Slashdot Mirror

Wow...

I'll just throw this out here: the uneducated masses of the US believe it is a democracy. The US is not. It is a Constitutional Republic. The key factor being Republic, where a minority can hold power. That means the wealthiest, charismatic, or powerful people will hold positions. A small group of people, even if they were elected, could not change the government, since it would necessitate a majority vote in both the House and the Senate with the President's seal of approval, or a 2/3 majority. There would never be a majority in favor of reform because those in power would be voting to give up power.

As far as the UN goes, it wastes money like all other governments. Fox News reports of a mural where the cost was taken out of relief funds. Also, the US pays 22% of the UN budget. Japan contributes 19%, with Germany at 8.66%, rounding out the top 3. I don't think you can claim the US doesn't pay a fair share.

Do you remember the UN limiting criticism of Islam? http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/01/news/UN-GEN-UN-Free-Speech.php Something is seriously wrong with the UN if they can limit free speech.

Latest I can find for UN payments is 2005 figures; I wouldn't call the difference between $423M (USA) and $375M (Japan) all that huge a degree. And is the USA actually paying its dues now? In 2005 it owed almost a billion in unpaid dues.

Thank you...glad to receive a thoughtful reply...

"That is dangerous with the current thinking of the UN. For one, they see..."

You mean the current thinking of the UN bureaucracy or the rest of the whole world? The former has no power of its own, so its hard to speak of the U.N. as though its "us" and "them". It may seem to make sense to refer to "them" in the case of the bureaucracy of the U.N., but, (a) they have no power outside of that given to them by the nations that send them there, and (b) U.S. citizens are also heavily represented within U.N. bodies. Blaming the U.N. is really blaming ourselves.

As an American and world citizen, I believe humanity is already capable of democracy even though I may disagree with some decisions, even though some governments might not be capable or interested in it (see my qualification you also refer to), and even if that means giving away some power (which the Founding Fathers realized the states needed to--and the U.S. did in more recent history by being part of the historic WTO). We can't have the cake and eat it too. We can believe in democracy, and believe it applies to humanity, or we can believe in selfishness and our own egos. It may take a lot, but we ought to be humble enough to admit that, despite what our pundits in the media would have us believe, we are not always right either. That doesn't mean giving away the house--on the contrary, we should be very intelligent in any sharing of power, so that it won't violate our own basic values; but the sharing of power is necessary not only for idealistic reasons in our belief in democracy--but also in practical reasons (no one can trust the U.N. if it is subject to the whims of just a handful of countries).

"For one, they see the solution for pretty much anything to be to drain money from the successful nations and give it to the poorer ones -- and they're not good at recognizing which is which (except that they know the US is their money pot)."

The U.S. pays only a tiny fraction of its economy to the U.N.--an institution which has had tremendous successes in a number of areas and which is absolutely vital, as all politicians will recognize even after rhetoric against the U.N. which may get them elected. Don't get drawn into a line politicians like to use to get elected. There are cases of corruption, sure, but that can only be blamed on the oversight of it my member states--and we're a very influential one of those members.

Some good reading:

• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833
• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=3752453
• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813733

"They also would be able to enforce political correctness. Nothing could be muttered that would offend anyone in the world,"

I'd be in favor of people not offending others... I think our religious traditions (if you are religious) are all supposed to believe the same... This doesn't mean giving away rights though, nor does it mean avoiding a chance to speak up against rights violated by others elsewhere; allowing the world a qualified chance to vote in affairs determined by a body whose decisions affect it (in a real way--not the mere popularity contest which U.N. votes are now), is not, in my view, doing so...

"except the Muslims would still be allowed to chant "Death to Israel" as they are an oppressed, protected class."

Self-determination and respect for diversity over conformity are both part of the existing founding and operating documents of the current U.N. and would need to be so for a strengthened U.N. Certainly any reformed U.N. would and should not be consti

Thank you...glad to receive a thoughtful reply...

"That is dangerous with the current thinking of the UN. For one, they see..."

You mean the current thinking of the UN bureaucracy or the rest of the whole world? The former has no power of its own, so its hard to speak of the U.N. as though its "us" and "them". It may seem to make sense to refer to "them" in the case of the bureaucracy of the U.N., but, (a) they have no power outside of that given to them by the nations that send them there, and (b) U.S. citizens are also heavily represented within U.N. bodies. Blaming the U.N. is really blaming ourselves.

As an American and world citizen, I believe humanity is already capable of democracy even though I may disagree with some decisions, even though some governments might not be capable or interested in it (see my qualification you also refer to), and even if that means giving away some power (which the Founding Fathers realized the states needed to--and the U.S. did in more recent history by being part of the historic WTO). We can't have the cake and eat it too. We can believe in democracy, and believe it applies to humanity, or we can believe in selfishness and our own egos. It may take a lot, but we ought to be humble enough to admit that, despite what our pundits in the media would have us believe, we are not always right either. That doesn't mean giving away the house--on the contrary, we should be very intelligent in any sharing of power, so that it won't violate our own basic values; but the sharing of power is necessary not only for idealistic reasons in our belief in democracy--but also in practical reasons (no one can trust the U.N. if it is subject to the whims of just a handful of countries).

"For one, they see the solution for pretty much anything to be to drain money from the successful nations and give it to the poorer ones -- and they're not good at recognizing which is which (except that they know the US is their money pot)."

The U.S. pays only a tiny fraction of its economy to the U.N.--an institution which has had tremendous successes in a number of areas and which is absolutely vital, as all politicians will recognize even after rhetoric against the U.N. which may get them elected. Don't get drawn into a line politicians like to use to get elected. There are cases of corruption, sure, but that can only be blamed on the oversight of it my member states--and we're a very influential one of those members.

Some good reading:

• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833
• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=3752453
• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813733

"They also would be able to enforce political correctness. Nothing could be muttered that would offend anyone in the world,"

I'd be in favor of people not offending others... I think our religious traditions (if you are religious) are all supposed to believe the same... This doesn't mean giving away rights though, nor does it mean avoiding a chance to speak up against rights violated by others elsewhere; allowing the world a qualified chance to vote in affairs determined by a body whose decisions affect it (in a real way--not the mere popularity contest which U.N. votes are now), is not, in my view, doing so...

"except the Muslims would still be allowed to chant "Death to Israel" as they are an oppressed, protected class."

Self-determination and respect for diversity over conformity are both part of the existing founding and operating documents of the current U.N. and would need to be so for a strengthened U.N. Certainly any reformed U.N. would and should not be consti

Thank you...glad to receive a thoughtful reply...

"That is dangerous with the current thinking of the UN. For one, they see..."

You mean the current thinking of the UN bureaucracy or the rest of the whole world? The former has no power of its own, so its hard to speak of the U.N. as though its "us" and "them". It may seem to make sense to refer to "them" in the case of the bureaucracy of the U.N., but, (a) they have no power outside of that given to them by the nations that send them there, and (b) U.S. citizens are also heavily represented within U.N. bodies. Blaming the U.N. is really blaming ourselves.

As an American and world citizen, I believe humanity is already capable of democracy even though I may disagree with some decisions, even though some governments might not be capable or interested in it (see my qualification you also refer to), and even if that means giving away some power (which the Founding Fathers realized the states needed to--and the U.S. did in more recent history by being part of the historic WTO). We can't have the cake and eat it too. We can believe in democracy, and believe it applies to humanity, or we can believe in selfishness and our own egos. It may take a lot, but we ought to be humble enough to admit that, despite what our pundits in the media would have us believe, we are not always right either. That doesn't mean giving away the house--on the contrary, we should be very intelligent in any sharing of power, so that it won't violate our own basic values; but the sharing of power is necessary not only for idealistic reasons in our belief in democracy--but also in practical reasons (no one can trust the U.N. if it is subject to the whims of just a handful of countries).

"For one, they see the solution for pretty much anything to be to drain money from the successful nations and give it to the poorer ones -- and they're not good at recognizing which is which (except that they know the US is their money pot)."

The U.S. pays only a tiny fraction of its economy to the U.N.--an institution which has had tremendous successes in a number of areas and which is absolutely vital, as all politicians will recognize even after rhetoric against the U.N. which may get them elected. Don't get drawn into a line politicians like to use to get elected. There are cases of corruption, sure, but that can only be blamed on the oversight of it my member states--and we're a very influential one of those members.

Some good reading:

• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813833
• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=3752453
• http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=1813733

"They also would be able to enforce political correctness. Nothing could be muttered that would offend anyone in the world,"

I'd be in favor of people not offending others... I think our religious traditions (if you are religious) are all supposed to believe the same... This doesn't mean giving away rights though, nor does it mean avoiding a chance to speak up against rights violated by others elsewhere; allowing the world a qualified chance to vote in affairs determined by a body whose decisions affect it (in a real way--not the mere popularity contest which U.N. votes are now), is not, in my view, doing so...

"except the Muslims would still be allowed to chant "Death to Israel" as they are an oppressed, protected class."

Self-determination and respect for diversity over conformity are both part of the existing founding and operating documents of the current U.N. and would need to be so for a strengthened U.N. Certainly any reformed U.N. would and should not be consti

Also the hertiage foundation is a neocon thinktank. A non-neocon view of the Clinton and Bush administration policies on the ICC is available here:
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b= 345925

Fine with me.

The US is already responsible for 22% of the UN's budget--more than 1.25 billion dollars. I'd rather see that money used in a more productive manner elsewhere.

Not that I'm overly enamored with Microsoft--but I'm no fan of the UN.

If you have a reliable source of information to counter it, please provide a link or cite a formal source.

Otherwise, I have to conclude that you're simply blowing smoke.

This link (provided elsewhere in this discussion) also seems to indicate that the US is in fact directly providing funds, not just materials as you indicate above. A quote from this site:

"Total UN and MDB-Related Contributions Would Reach Almost $4 Billion

In the context of the budget request and subject to congressional approval, total US contributions to the organizations in the United Nations system and peacekeeping could total over $2.2 billion in FY2005. The principal components include: UN regular budget, $362.2 million; specialized agencies, $420 million; war crimes tribunals, $66 million; Capital Master Plan loan guarantee, $6 million; peacekeeping, $650 million; voluntary programs, approximately $700 million to organizations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, and UNRWA, among others. With the inclusion of US commitments to the multilateral development banks, the total would increase to about $3.7 billion in FY2005."

http://www.state.gov/p/io/fs/2004/36416.htm
http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b= 328791
http://www.mikenew.com/un-debt.html

It seems the US financial contributions to the UN are (and have been) nontrivial over the past 50 years, and it also seems that the question of "UN debt" is a contested issue.

Sorry, factually incorrect:

http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b= 328791

Some points:

We are the budget of the Unitied Nations

No, you are not. To be precise the other AC was talking about the US, the country (well, initially). Not you as a person. To be even more precise, the US accounts for 25% of the budget (let me explain this a little: that's one quarter of the budget). That is a lot. According to this page, the "U.S. owes $1.952 billion In past, current obligations." This effectively makes the US one of the largest debtors of the UN as well.

You then go on:
We litterly rebuilt Japan after bombing it in to the stone age.

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are probably extremely thankful to this very day. The nicest thing one could say about this, is probably that it ended the war in the Pacific.

The US funding for Germany and Japan wasn't exactly altruistic, but (rightfully) politically motivated.

lets keep our own technology.. hell.. lets stop the internet

And if that were possible, we would all happily call it USnet and praise Al Gore as our saviour. There is a reason why it's called "Internet" (hint: because it's international and the US can't stop it, it can just shut down a part of it.).

Why not we just step back during WW1.. and maybe there wouldn't have been a Europe.. Hell.. WW2 .. same case.. Funny.. comments like this just freaking make me laugh.

Your English is so bad that I can hardly believe you are US American. Actually, I think when referring to the US, it's very important to do just that: REFER TO THE USA, NOT AMERICA. There are a hell of a lot Americans who aren't US citizens, and quite happily so.

By the way, in case you are interested: America was discovered by Europeans (not counting native Americans, who didn't call themselves Americans back then).

Every Single Country in this world OWES money to the US.

And the US owes money to every single country in the world as well. It's called economics. Just in case you were wondering.

If we was to stop trade with other nations.. Growth would litterly stop..

Again, your grasp of the English language is astonishing, but never mind. Yes, you are right, growth in the US would become virtually non-existent if that were to happen.

I had the privi to be in another nation, Germany.. when we where doing our Interist rates in the US.. funny how that was aired on TV news more than the local game shows.

Aaaargh, that English again. This statement clearly indicates that you are an idiot AND a liar: Nothing gets more air time in Germany than game shows.

All in all, you are a disgrace to so many US citizens (if you are one, if not, you are a plain idiot) I have met.

You would probably get arrested under anti-terrorism laws.

"Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation" (www.unusa.org)

About 1/4th down the page

WTC hardly qualifies as an unprovoked attack. The Americans have been hitting them for the last 50 years now, albeit through proxies such as Israel, The Shah, The house of Saud, Saddam... They've had their houses taken away and demolished, they've been bombed, shelled, gassed, tortured, starved,... It's a wonder they didn't hit back sooner. Yes, they are trying to make it painful for the Americans to impose their greedy, self-serving, brutal, oppressive, and sometimes genocidal "foreign policy" on them. You want to find the real enemy of the American people, look to those so-called leaders who have put Americans in danger by fostering hatred of Americans through their meddling. The name Henry Kissinger is very high on that list. If you really want to end terrorism, you might start with with putting him on trial in the world court for crimes against humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Americans think they should be exempt from such things... Can you say hipocrisy?