United Nations

[BTex]

Is it good for the United States

 

[GreenIs]

It's good for every country.
Let's no one be too big for their boots.

 

[Jonesiegirl]

Of course the UN is good for the US ... not that it's gonna make any difference later....

 

[Davey7549]

Greenie is a meanie!!! Don't think so!

Anyway The UN is good for all Countries since unity is necessary nowadays.

Remember the old saying..... "No Man is an Island"...... Well no Country is either.

Now lets not get literal with me people!

Dave

 

[BTex]

I think that the majority of the countries would like to see the US fail.. I think that it started out to be a good thing but got to big.

Is it good For the US not is it a good thing

 

[RandyG]

Gotta wonder what your question really is BTex??

The UN is good for every country, as it is meant to represent them all not just the ones the US wants them to.

Is it good for the US??? Yep

Is it good for the other countries it represents? Yessir

Does it impose restrictions on what the US want? Yep

Does it impose restrictions on what other countries want? Yessir


Is your question more along the lines of . . . Do we, as Americans, want this foreign body telling us what to do??

That's sort of the attitude I'm getting from you, and from some other Americans. It's a very anti-social attitude that has nothing to do with a World view, but everything to-wards an American view. It's the sort of attitude that makes the rest of the world not like Americans so much. It's isolationism all over again.


If that is not the case with you, then I apologize for applying it to you, but do not apologize for the statements I made. they are true.


BTW, in what endeavor are you referring to when you say the majority of the countries want to see the US fail?

 

[RandyG]

Hmmm . . .

I always wonder about someone who makes sweeping statements, then never bothers to come back when someone calls them on it.

I've noticed that BTex has posted 4 times today, after I have made this statement, but not to this thread, which he started!


interesting!

 

[BTex]

RandyG
Sorry i didnt reply to your post as soon as you see fit.

I was just wanting openions (preferably from Americans) I do think that there is some Anti-American theme in the UN. Just what feeling I get from what I hear I am not an authorty on the UN

 

[angelize56]

Randy is an American. Too bad he lives so far away! Huh Randy darlin'! Take care. angel

 

[Toddles18]

My thoughts on the U.N.

Like most things it's great in Theory, but mediocre in practice. The U.S. has way to much power in it.

 

[LANMaster]

I answered yes, but I must qualify my answer.

I agree somewhat with Randy's premise that the UN wasn't intended to be good JUST for the US, but I don't think that that was BTEX's context with the question. And I do think it is a fair question.

The UN is a fantastic body, and has done much to bring the leaders of countries to gather at a table to form lasting frienships and strong alliances. The US and Russia are getting along better than in the history of the 2 nations. The US is working closely with the UN to assist in a peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Perlestinian conflict in which Palestine will gain statehood. There's much to be done in this area that the US needs the UN for.

The UN is actually assisting the US in the court of world public opinion rather than hindering it. The UN Security Council voted for UN1441 unanimously. Now the Security Council must follow up the mandate in UN1441 with another resolution.
The world is watching.
I thought UN1441 was and should have been enough to support forcing Iraq tio comply, but I support the decision to get the UN to back their own resolution with a call to action.
The world is watching.
If/when the UN signs a new resolution calling for action, then no government can blame the US for acting unilaterally. Even if the US becomes the only military force taking the action. Because the 12 members of the UN Security council (or at least 2/3+ of them) agreed that it was the appropriate thing to do.

I think France & Germany may vote No, or abstain, on a new resolution. China will likely abstain (as it usually does) and the rest will vote with the US. If China votes Yes, then Bush should get some credit for getting China on board.

There will be no doubt that the vast majority of the UN will back up their own votes on UN1441.

So all in all, the UN is good for the US, and the US is good for the UN.

 

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Toddles18:
My thoughts on the U.N.

Like most things it's great in Theory, but mediocre in practice. The U.S. has way to much power in it.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I just erased the paragraph I wrote about your comment. You deserve to be answered in the manner in which you posted your comment.

Great in theory, but mediocre in practice .... and I think you're implying that it is BECAUSE the US has way too much power in it?

If that is your implication then you are wrong. The US is one of the powers that keeps the UN from being totally irrelivant.

 

[Toddles18]

Originally posted by LANMaster:

The US is one of the powers that keeps the UN from being totally irrelivant.

My Point Exactly

Without the US, would there be a UN, and would it have a half of the power it has now? I thought the goal of the UN was so that all members had equal say.

 

[plschwartz]

Churchill was famously said that Democracy was the worst form of government ever invented... except for everything else.

For me the UN has been an oustanding success, in its aim: to get contries to talk instead of fight. If for nothing else the fact that it provided a forum for Stevenson to present the Cuba data before the world would have made it worth while.
In fact I think one would be hardput to find as long a period of peace among major powers as there has been since 1945. While there have been several very blood local wars (iran-Iraq and Etheopia-Eritria) they did not escalate.
Where the UN is trying to extend its sway is to civil war which makes the major powers uncomfortable.

Perhaps its greatest success to date has been the present. Like Charlimaine to the pope, it forced Bush to come to it as it were bare headed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Funding for UN System (CY2001, actuals): $3.5 billion.

Components: Assessments for UN regular budget and UN specialized agencies: $612 million; Assessments for UN peacekeeping: $716 million; Voluntary contributions to UN-affiliated organizations and activities (largely humanitarian programs): $2.2 billion.

The UN system is financed in two ways: assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. In the case of the UN, the General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by national income statistics, along with other factors.

The General Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a "ceiling" rate, setting the maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the Assembly agreed to revise the scale of assessments to make them better reflect current global circumstances.

As part of that agreement, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25 to 22 percent; this is the rate at which the U.S. is assessed. The U.S. is the only member that pays this rate; all other members’ assessment rates are lower. Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.6%), Germany (9.8%), France (6.5%), the U.K. (5.6%), Italy (5.1%), Canada (2.6%) and Spain (2.5%).

Special UN programs not included in the regular budget--such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, and WFP--are financed by voluntary contributions from member governments. In 2002, it is estimated that such contributions from the USG will total approximately $1.6 billion. Much of this is in the form of agricultural commodities donated for afflicted populations, but the majority is financial contributions.
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2002/12955.htm

Or:
The request for the three new tactical aircraft programs that are more appropriate for the Cold War -- F-22, F/A-18E/F and Joint Strike Fighter -- is $12.7 billion.

MAJOR CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS REQUESTS (in millions of dollars)

=====================================================

FY 2003 FY 2004 WEAPONS PROGRAMS (state of prime contractors in parentheses)

5,374.4 5,170.2 F-22 Air Force Raptor (22 planes made in GA, TX, WA and FL)

3,418.6 3,210.2 F/A-18 E/F Navy Super Hornet - (42 planes made in MA, MO, MD & CA)

3,406.7 4,365.8 JSF Navy-Air Force-Marine Joint Strike Fighter (TX, CT)

1,640.0 1,654.0 V-22 Osprey - (11 aircraft made in TX, PA and IN)

4,430.2 3,686.3 C-17 Air Force airlift aircraft - (11 planes made in CA and CT)

770.0 734.5 C-130J cargo aircraft (5 planes made in GA and IN)

874.0 1,079.3 RAH-66 Army Comanche light helicopter (made in CT, PA, AZ, IN)

924.3 776.7 AH-64 Longbow Apache helicopter (74 helicopters made

in MD)

1,199.1 1,390.3 UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (28 aircraft)

2,624.9 3,404.0 DDG-51 Navy Aegis destroyer - (3 destroyers made in ME and MS)

2,341.5 2,640.5 Virginia class submarine (1 sub made in CT and VA)

855.3 1,525.8 CVN-77 Nimitz Class carrier (1 carrier in VA)

594.3 1,200.0 LPD-17 Navy transport dock ship (1 ship made in LA, ME, CA & AL)

Source: Program Acquisition Cost By Weapons System, Department of Defense Budget for Fiscal Year 2004

===============================

MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEMS

===============================

(TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS)

Up to $1.2 trillion Layered missile defense

$ 226.5 billion JSF Joint Strike Fighter 2,866 planes

$ 73.4 billion Virginia class submarine 30 subs

$ 69.7 billion F-22 Air Force Raptor 295 planes

$ 66.0 billion DDG-51 Navy AEGIS destroyer 64 ships

$ 59.0 billion C-17 Air Force airlift aircraft180 planes

$ 48.8 billion F/A-18 E/F Navy Super Hornet 548 planes

$ 47.9 billion RAH-66 Army Comanche helicopter1,213 helicopters

$ 46.2 billion V-22 Navy Osprey 458 aircraft

$ 37.5 billion D-5 Navy Trident II missile568 missiles

$ 15.4 billion LPD-17 Navy transport dock ship 12 ships

Source: Selected Acquisition Report, September 30, 2002; Missile defense cost from Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and ECAAR report

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the UN is damned cheap

 

[Balzac]

Hell no