Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Necronomicon; You Dirty Rats; GoldwaterChick
The other thing is that like it or not, the UN isn't an extension of the US administration. Instead, it represents almost all nations on the planet. Therefore, the US voice is diluted in the middle of the diverging interests of everyone else.

Then shouldn't your first question be whether our interests are truly aligned with those of other members states? Such as Iran, China, Syria, North Korea, Sudan.... Otherwise, we'll find ourself financing the dissemination of views that are diametrically opposed to our own.

If you bash UN's stances, you are simply bashing the lowest common consensus attainable among all nations together.

By Jove, I think you've got it! The biggest problem with the U.N. is that the "lowest common consensus attainable" is completely worthless in most cases. The U.N. contains countries that actively support terrorism, slavery, child abuse, genocide, etc. Accomplishing anything meaningful with that group of degenerates is almost impossible because, as you note, the U.N. acts on the "lowest common consensus available."

The result is an organization without the ability to act effectively. All it has to offer is whatever money it can scam up, as well as a soapbox for whatever misfits happen to be running various dysfunctional states. Because it is structually incapable of doing anything that smacks of controversy -- which necessarily means addressing problems of significance, it necessarily lapses into corruption and uneffectualism. There's nothing else it really can do.

Also, precisely because it is a "lowest common denominator" organization, many of its positions are filled based on national quotas and political deals. Not competency. And given that there are a great many nations completely incapable of running their internal affairs competently, we get the same level of incompetence infecting much of the U.N.. Nobody is saying we should go it alone. But the choice isn't either "the U.N." or "go it alone". A much better option is multilateral engagements that bring together countries that share our same basic values. Certainly, if there's enough of a consensus for the U.N. to act, you long ago had enough consensus for constructive multilateral action.

80 posted on 06/09/2006 9:12:14 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: XJarhead
Also, precisely because it is a "lowest common denominator" organization, many of its positions are filled based on national quotas and political deals. Not competency. And given that there are a great many nations completely incapable of running their internal affairs competently, we get the same level of incompetence infecting much of the U.N.. Nobody is saying we should go it alone. But the choice isn't either "the U.N." or "go it alone". A much better option is multilateral engagements that bring together countries that share our same basic values. Certainly, if there's enough of a consensus for the U.N. to act, you long ago had enough consensus for constructive multilateral action.

I was trying to convince Necro of the eternal principles that foster Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These are the things for which we should be seeking in arriving at consensus. Anything less than these (China, North Korea, Iran, et al) would establish an "entangling [political] alliances" with virtual enemies. The last I knew, that was called treason. Notwithstanding, I believe even trade with such nations will prove to be a big mistake in time.

I applaud and even salute your highly persuasive and reasonable response Sir.

Arrowhead>>>-------> X Grunt & Cannoncocker

92 posted on 06/09/2006 10:52:00 AM PDT by Arrowhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson