Is the United Nations Worth Saving?

Human Events ^ | Nov. 24, 2004 | William Rusher

[Paleo Conservative]

It would make an excellent live fire bombing range an urban warfare training center.

[MCH]

No. Sign the petition to get it out of the US. We're paying 22 billion a year to screw ourselves.

[Snagglepuss]

Actually, NOT SAVING the UN would result in a great SAVINGS to US citizens.
/snag

[Rakkasan1]

I pray you're right

[Right_in_Virginia]

The UN's 15 minutes of relevance have come and gone.

[freedomfiter2]

he would deserve a monument larger than Mt. Rushmore.

[leprechaun9]

The UN is UNfit and UNwanted!

[RockinRight]

Hell no!

[Edgerunner]

I am tired of hearing about the UN.
I want all those unpleasant people to just go home and quit bugging us.
We got along without the UN for a long time, and I'm sure we can do without them for a long time!
The office space would bring more money for NYC.

[GOP_1900AD]

No!

[Fiddlstix]

[Billthedrill]

It's actually a hypothetical question, as the author shows us. Were it possible to "save" the UN by reforming it, my answer would be a qualified "yes" - it does indeed have a mission, but world government is emphatically not it and never was. One reason it has become so impossibly corrupt is that it has tried to assume that mission in the complete absence of accountability for its members and independent auditing for its affairs. National governments in a similar situation also become corrupt. There is simply too much money not to tempt the virtuous and attract the villains.

But I do think it could serve a useful purpose once its staff stops trying to act like ubermenschen. As an international forum it is unparalleled. As a central coordinator for international relief efforts it could serve well. Were it to limit its activists to those venues I'd be at the forefront of its defense.

But it isn't going to happen, which is why I said the question was hypothetical. The entrenched, parasitical bureaucratic class that now populates its hallways isn't going to give up its sinecure. Volcker is being stonewalled, and Annan isn't alone in enriching himself, his relatives, and his hangers-on with the proceeds a particularly sordid graft. These aren't mosquito-bites, it's serious hemorrhage.

I'm honestly sad about having to say "no" in answer to the question in the headline. Perhaps we can replace it, but it doesn't look like it's going to be worth reforming.

[Esteemed Scholar Jack Bauer]

it ain't fair, i want DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

[Ptarmigan]

No, not worth it.

[A Navy Vet]

Well said. However, while it does continue to exist in its corrupt ineffectual form, I say, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Just kick them out our living room for now.

[ExSoldier]

he will have changed the US and the world for the better for the next several hundred years....

I fully agree with you, but IMHO, it ain't gonna happen. If it does, I think I would truly fear the organization which would surely rise in it's place. I would agree with the idea of kicking the UN off our shores and in withdrawing (perhaps) our membership or at least reducing quite drastically, our fiscal responsibilities, therein. Perhaps the UN should relocate to ummmmm VATICAN CITY. After all, the Bible does say that the AntiChrist shall rise from ROME.

The Bible also says that the generation shall not pass away until all the end time prophesies are brought to fruition. If you take the start as May 14th 1948 with the birth of Israel in a single day and an Israeli "generation" being between 20-60 years, I'd say we don't have a lot of time remaining. AMEN!

[Charlespg]

NOPE,NADA,NYAT

[sport]

No.

[A6M3]

NO.