's right of course, but again what you call western values can not be enforced upon other countries by force and by the way the US is not the best example of those Western values...
I think those values are what i prefere, but if people in other societies have other priorities or another mentality than who am i to enforce those values upon other people.
That's why the UN exists to find a common place where such values can be discussed, and to see what can be considered "universal human values and rights" and what are just "western values" or "Muslim values" or "judeo-Christian values" or whatever.

[Skogan]

The U.S., in general exhibits western values. But it sometimes has supported those who didn't.

The U.S. IS a good example of a civilized voting system. Our last presidential election (to which I think you refer) was soooo close. Yet, no one resorted to violence. Gore didn't try to call on the Marines to ensure his victory. There was a dispute about how to count the votes, they went to court. Afterwards the loser stepped aside and reaffirmed the legitimacy of the winner.

I don't see that happening in Syria.

The press may (or may) not feel they will be persecuted by the Jewish people if they disagree. That is irrelevant to the concept of a western democracy.



Finally, as you point out, many (most) of the ideas that founded western society did not come from the U.S. People like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbs, John Locke
Etienne de La Boetie are the founders of the modern secular government with limited powers. The U.S. was one of the first (if not the first) to put it into action, but the creators were European.

My who point was not to say the U.S. is the best example of a western society. I responded to the previous person who said the whole world is the same, and denied the substantial difference of countries that are built upon Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau, compared to countries built on Muhamed.


I agree with your last 3 paragraphs.


Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Morpheus
http://www.msxnet.org/humour/america
ROFL! :D

[Skogan]

LOL

[takeo]

sometimes cartoons can be very accurate :D


OK, the voting system is according to some laws, on the contrary to many other countries, but on the other hand the big role of money and business influence in american elections make them less democratic.

however the world isn't black and white, in many Muslim countries the ideas of enlightenment and the laws of the french and american revolution are more important than the Sharia. On the other hand in some American states the christian majority is trying to end the strict distinction between state and religion, one of the principle rules of the enlightenment.

[Skogan]

I agree. I don't take the term "western values" to mean values currently held in some geographic location. I take it to mean values that originated in western europe regarding the relationship between man and government. Values like limited government, democracy, individual rights, etc. This is in opposition to the values of a theocratic Islam regime. I was responding to the previous poster who had said "what western values" and stated that all the world was basically the same.

Japan definately has western values, (in the sense I employ it) regardless of its physical location. The U.S. has western values in general, but as you have stated, it is not always perfectly applied.

Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
All that what you call western values are actually not western (untill the 18th century non of this existed in a Western country) but are the values of the enlightenment and the French revolution.


in fact some muslim countries adhere to those values and some don't, as well as some western, Asian, African or latinamerican countries do and others don't




Well they are values of the philosophy of the Scottish school that influenced both the American and French revolutions. But in truth they're not formed by either revolution and they predate the Enlightenment altogether. At any rate though if you propose that Muslim states are as democratic or more democratic than the US then you really are from another planet. Sorry, but you are. Because if you were not from another planet then Muslim countries would be preeminent in the world and they are not, at least not in this world.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
...but on the other hand the big role of money and business influence in american elections make them less democratic.That's a misconception. In the U.S., "big business" and actually corporate tax revenues account for 50% of the country's overall revenue. On top of that, the employees of the corporations are those who pay the rest of the country's income tax, so that's why your thinking that corporations do not represent the interests of America is wrong.

Anyway, as for the UN, I agree that it needs rethinking. Currently, the UN is the sole forum in the world in which tiny insignificant countries can collude to act against the interests of those very countries that support them.

It has become a denizen of racism against Israel, against Jews, and against the citizens of First World countries.

The UN's anti-Israel resolutions are living proof that the organization is set up to defeat justice and to support Arab terrorism. Similarly, the fact that a country like Syria, which practices state terrorism, is placed in a position of power in the security council is further proof of how Western values have been perverted at the UN.

I cringe to think that my U.S. tax dollars go to pay for a huge amount of the UN's funding, while the U.S. is being kicked around and humiliated by corrupt third-world countries.

[takeo]

I didn't say that muslim countries are more democratic than the US, i said that the us isn't all that democratic neither and that many muslim countries have the same kind of legislation as most western countries (yet sometimes in practise it's not really democratic)

i agree woith skogan

"That's a misconception. In the U.S., "big business" and actually corporate tax revenues account for 50% of the country's overall revenue. On top of that, the employees of the corporations are those who pay the rest of the country's income tax, so to that's why your thinking that corporations do not represent the interests of America is wrong.
"

In a democracy only ELECTIONS where every individual should have a free and fair choice of ideas and people with equal chances can decide who will represent the country, not the ones paying for the income taxes...

"tiny insignificant countries can collude to act against the interests of those very countries that support them. "

Israel is a tiny insignificant country too on worldscale...
so in fact you think the one who pays the most (the richest country) can decide what direction the UN should go?
that's not really what the un was supposed to be, a representation of all countries in the world, EQUAL.
What you propose would have nothing to do with democracy or world-representation but with an oligarchy of the richest countries who will always act according their own interests.


"It has become a denizen of racism against Israel, against Jews, and against the citizens of First World countries.
The UN's anti-Israel resolutions are living proof that the organization is set up to defeat justice and to support Arab terrorism. Similarly, the fact that a country like Syria, which practices state terrorism, is placed in a position of power in the security council is further proof of how Western values have been perverted at the UN. "

BS
The resolutions against israel were based on international laws and conventions that existed before they could be used against israel, they were not especially created for israel. Israel violated those laws, so it got criticised. The uN was never a forum for anti-semitism.
Syria, as any other country, including the US which also sponsered terrorist organisations around the world(the contra's, the KLA etc.), has the right to be represented in the UN.
Excluding "desobediant" countries would on the contrary be a pervertion of those western values, which stress equality of all peoples, countries and persons.

[Skogan]

Corporations are in general very good for our country. But that is not the same thing as saying:


so to that's why your thinking that corporations do not represent the interests of America is wrong.

Corporations have no duty to do whats in the best interest of our country. Indeed, corporations have a legal duty to maximize profits and minimize losses. Their only interest is the profit motive, which if you are a shareholder, im sure you can appreciate.

America's wealth comes from healthy corporations. But left unchecked, they will do what's in their best intrest, regardless of what's in the countries (or worlds) best interest. Polution is a prime example of how a corporations interest are not in line with a countries.

I consider their power in the democratic process as unhealthy. Many of these corporations have larger economies then some nations. They use that power to influence the electoral process in such as way that is benifical to themselves, but harmful to the country as a whole.

I am not anit-corporation, but do believe only real human beings should be able to donate money for political parties. I think free speech is a human, not corporate, right, and in any even there is a compeling interest to control the power.

Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
In a democracy only ELECTIONS where every individual should have a free and fair choice of ideas and people with equal chances can decide who will represent the country, not the ones paying for the income taxes... Yes, that's true theoretically, but remember that the employees of corporations make up the vast majority of a country's voters. That's why it is in the interest of the general electorate for corporations to succeed.


that's not really what the un was supposed to be, a representation of all countries in the world, EQUAL.
What you propose would have nothing to do with democracy or world-representation but with an oligarchy of the richest countries who will always act according their own interests. Well, when it comes to funding the UN, guess who is asked to come up with the money? It's that "oligarchy" of First World countries exactly that is taxed, based on each country's income. What happened to the EQUAL treatment of all UN members when it comes time to foot the bill?



BS
The resolutions against israel were based on international laws and conventions that existed before they could be used against israel, they were not especially created for israel. Israel violated those laws, so it got criticised. The uN was never a forum for anti-semitism.The true BS is what you just wrote, Takeo. You know that the anti-Israel resolutions were and are still being drafted at a wholesale rate, every time Arafat decides it is convenient to do so. The Palestinian observer (not even a member) immediately summons the security council and they crank out a biased anti-Israel resolution draft, which the U.S. is almost certain to veto and then it gets turned around to the general assembly, where the rogue and non-aligned third-world dictatorships rubber stamp any resolution condemning the victims of Arab terrorism.

And more than just anti-Israel resolutions, the so-called anti-racism UN conference in Durban turned out to be an unbelievable convergence of racists the likes of which has not been seen since the last gathering of the top SS brass in WWII. With anti-Semitic literature and demonstrations under the official umbrella of the UN, that organization has lost even the last shred of legitimacy it had.


Excluding "desobediant" countries would on the contrary be a pervertion of those western values, which stress equality of all peoples, countries and persons. No, Western values include rewarding good and punishing evil.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
America's wealth comes from healthy corporations. But left unchecked, they will do what's in their best intrest, regardless of what's in the countries (or worlds) best interest. Pollution is a prime example of how a corporations interest are not in line with a countries.
Actually, pollution is a good example. The socially beneficial task of cleaning up pollution from factories, automobiles, etc., has given rise to a multi-billion dollar, highly profitable industry.

[Skogan]

Not to mention how much money the Health Care industry makes treating all those cancer victims!

Come on now, you don't really believe that polution is good for the country because then we can pay people to clean it up, do you? Or were you joking around and I'm to tired to catch it?

Skogan

[takeo]

again i agree with skogan.




"Yes, that's true theoretically, but remember that the employees of corporations make up the vast majority of a country's voters. That's why it is in the interest of the general electorate for corporations to succeed. "

yes, but corporations are no democratic institutions and can not interfeare with policy-making in a democracy. If you reason that "they are in the best interest for the majority of the voters" than of course you don't need a democracy but a government ruled by business (which wouldn't mean a big difference in the states...)
By the way i don't think corporations interests are always the interests of the majority, they want lower taxes, less social rights, more profits for themselves (which doesn't necessarily help the country's economy as a whole) and less for the general wellfare. they will also relocate if wages are too high and nobody to stop them.


"Well, when it comes to funding the UN, guess who is asked to come up with the money? It's that "oligarchy" of First World countries exactly that is taxed, based on each country's income. What happened to the EQUAL treatment of all UN members when it comes time to foot the bill? "

because some countries have far less ressources than rich countries doesn't mean their vote should mean less.(by the way the us didn't pay its bills for years) Or do you want to return to the "democracy" of the 19th century where one could vote according to his wealth???





"The true BS is what you just wrote, Takeo. You know that the anti-Israel resolutions were and are still being drafted at a wholesale rate, every time Arafat decides it is convenient to do so. The Palestinian observer (not even a member) immediately summons the security council and they crank out a biased anti-Israel resolution draft, which the U.S. is almost certain to veto and then it gets turned around to the general assembly, where the rogue and non-aligned third-world dictatorships rubber stamp any resolution condemning the victims of Arab terrorism. "

actually anti-israeli resolutions get the support of most of the world, including europe and japan, because israel is really violating the rules of the un-charter and geneva-conventions. the only reason why the us vetoed this resolutions is because of the zionist lobby, they know well enough that what israel is doing is illegal.

"And more than just anti-Israel resolutions, the so-called anti-racism UN conference in Durban turned out to be an unbelievable convergence of racists the likes of which has not been seen since the last gathering of the top SS brass in WWII. With anti-Semitic literature and demonstrations under the official umbrella of the UN, that organization has lost even the last shred of legitimacy it had. "

i didn't hear or see one single anti-semitic speech on this conference.
Yes israel was condemned for racism, as well as south-africa was condamned in the 80's, because some parts of its policy are really RACIST. (not allowing non-jewish refugees back to their homes, only jews (not israeli...) can ask permission to move to jerusalem, racist policy in the occupied territories, etc.)


"No, Western values include rewarding good and punishing evil."

LOL, the problem is who determines what is good and what is evil, and about things or people that are not 100% good or 100% evil (most of us and most of things). actually this definition rules out a rule of law, which is not based on "good or evil" but on the law.
also fundamentalists think in terms of "good" or "evil".

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Skogan
Come on now, you don't really believe that polution is good for the country because then we can pay people to clean it up, do you? Or were you joking around and I'm to tired to catch it?No, of course pollution is not a goal of business. But it is a scientific fact that byproducts are produced by industry.

My hope is that, in addition to providing businesses with a profit incentive to eliminate pollution, there will be profit incentives to produce industrial equipment that greatly reduces or even eliminates pollution altogether.

The point I was making is that the goals of profitable business are not in conflict with the goals of society.

You brought up pollution as a result of industry, and I said that it is in the interest of many businesses to solve the problem of pollution -- not out of altruism, but out of a profit motive. The end result is a positive one for both society and for businesses engaged in reducing pollution.

[Mediocrates]

there are many many things that private industry can't be relied on to do well, themselves - that's what administrative law eg. regulations are for. pollution management, which is what cleanup really is, is a byproduct of no one wanting to do it so there is always a few specialized firms who exploit the gap and charge a premium for it. else companies would derive a benefit from cleaning up their own messes, which of course they don't.

For example you wouldn't privatize the army - that's where Hayek Libertarianism breaks down. The only things that private industry do well are the things that people want but government does what people need (hopefully) and there is little profit in needs so private industry does no better a job.

[Skogan]

I agree, so long as we relize that those administrative laws are created by the authority of elected officials. That is the very reason corporate influence on the electoral process is dangerous, IMO. The lobbies for those buisness often write the exact terms of the legislation that is later adopted by congress. Administrative rules and statutes can not be trusted to harness the corporate profit motive if they are controlled by the very buisnesses they are supposed to regulate. (Administrative regulations are a bit more complicated then direct legislation, but the same principle applies.)

That's why I'm an advocate of allowing only real humans donate money for political causes. I think that a reasonable interpetation of "free speech" means humans only, not ficticious humans (corporations). But even if corporate donations to political parties does constitute free speech, I think there is a compeling interest to ban it.


Skogan