Posted on 12/10/2004 9:32:33 AM PST by Area Freeper
No, no, a thousand times No. Don't give into these neocon proposals. We are a sovereign nation, and all we need to do is simply reclaim our sovereignty. A "Democratic Alliance" would be even more powerful than the current UN, and would sap our sovereignty that much further. Don't go there.
Ollie ping
They should shuttle the UN over to France where it belongs. I deliver goods in NYC right near there and I`m sick of these freggin` Diplomats parking anywhere they please, in front of loading docks, or having their freggin` missions block off entire streets so Abdul from Arabia can park his 20 limos. The city must spend a fortune on these idiots, not to mention the police who have to stand guard in front of these jackass diplomats multi-million dollar condo buildings. I was in one last year and it`s unreal, private chefs, maids, butlers for one freggin` guy who probably votes against the US 99% of the time.
Just a small nit pick, but it was Claudia Rosett of the WSJ who has done great work on this story, and has been for some time. Fox has done great work as well.
Yes, and the bills that go with it.
There is no perfect solution.
1)These world bodies are un-elected.
2)High sums of money are funneled into these organizations.
These two facts help produce a culture that is ripe for corruption.
If we disband the U.N. and create a new body, it will eventually resemble the body we disbanded.
Yet, there are times when a world body is useful to serve as a forum for heads of government to assemble and be heard. In matters of world wide threats like Communism, Nazism, and Terrorism.
In current practical terms we cannot withdraw from the U.N. unless nations vulnerable to the prejudices of the U.N. join us (Israel).
Also, there is the consideration that the U.N. currently acts as a buffer to prevent the rapid strengthening of the E.U., as well as prevents a void that a country like China would fast move to fill. The U.N. has been shown to be a weak corrupt body. It still remains the premier challenge to U.S. authority. In absence of this weakened body we would face challenges from half a dozen nations (and a few dozen third worlds) in a race to determine which nation will earn the right to be our premier opposition.
I do think this has been behind the administration's decision to strengthen NATO and the U.N.
The fall of the U.N. is now inevitable given the scandel that expands at every moment, the only question is timing. IMO, I don't think Bush wants it to implode in the midst of the WOT. Barring that option, he would like to have an operating world body ready to fill the void of power before challenges of other nations mount.
Agreeed!!!!
The United Nations should be replaced by a United Democratic Nations. If a nation does is not a democratic republic or a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected legislature, that nation should be ineligible for membership. Nations which are dictatorship, oligarchies or which have other forms of governments which are not truly democratic should be barred from membership and any nation which reverts to a nondemocratic form of government (a government such as Iraq which claims to be democratic because it has elections even though there is only a single name for each post on each ballot) should be expelled.
Each nation should receive as many votes in the General Assembly should receive the integral number of votes equal to its number of citizens of voting age divided by 10 million. Countries that most people have never heard of except in a UN news release which have 50 to 100 thousand people will get zero votes but will be heard in the General Assembly.
The dues should be paid by those nations with at least one vote in the General Assembly. The budget will be prorated by the number of votes. Any nation which would be entitled to a huge number of votes (say China with about 1 billion people which would entitle China to 100 votes -- assuming China ever became eligible to join the United Democracies) in the General Assembly will have its number of votes reduced if it does not pay its dues on a basis pro-rated to what it pays in dues. If the US pays its dues, it will receive its 28 votes. If China only pays 10% of dues, it will receive 10 votes.
The only nations which will be represented on the General Assembly will be those nations which pledge to enforce United Democracies Security Council rulings with military force. No nation without a military of at least 50,000 will be eligible for a seat on the Security Council. No nation which does not pay its full dues will be allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council. The number of votes each member of the Security Council will have will be determined by the cost of supporting the number of troops that nation has committed to operations supported by the United Democracies Security Council in the past 10 years. For example, if the United Kingdom is bearing 25% of the cost of existing United Democracies peace establishing and peacekeeping missions in the past 10 years (or since the inception of the organization when each nation would have one vote), the United Kingdom would receive 25% of the votes. That is, we should not allow some piss-ant nation like Mozambique to determine on an equal footing with the US and UK where US and UK troops should or should not be used. The initial membership of the United Democracies Security Council should be the US, the UK, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Japan as those nations have shouldered much of the burden of enforcing the UN Security Council's resolutions and have demonstrated a desire to export democratic ideals and to oppose totalitarianism in recent times.
If we were to try to realign the UN to give vetos to the countries that truely deserve them (such as China and India) there is a good chance the rest of the world would vote us off the Security Council.
Several conservative pundits have suggested that France doesn't deserve a veto, but China does. The only way to rectify that would be with some sort of vote, in which case there's a chance we could be removed as well. We are not popular at the UN, and France is.
No, the only way to rectify it would be for France to agree to give up its veto. There's no way to do an end-run around a country's veto power.
By the way, China does have veto power.
Bush and his Father are both "new world order" zealots. Who would they get to dictate to the world if the UN was scrapped?
This President only became a "new world order zealot" when the terrorists forced his hand. He ran on an anti-nation-building platform, but he had no choice but to seek regime change in Afganistan, Iraq and soon elsewhere.
Bush loves the UN.
Did it stop him from disobeying a direct order from them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.