What the hell is the United Nations?

[martinw718]

I'm looking for some statistics about who's who in the United Nations.

How many muslim countries are there?

How may Arab?

How many nations primarily dependent on Arab oil?

How many from the old European fascist power base?

How many colaberated with the Nazis in rounding up the Jews?

How many old Soviet Bloc nations?

I get so sick of people talking like the United Nations is some impartial force for moral good in the world.

It's nothing but a mobocracy.

Show me the statistics on who's who in the United Nations and I'll bet they will go a long way toward proving my point.

[Teacake]

Even though I"m not replying to your questions, I think you will find these site of interest.


This site has thousands of documents from the meetings concerning Israel's creation as well as the other areas controlled under the british mandate.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf

League of Nations 36th session held at Geneva
http://pub94.ezboard.com/fgalaxy500f...opicID=4.topic

TRANSCRIPTS: BROOKINGS BRIEFING ON CAMP DAVID II PEACE TALKS
www.usembassy-israel.org....0727a.html

http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period3/3-5.html


Prior to the UN
http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/league18-46.html

http://www.library.northwestern.edu/...ctions/league/

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/20th.htm

[L@mplighterM]

The United Nations is something that existed back in the last century. Somehow it became the Arab/Muslim Nations and the head Annan is a Muslim.

The west should resign from that body and make them move the building to Baghdad preferably prior to any action undertaken by the US/NATO.

I cant recall the statistics that you’re looking for but they are readily available online.

[Teacake]

The name should be changed to something a little more accurate like Dictators Are Us or United Faciasts

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Teacake
The name should be changed to something a little more accurate like Dictators Are Us or United Faciasts

*LOL* No kidding!

[martinw718]

Gee, guys, that's kind of what I was afraid of.

They have yet to formally condemn the "Palestinian" terrorists, but there've been over a thousand anti-Israel resolutions.

Maybe if we would start using ethanol instead of oil we could defund the arab power machine.

Just an idea.

[michael]

There's a good deal of information on the UN website. It lists all the member countries, Swtizerland being the newest member, having joined the UN just last week.
As to why it exists; many countires thought that it was a rather good idea. After the continuous slaughter in Europe in the 19th century and 2 world wars in 30 years last century, the idea that there had to be a better way to manage world affiars than the rule of might, gained some legitimacy.

The UN was, unfortunately, a compromise and its current structure does not reflect the plan at its conception. The major powers insisting on veto rights at the Security Council is a major shortcoming in what was supposed to be the premier democratic institution. There is also the major gap between adopted resolutions and the ability to enforce or carry them out. In its original provisions there was to be a UN standing army, made up of the member countries, but that could not be agreed upon by the major powers who saw it as a threat to their eminence.

So clearly the UN has its limits, but the major limit is will of the member countries. The UN can only do what its member countries allow it to do. The veto rights can be a major impediment. Surprisingly it is the US who has lead the way in the use of the veto powers. This was especially true in the 1980s when the US vetoed many Security Council resolutions regarding disarmament and control of nuclear weapons. The voting records are available on the UN website if you care to check it out. They are of special interest given the claimed over-riding concern for democracy. The veto removes the "risk" of democratic procedures. The risk being, of course, the uncertainty in what a democratic process may decide. A necessary feature I would have thought, but clearly unacceptable to the major powers. Commitment to democracy is fine, as long as it makes the right decisions.

As for non-democratic countries being members, that is an interesting issue. Some people say there is an inconsistency in their membership. Perhaps so, but does their involvement reduce or increase the liklehood of democratic reforms developing in those countries? I can't see any logical reason why it should be an impediment, of course it's no guarantee, but what is. New members, though, have to be recommended by the Security Council before a vote is taken in the General Assembly.

As for terrorism, the UN has passed several resolutions condemning terrorism in all its forms and requesting adherence to international laws, by everyone. Should cover the Palestinians I think. Interestingly though the US has voted against such a resolution against terrorism.

[DanStrat]

I liked L@mplighterM's assessment..."The United Nations is something that existed back in the last century. Somehow it became the Arab/Muslim Nations and the head Annan is a Muslim.

The west should resign from that body and make them move the building to Baghdad preferably prior to any action undertaken by the US/NATO."

And also Teacake's..."The name should be changed to something a little more accurate like Dictators Are Us or United Faciasts"

Talk about a near useless bunch of "IRRELEVANT" dead wood. The UN takes the cake and has done so for decades. I like the Drunk Monkey Rodeo analogy used on this forum recently. I think it fits the UN as well.

It's nothing but a mobocracy.

Show me the statistics on who's who in the United Nations and I'll bet they will go a long way toward proving my point.

Indeed

[DanStrat]

martinw718 -

I get so sick of people talking like the United Nations is some impartial force for moral good in the world.

It's nothing but a mobocracy.

Show me the statistics on who's who in the United Nations and I'll bet they will go a long way toward proving my point.

Wouldn't it make some sense for the United States to simply pull out of the UN all together and insist on the formation of a brand new organization made up of only democratic nations, or those close to or working toward democratization?

Lets leave this already irrelevant mobocracy ASAP.

[L@mplighterM]

Ouote by DanStrat:


Wouldn't it make some sense for the United States to simply pull out of the UN all together and insist on the formation of a brand new organization made up of only democratic nations, or those close to or working toward democratization?

Lets leave this already irrelevant mobocracy ASAP.

End quote.



The UN served its purpose at one point in history. Last year at Durban is crossed the line in my opinion and no western nation should be pouring their taxpayers hard earned dollars into that organization.

At the very least given the current situation in the world, no Muslim should be allowed to hold the position of Secretary General. Annan should step down immediately because he has shown extreme bias in his speeches involving the subject of the ME.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by michael
There's a good deal of information on the UN website. It lists all the member countries, Swtizerland being the newest member, having joined the UN just last week.
As to why it exists; many countires thought that it was a rather good idea. After the continuous slaughter in Europe in the 19th century and 2 world wars in 30 years last century, the idea that there had to be a better way to manage world affiars than the rule of might, gained some legitimacy.

So they created the United Nations, where Muslim countries that oppress women and non-Muslims, that deny their own citizens fundamental human rights, and that are run by people who seized power by force could get together and pass resolutions condemning Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

The UN was, unfortunately, a compromise and its current structure does not reflect the plan at its conception. The major powers insisting on veto rights at the Security Council is a major shortcoming in what was supposed to be the premier democratic institution. There is also the major gap between adopted resolutions and the ability to enforce or carry them out. In its original provisions there was to be a UN standing army, made up of the member countries, but that could not be agreed upon by the major powers who saw it as a threat to their eminence.

Yes, compromise is so inconvenient. Why should the great democracies and the other most powerful nations get to veto the hard work of a mob of dictators? The dictators want their "standing army" and they want it now.

So clearly the UN has its limits, but the major limit is will of the member countries. The UN can only do what its member countries allow it to do. The veto rights can be a major impediment. Surprisingly it is the US who has lead the way in the use of the veto powers. This was especially true in the 1980s when the US vetoed many Security Council resolutions regarding disarmament and control of nuclear weapons. The voting records are available on the UN website if you care to check it out. They are of special interest given the claimed over-riding concern for democracy. The veto removes the "risk" of democratic procedures. The risk being, of course, the uncertainty in what a democratic process may decide. A necessary feature I would have thought, but clearly unacceptable to the major powers. Commitment to democracy is fine, as long as it makes the right decisions.

Actually, the problem is that you do not understand democracy. The purpose of democracy is not to enable a mob of dictators to run the world by a show of hands. The purpose of democracy is to permit free citizens to choose their own leaders. But the UN is mainly comprised of countries whose citizens have no such rights.

Michael, by your logic if the mafia or Central Committee of the Soviet Communust Party deliberated according democratic rules then they would be "democracies."

As for non-democratic countries being members, that is an interesting issue. Some people say there is an inconsistency in their membership. Perhaps so, but does their involvement reduce or increase the liklehood of democratic reforms developing in those countries? I can't see any logical reason why it should be an impediment, of course it's no guarantee, but what is. New members, though, have to be recommended by the Security Council before a vote is taken in the General Assembly.

And that's also why the permanent Security Council members are given veto power. Because it is understood that they are surrounded by despots.

As for terrorism, the UN has passed several resolutions condemning terrorism in all its forms and requesting adherence to international laws, by everyone. Should cover the Palestinians I think. Interestingly though the US has voted against such a resolution against terrorism.

Interestingly, the U.S. refuses to equate self-defense with random mass murder attacks against innocent civilians. When the UN considered resolutions condemning terrorism "in all its forms" that meant, as the term "all its forms" implies, that it was trying to soften criticism of what is commonly understood as terrorism by reasonable people and shift some of the blame to states acting to defend their citizens against (guess who?) terrorists.

[Israel98]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by L@mplighterM
[B]The United Nations is something that existed back in the last century. Somehow it became the Arab/Muslim Nations and the head Annan is a Muslim.

The west should resign from that body and make them move the building to Baghdad preferably prior to any action undertaken by the US/NATO.

I was just wondering about Annan the other day. I was thinking about how he consistently makes anti-Israel anti-U.S. decisions. I began to think well, he's apparently African, could be a Muslim. No wonder he is so biased. I hope we get out of the U.N. immediately.

[L@mplighterM]

(19:05) Katsav blasts Annan for waffling at Durban



President Moshe Katsav this evening criticized UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his speech today at the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, saying it missed the point.

"Annan's speech in Durban was very irrelevant," Katsav said. "He cannot compare the Holocaust to the basic right of self-defense against terrorism."

"Kofi Annan did not have one word to say about the terrorists who carried out terrorist attacks," Katsav added. "On the other hand, he harshly criticized Israel, even though self-defense is a basic right."

Meanwhile, efforts to reach a compromise on the wording of the conference's final declaration has reportedly reached a dead end, although behind-the-scenes talks are still continuing.

Norway and Canada have proposed a compromise, but the Palestinians and Arab countries, who are insisting on extreme wording against Israel, have not accepted it.

The United States and Israel are threatening to leave the conference over the dispute.


http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/0...ews.34029.html



Snip speech Annan-Durban 31 August, 2001:

Nowhere is that truer today than in the Middle East. The Jewish people have been victims of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world, and in Europe they were the target of the Holocaust -- the ultimate abomination. This fact must never be forgotten, or diminished. It is understandable, therefore, that many Jews deeply resent any accusation of racism directed against the State of Israel -- and all the more so when it coincides with indiscriminate and totally unacceptable attacks on innocent civilians.

Yet we cannot expect Palestinians to accept this as a reason why the wrongs done to them -- displacement, occupation, blockade, and now extra-judicial killings -- should be ignored, whatever label one uses to describe them.

http://www.racism.gov.za/substance/speeches/unopen.htm

[michael]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


Actually, the problem is that you do not understand democracy. The purpose of democracy is not to enable a mob of dictators to run the world by a show of hands. The purpose of democracy is to permit free citizens to choose their own leaders. But the UN is mainly comprised of countries whose citizens have no such rights.

Michael, by your logic if the mafia or Central Committee of the Soviet Communust Party deliberated according democratic rules then they would be "democracies."

The election of "leaders" is only the most obvious characteristic of democracy. Continuous, meaningful input into government decision making and policy is essential, not just a 3-4 yearly vote.

Do democratic rules make a democracy - that is an interesting philosphocial question, one you probably didn't envisage. To apply the same rule say to the US- last century slaves didn't have the vote and before that neither did women. Does that mean the US was not a democracy? By your definition- all citizens having a vote - you don't seem to beleive so. My obvious point is that there is a spectrum of "democracy" and deciding at which point a county is sufficiently democratic is a difficult one, for me at least.
As for the Soviets and China, remember they too demanded the veto - not much to do with the fear of the "gretest democracies" but rather the fear of accountability to those less powerful.

[Mediocrates]

what are you getting at? even here with the most hotly contested election in 50 years the turnount was 49%. giving people a vote guarantees nothing but the freedom to exercise it. voting is only a tiny part of democracy. institutions, laws, checks and balances, and a willingness to behave not only to the letter of the laws but their spirit as well is where democracy flows.