who likes the u.n.

[The T]

No question they are a wild card. But what would happen once N Korea starts to economically implode?
Will S Korea seize the opportunity and invade?

Or will the N Korean population revolt and throw the country into a power struggle?

Those nukes are of no use against an internal revolution

If I were the North Korean leadership, once Jong-Il dies, I'd cut my losses, open the country and flee to China. And pray.

I highly doubt they will do that. Ideologues tend to not be all that rational.

Just as when Castro finally kicks the proverbial bucket? His bro RAOUL...will keep the grip.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I highly doubt they will do that.

Hence why I said "IF I WERE..." That part of my post was an afterthought more than anything.

The Crux of the matter is that nobody's going to invade. SK does not want invasion. The US is not gonna put the troops for it (especially with SK not wanting war). Nobody's going to put the troops for it. And without doing anything about it, what do people expect the UN to do? Yeah, so their statement was ball-less. But remember the Secretary General himself is South Korean; and even the SK government's not going berserk over it.

The only thing to do is wait for an internal leadership change and that might not even be great for North Koreans if it's just one of Kim's generals or leadership. A popular revolt against the regime still looks unlikely in the near future despite everything.

It's just a pain in the ass.

 

[The T]

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.

Honesty.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.

I agree with the part in bold. Though, again, what's described here seems more of the General Assembly, than the UN as a whole.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.

Honesty.

Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.

I agree with the part in bold. Though, again, what's described here seems more of the General Assembly, than the UN as a whole.

Nah, I'm thinking of the various subcommittees for ending left handed purple people starvation as well. The UN can shine a spotlight on a problem and bring it to the world's attention. But actually fixing the problem? Waaay overestimating their ability, which they do themselves.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I like the UN. But I think way too many people have higher expectations of what they are supposed to be, including the UN itself.

It's an international debating society, with the only outcome possible in the debates is a consensus or majority consensus among member nations. Thats it. In that regard, they play a valuable role in providing a central, recognized location and form for nations to air their grievances, and to sway other nations to their point of view. Anything more than that? They are pretty useless.

Honesty.

Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.

Believe it or not, many do...

Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2005
Assessment rates/amount
Country (per cent) ($millions)
United States 22.00 362.7
Japan 19.47 279.6
Germany 8.66 124.4
United Kingdom 6.13 88.0
France 6.03 86.6
Italy 4.89 70.2
Canada 2.81 40.4
Spain 2.52 36.2
China 2.05 29.5
Mexico 1.88 27.0

Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/index.asp?id=150

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Nah, I'm thinking of the various subcommittees for ending left handed purple people starvation as well. The UN can shine a spotlight on a problem and bring it to the world's attention. But actually fixing the problem? Waaay overestimating their ability, which they do themselves.

Well, I mean, it all very much depends. If you're talking about the things that happen at the ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) then you're absolutely right. But if you include the various specialized agencies, it's more of a mixed bag. There's of course the WHO, UNICEF on one hand the World Food Programme, but then you've got crap like UNESCO on the other. The important ones (the three I mentioned), though, have done a world of good.

(Ahaha... get it? OASIdhAPOsdiHAdspoAIdshAPSoiAD)

 

[RadiomanATL]

Honesty.

Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.

Believe it or not, many do...

Top 10 Member States in assessment for the UN regular budget, 2005
Assessment rates/amount
Country (per cent) ($millions)
United States 22.00 362.7
Japan 19.47 279.6
Germany 8.66 124.4
United Kingdom 6.13 88.0
France 6.03 86.6
Italy 4.89 70.2
Canada 2.81 40.4
Spain 2.52 36.2
China 2.05 29.5
Mexico 1.88 27.0

Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Index page- Image and Reality

Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.

Believe it or not, many do...



Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Index page- Image and Reality

Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.

Oh c'mon. The UN is basically on a platform on the East River. AOSIdhPSOaIDHpODsi. And why do you think the UN is in New York? It wasn't so that you could collect rent, it's so that the US could keep a close eye on it. Not only that, but New Yorkers don't mind it; its a good generator of jobs and consumer of services. It's pretty profitable for business to have hundreds if not thousands of well-paid people flying in and out. I'll try to find a study on it, there must be one somewhere.

Besides, Japan pays 19% of their budget and they're not even in the Security Council. Again, with only a third of the US population. A Swiss pays three times more than an American, they don't got a SC seat either.

Just saying, it's really not as expensive as one would think. Though I agree the Chinese contribution should definitely be going up in the near future. Though, again, the average Chinese has like 1/20th of the income of an average American.

 

[The T]

Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.

Believe it or not, many do...



Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Index page- Image and Reality

Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.

Yep. And since they hold alot of our debt...and besides have ganged up on us with Russia>?

-Go Figure-

 

[RadiomanATL]

Believe it or not, many do...



Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.



Index page- Image and Reality

Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.

Oh c'mon. The UN is basically on a platform on the East River. AOSIdhPSOaIDHpODsi. And why do you think the UN is in New York? It wasn't so that you could collect rent, it's so that the US could keep a close eye on it. Not only that, but New Yorkers don't mind it; its a good generator of jobs and consumer of services. It's pretty profitable for business to have hundreds if not thousands of well-paid people flying in and out. I'll try to find a study on it, there must be one somewhere.

Besides, Japan pays 19% of their budget and they're not even in the Security Council. Again, with only a third of the US population. A Swiss pays three times more than an American, they don't got a SC seat either.

Just saying, it's really not as expensive as one would think. Though I agree the Chinese contribution should definitely be going up in the near future. Though, again, the average Chinese has like 1/20th of the income of an average American.

I don't think Japan needs to be paying as much either. But paying 22% of their operating budget is not a very good ROI IMO.

 

[rightwinger]

Thanks.

But I still think that the role they play can be valuable. I do not agree with the "get the US out of the UN" camp.

I do think that since we're giving up a prime piece of NY real estate, other nations should cough up more financially for its upkeep than they actually do.

Believe it or not, many do...



Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.

Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005

Country ($amount)
Luxembourg 3.49
Switzerland 3.31
Japan 3.06
Liechtenstein 3.03
Norway 3.01
Denmark 2.69
Iceland 2.38
Qatar 2.14
Austria 2.13
Netherlands 2.10

Index page- Image and Reality

Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.

We insisted the UN be in New York

We have three times the GDP of Japan and over twice the population and yet pay only 3% more and they aren't even on the Security council

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I don't think Japan needs to be paying as much either. But paying 22% of their operating budget is not a very good ROI IMO.

Well, could be... But I like to pose it a different way :

Are four quarters and a nickel a year a good ROI, for you, in exchange for the whole if obviously imperfect international system?

You can't even buy a can of soda with that!

 

[RadiomanATL]

Believe it or not, many do...



Remember though, Japan's got roughly a third of the population of the US, and Germany roughly a quarter. France and the UK roughly a fifth each.



Index page- Image and Reality

Yeah, but we still pay for 22% of their budget, AND give them prime real estate. Which is way to much IMO.

China, a permanent member, contributes only a little over 2%? Bullshit I say. I would like to see where the 5 permanent members of the UNSC pay for between 5-10% each, and the rest of it the others need to start ponying up.

We insisted the UN be in New York

We have three times the GDP of Japan and over twice the population and yet pay only 3% more and aren't even on the Security council

I already agree that Japan pays too much as well.

 

[Charles_Main]

They do not have the nuclear arsenal to destroy S Korea. If they were to use them they would be attacked to the point they would cease to exist.
What do they gain by firing nukes? They lack the economic and military strength to follow up on a nuclear attack. Once you nuke, you have to be able to go in and take and hild the territory you have attacked. N Korea can't do that

The point is a collapsing Nation is unpredictable. A collapsing nation with Nukes might use them, or Sell them to the highest bidder. I can not believe you guys think there would be no danger if NK fell completely apart and the Government lost all control, from their nukes. wasn't it you guys that argued against invading Iraq partly by saying if they have MWD's they would be more likely to use them when they were faced with ceasing to exist as a government. hmmm

To funny.

What you say is absolutely true.

So what do you want to do about it? Will you vote for the guy who promises to invade North Korea in the next election?

Umm no. Once a nation has nukes a conventional Invasion is pretty much impossible. Containment is the best option now. That is why we need to stop other nations like Iran from joining the list of those we have to contain.

What we should do about NK if it begins to collapse. Well I never claimed to have that answer I was simply responding to people who are claiming NKs nukes are no threat cause the nation is imploding.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

The point is a collapsing Nation is unpredictable. A collapsing nation with Nukes might use them, or Sell them to the highest bidder. I can not believe you guys think there would be no danger if NK fell completely apart and the Government lost all control, from their nukes. wasn't it you guys that argued against invading Iraq partly by saying if they have MWD's they would be more likely to use them when they were faced with ceasing to exist as a government. hmmm

To funny.

What you say is absolutely true.

So what do you want to do about it? Will you vote for the guy who promises to invade North Korea in the next election?

Umm no. Once a nation has nukes a conventional Invasion is pretty much impossible. Containment is the best option now. That is why we need to stop other nations like Iran from joining the list of those we have to contain.

What we should do about NK if it begins to collapse. Well I never claimed to have that answer I was simply responding to people who are claiming NKs nukes are no threat cause the nation is imploding.

I can agree with that, and I understand. I don't think anybody has the answer. I was just sort of putting that out there. It doesn't mean that NOTHING can be done. But sometimes people get carried away when they start jumpin' up and down about North Korea, like oh Bush isn't doing enough or now Obama isn't doing enough or in this thread the UN can't do anything about North Korea so they're useless. I mean, neither of those is completely true. The fact of the matter is that there really isn't almost anything to do about North Korea. It's too fucked up. We're just going to have to hope that North Koreans wake up to this sooner rather than later.

It's up to the patient at this point.

EDIT: On a last note, the fall of the regime from the inside will probably be the only peaceful way to disarm North Korea. When the regime falls, almost any kind of government that emerges is going to de-nuclearize itself a la post-Apartheid South Africa (most likely).

 

[hipeter924]

Any organization is as corrupt or as foul as its members, considering most of its members are dictatorships like North Korea and China as well as religious theocracies like Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map it's not a surprise that the UN is the mess that is it is.

In my opinion the US or any democracy with some kind of moral decency would leave the UN to its mess and found a new organization where only democracies with some degree of support for human rights are allowed to enter, as the UN has been hijacked by the kinds of people in the left that support the destruction of free speech to help Islamic theocracies oppress their people better.

 

[daveman]

Any organization is as corrupt or as foul as its members, considering most of its members are dictatorships like North Korea and China as well as religious theocracies like Iran that want to wipe Israel off the map it's not a surprise that the UN is the mess that is it is.

In my opinion the US or any democracy with some kind of moral decency would leave the UN to its mess and found a new organization where only democracies with some degree of support for human rights are allowed to enter, as the UN has been hijacked by the kinds of people in the left that support the destruction of free speech to help Islamic theocracies oppress their people better.