Gatekeeper
Senior Member
I don't like the UN, it's a Useless organization,unless your a member of their 'club'.
A Miasmia of Corruption: The United Nations at 50
who likes the u.n.
- Thread starter washamericom
- Start date
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,023
- 220,960
- 3,615
The UN is weak and innefectual because the US would not have joined otherwise. We were not willing to subjugate ourselves to an all powerful international body. Therefore, when a nation acts beligerantly (Iraq, N Korea, Iran) the UN does not have the military power to force compliance.
For that, they have to rely on the worlds economic and military superpower to step in.
Does that mean the UN is useless.....No.....It means they have the limited international enforcement powers we intended them to have
Last edited:
The best way to deal with a nation gone mad is to let it collapse under its own weight.
Meanwhile, keeping its government at bay is the best response to its provocations.
Sucks, I'll admit, but that is the best solution.
S Korea definitely seems to understand that.
Meanwhile our good friend and close trade partner, China, keeps propping up NK.
Meanwhile, keeping its government at bay is the best response to its provocations.
Sucks, I'll admit, but that is the best solution.
S Korea definitely seems to understand that.
Meanwhile our good friend and close trade partner, China, keeps propping up NK.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,023
- 220,960
- 3,615
Good point
N Korea is more of a nuisance than a threat. They have collapsed economically and are no longer capable of sustaining a war without outside help. S Korea understands they do not have to go to war to win this war
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Yeah those pesky nukes are no "threat" at all.
LOL
You people are so dense. A country that has economically collapsed and has Nukes. IS DEFINITELY a threat.
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
It was the US with UN backing, gained only because at the time the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN. Learn and understand a little history.
daveman
Diamond Member
History conflicts with leftism. Can't have that.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,023
- 220,960
- 3,615
They have nukes but are afraid to use them offensively. They know if they were to fire a first strike attack they would be obliterated in response. Their nukes are for defensive purposes...."if you attack us we will use our nukes as a last resort"
S Korea knows and your map of the electrical power grid shows that N Korea is collapsing under its own economic futility. If left to their own devices, they will collapse much like the USSR did
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,023
- 220,960
- 3,615
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 T
George S. Patton Party
They have nukes but are afraid to use them offensively. They know if they were to fire a first strike attack they would be obliterated in response. Their nukes are for defensive purposes...."if you attack us we will use our nukes as a last resort"
S Korea knows and your map of the electrical power grid shows that N Korea is collapsing under its own economic futility. If left to their own devices, they will collapse much like the USSR did
That is until that pajama-clad moron that runs the show throws a fit and coerces others to give him money under threat of launches as he has in the past?
Ummm-hmmmm...Riiiiight.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,023
- 220,960
- 3,615
Yep.
They have nukes but are afraid to use them offensively. They know if they were to fire a first strike attack they would be obliterated in response. Their nukes are for defensive purposes...."if you attack us we will use our nukes as a last resort"
S Korea knows and your map of the electrical power grid shows that N Korea is collapsing under its own economic futility. If left to their own devices, they will collapse much like the USSR did
That is until that pajama-clad moron that runs the show throws a fit and coerces others to give him money under threat of launches as he has in the past?
Ummm-hmmmm...Riiiiight.
Really?
Do you realize how much money is required to fix that fucked up country?
Epsilon Delta
Jedi Master
- The UN is weak and has little power because its made up of states, and states do not want it to infringe on their sovereignty and so cede very little territory to it. This is why it is an INTERNATIONAL organization, not a SUPRANATIONAL one.
- I don't get the heat about an anti-US bias in the UN. The UN was formed by the US. The US has veto power. Anything the UN does is at the very least implicitly accepted by the United States. A lot of funding is from the US. Much of its staff is from the US. It is in the US. Up until the 70's it was more or less a rubber stamp for American power projection (except for those pesky Russian vetoes) until poor decolonized countries started outnumbering the US-led West. If the US decides to do something that the UN doesn't agree with it... Well, it does so anyway (as do the rest of the P5 members) and it's not like the UN can do a thing about it. The only anti-US things that occur are from General Assembly resolutions with are non-binding and don't mean virtually anything. It's as though you people expect the US position to be worshiped and accepted by everybody in the Universe as god-given instructions. Part of proper functioning in any community (i.e. the world) is accepting that people aren't going to agree with you all the time.
- Speaking of the GA, I find it amusing that many here do a lot of posturing indignation about those "evil dictators" at the UN, considering that through most of its history, half of those dictators were American puppets regimes, funded, supported, and backed by American diplomacy and dollars.
- The Entire UN budget is remarkably tiny. The UN itself counts with less than $2 billion dollars operating budget. This is less than the Tokyo fire department. And the ENTIRE UN system, all the agencies, all humanitarian aid, all peacekeeping forces, everything, runs about $15 billion, which is close to the NYC Board of Education's budget. Not to mention that, yeah, the US provides most funding because its so huge, but every member state has to contribute, and many contribute more in relation to GDP (i.e. Japan and Germany, the second and third largest contributors).
- A number of UN specialized agencies have been absolutely crucial in post-war reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and refugee care over the past 50 years. The WHO, WFP, and UNICEF have been some of the most successful organizations in their fields, ever, and have helped countless of millions of people both directly through their services, and indirectly through the generation of expertise and knowledge.
Yet, in spite of ALL this, I agree many that the UN is corrupt and ineffective. That's why the UN needs reform, desperately. It needs much more accountability, it needs transparency, it needs structural reform. The GA needs to be made relevant, and the Security Council updated to reflect the realities of a changing world. The Economic and Social Council is a joke, and it is necessary to make it a serious player if duplication is to be avoided among the many agencies. In short, there's a lot to be done and its not perfect (nor is it every going to be), but it can be better. But if its a thorn on your side you better get used to it, cuz it's not going anywhere.
- I don't get the heat about an anti-US bias in the UN. The UN was formed by the US. The US has veto power. Anything the UN does is at the very least implicitly accepted by the United States. A lot of funding is from the US. Much of its staff is from the US. It is in the US. Up until the 70's it was more or less a rubber stamp for American power projection (except for those pesky Russian vetoes) until poor decolonized countries started outnumbering the US-led West. If the US decides to do something that the UN doesn't agree with it... Well, it does so anyway (as do the rest of the P5 members) and it's not like the UN can do a thing about it. The only anti-US things that occur are from General Assembly resolutions with are non-binding and don't mean virtually anything. It's as though you people expect the US position to be worshiped and accepted by everybody in the Universe as god-given instructions. Part of proper functioning in any community (i.e. the world) is accepting that people aren't going to agree with you all the time.
- Speaking of the GA, I find it amusing that many here do a lot of posturing indignation about those "evil dictators" at the UN, considering that through most of its history, half of those dictators were American puppets regimes, funded, supported, and backed by American diplomacy and dollars.
- The Entire UN budget is remarkably tiny. The UN itself counts with less than $2 billion dollars operating budget. This is less than the Tokyo fire department. And the ENTIRE UN system, all the agencies, all humanitarian aid, all peacekeeping forces, everything, runs about $15 billion, which is close to the NYC Board of Education's budget. Not to mention that, yeah, the US provides most funding because its so huge, but every member state has to contribute, and many contribute more in relation to GDP (i.e. Japan and Germany, the second and third largest contributors).
- A number of UN specialized agencies have been absolutely crucial in post-war reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and refugee care over the past 50 years. The WHO, WFP, and UNICEF have been some of the most successful organizations in their fields, ever, and have helped countless of millions of people both directly through their services, and indirectly through the generation of expertise and knowledge.
Yet, in spite of ALL this, I agree many that the UN is corrupt and ineffective. That's why the UN needs reform, desperately. It needs much more accountability, it needs transparency, it needs structural reform. The GA needs to be made relevant, and the Security Council updated to reflect the realities of a changing world. The Economic and Social Council is a joke, and it is necessary to make it a serious player if duplication is to be avoided among the many agencies. In short, there's a lot to be done and its not perfect (nor is it every going to be), but it can be better. But if its a thorn on your side you better get used to it, cuz it's not going anywhere.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
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.
Last edited:
Epsilon Delta
Jedi Master
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?
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,023
- 220,960
- 3,615
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
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Nope but they sure could be of use on the black market to say fund your revolution
Plus dont put it past old Kim to Fire one off as he is being over run by mobs of the angry people. He is after all an irrational person. They do not think about consequences in the same way we do. Besides he might think he has a chance to get away with one. Fry Tokyo or something, and the west decides not to respond because he has been over thrown. lolyou never know.
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
But yet he has enough funds for his Military endeavours, while his people starve?
And he won't bat an eye of using his military unless the rest of the world gives in...He has done it before.
And what of that South Korean ship his forces sunk?
The mans need to be deposed by his own people a-la Louis XIV/Matrie Antoinette.
Last edited:
Epsilon Delta
Jedi Master
Pessimistic prospects for either case. South Korea is not going to invade North Korea. Even this boat incident, the people in SK just don't want to hear about it or look into it. It might be surprising to the American mindset, but they just don't think it's worth it going to war over it. And SK even by itself could kick the North's ass straight up. But it'd still be a brutal, brutal fighting and would likely cost a 100,000 South Koreans or more (and the possible nuke attack?). I'm pretty sure everyone in SK is hoping for the second scenario. Most of all, the South is smart - it knows that an invasion would empower the regime more than anything. It would justify what the leadership has been saying for 50 years; it would finally be their time in the sun to tell the millions of brainwashed masses "the moment has come, the imperialists are invading." Much better to sit back and watch it fall apart by itself.
The second scenario is likely but it will take time, with the possibility that it just won't happen. How the North Korean people have not rebelled despite the total failure of the government and its brutal repression is a testament to how good those two fuckers have been at the Indoctrination Game. It nevertheless has been going very badly lately, and the transfer of power is going to depend on the Heir. Will he be a dunce? Or some kind of conniving political intrigue machine? Nobody knows (I lean to the former). This latest move of devaluing the currency pretty much wiped out the life savings of millions of North Koreans and many people are starting to get pretty fed up. Unless the heir is some kind of genius, it's likely the house is gonna fall apart. But it will likely have to wait until Kim Jong-Il dies, and unless there's some sort of coup or something.
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.
Last edited:
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
I highly doubt they will do that. Ideologues tend to not be all that rational. In a country ruled by fear for Decades it would be all to easy for the next power mad asshole to take over and scare the people enough to shut the fuck up again.
As far as the nukes, and people thinking they would not use them in a civil war, or would never use them for fear of a response.
Ask yourself this simple question. If Hitler had had some nukes at the end. Would he really have killed himself before using every last damn one of them, even on Germany itself? Personally I think he would have.
Last edited:
