Kick the UN out!

[Jebus]

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/?Page=Petition

lease, “sign” the petition below. We will be collecting as many electronic signatures as possible during the next several weeks. We will then print out the signed petitions and deliver hard copies to all of the individuals identified in the “To:” field.
To: U.S. President George W. Bush
Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist
Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid
Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert
House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay
House Majority Whip, Roy Blunt
House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi
House Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer
UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan
H.E. Mr. Jean Ping, President, UN General Assembly

During the past several years, the threat facing the United States of America and much of the world from violent terrorist organizations has grown exponentially. While the United Nations is chartered to promote peace, it’s actions recently have made it an accessory to terrorist crimes.

This calls for straightforward action by the people of the United States to protect our national interest. Americans must demand our government remove the United Nations from our borders and cease serving as the major financial supporter of an organization that has veered from its original purpose.

The United Nations was originally founded according to its charter “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security.” However, it has become apparent that leading voices in the United Nations have positioned the organization so that it is increasingly a body that sides with those who find the use of terrorism against unarmed and innocent civilians tolerable.

Instead of serving as a rallying point for free nations and free people to unite to combat terrorism, the United Nations has become a safe harbor, apologist and defender of terrorist organizations and their agents.

Recently it has become clear that none other than the UN General Secretary himself, Kofi Annan, has been implicated in covering up the troubling “Oil for Food” scandal, and stonewalling investigators. The so-called “independent audit” of the alleged misdeeds of the UN’s “Oil for Food” program is looking more and more like a whitewash.

Why? Evidence suggests that Mr. Annan and his son, Kojo, may themselves have been involved in wrongdoing in partnership with Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. High-ranking officials throughout the UN are now suspected of financially benefiting from maintaining Saddam Hussein in power, despite his despotic rule and ties to worldwide terrorism and refusal to accept UN resolutions.

Saddam Hussein served as one of the greatest advocates for international terrorism, yet the United Nations is wrought with individuals who became the greatest obstacles for putting an end to his promotion of international terror.

In the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Kofi Annan has added insult to injury by calling the military operation enforcing UN resolutions “illegal.” This is despite a series of resolutions, including Resolution 1441, which stated, “the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”

That resolution included a dissenting opinion by three nations. Those nations were France, Russia and China. Evidence has now emerged which implicates those same three nations as being the most actively involved in the UN-Iraq “Oil for Food” corruption scandal.

Money from the “Oil for Food” scheme not only went to pay the families of Palestinian terrorists, and journalists and officials in countries opposing the Iraqi action, but it looks like it also went to purchase the weapons that so called “insurgents” are now using in Iraq to kill coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, and innocent Iraqi civilians.

No longer should the United States of America serve as the host to an institution that serves as a forum for opposition to our national interests. Further, the United States should reexamine the extent of its financial support of such an agency.

The U.S. pays a membership fee to the United Nations of $360 million per year (and billions more in payments to other UN organizations). These are payments made to an organization that is serving as an obstacle in the war against terrorism. That makes no sense, and we must take action to reduce or cancel payment of these fees. [Currently the U.S. pays approximately 22% of the UN’s general budget and 27% of peacekeeping budgets.]

We, the undersigned, do therefore call for the following to take place immediately:

1. Removal of the United Nations Headquarters facilities from New York, relocating it outside of the United States and any of its territories.
2. A thorough review of the US financial contributions to the UN with a goal of a more equitable payment schedule. Until that review is concluded, eliminate all the payments made by the United States to the United Nations.

Hurray.

I was trying to check for myself how many people fell for this blatant neocon propaganda, but unfortunately the only way to see the results of this petition would probably be to vote first. Which I do not plan to do.

So, if any of you would actually sink to signing this petition, let me know how it's going. It's been a while since I had a good laugh.

 

[John Uskglass]

The Neocon movement is all for the UN, actually. It's founder, Woodrow Wilson, is essentially the great granddady of Neocon ideology, and they very honestly want a world of international cooperation and equality.

Get your head out of Michael Moore's most massive behind. I'm not a fan of the Neocon movement, but your statment above is as absurd and ignorant as the unhinged rant quoted in your post..

 

[welsh]

Amazing that Woodrow Wilson can be the founder of Wilsonial Liberalism and the Neocon movement at the same time.

That said the UN has been fairly unpopular in the US for quite a while. Could the UN be more complicit in these shady dealings at the UN- it's possible.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wilsonian Liberalism IS Neoconservativism. Neocons are Wil-Libs who became Republicans in the '70s in the aftermath of the Democratic party going apeshit during Vietnam, and giving up one cool fucking president in the from of LBJ.

The UN should be completley overhauled. It does alot of good, but it's become totally, utterly corrupt to it's core.

 

[Malky]

There's a difference between the League of Nations and the UN, Craprunner.

 

[John Uskglass]

There's a difference between the League of Nations and the UN, Craprunner.

Yeah, the UN has been corrupt and meaningless alot longer.

 

[PsychoSniper]

There's a difference between the League of Nations and the UN, Craprunner.

Yeah, the UN has been corrupt and meaningless alot longer.

 

[welsh]

There's a difference between the League of Nations and the UN, Craprunner.

Yeah, the UN has been corrupt and meaningless alot longer.

http://www.nopulse.org/files/image/Ownd.jpg

Thou shalt not spam meaninglessly on GD. Consider this a cautionary note. Next time it's a warning.

Ok, CCR- now explain that a bit for the rest of us.

If you read Kissinger's Diplomacy, he makes the argument that every administration and theory of IR traces itself back to Wilsonianism. I would think that the neo-cons are a bit more like Teddy Roosevelt than Wilson.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

UN sucks. It completely, utterly sucks. But throw UN out of USA? No, no. UN has to be completely reorganized and overhauled, particularly the Security Council. Corruption needs to be routed and measures must be taken to make UN more effective and authoritative. But completely abolishing it might not be such a good idea - this world needs an influential international assembly where leaders can work out solutions for (plentiful) world issues.

Currently, UN is a bottomless sack for funds, a bloated bureacratic machine that serves no-one but itself. It needs to be either reformed or replaced. First, albeit small step should be dealing with the Oil-For-Food scandal decisively. All officials involved in it need to be severely punished, and Kofi Annan must either resign or be removed. Next step is instituting powerful and objective control mechanisms within the organization itself that will ensure such scandals don't happen in the future. Furthermore, a complete reform and restructuring of the organization must occur. Security Council should either be completely abolished, or reorganized in such manner that five world powers no longer have veto rights. Since it is obvious that rivarly between these countries will only increase in upcoming years, such reform would be beneficial for UN's efficiency. Some power of the Security Council should be transfered onto the General Assembly. UN resolutions should be more binding for all of its members, and if a country fails to obey them, responses should be much more swift and severe. Heavy sanctions must ensue immediately when a nation fails to fulfill its obligations, and if said nation is particularly stubborn, UN needs to have a viable option of deploying armed troops within a reasonable time frame. Troops should be more than simple peacekeepers that parade in their uniforms after the damage has already been done - they need to be powerful and swift intervention forces that can respond quickly to a genocide or an armed invasion. To accomplish that, it's not enough to simply expand UN authority, but proper field reorganization is in order as well - UN needs to have a standing army, consisting of contigents from all over the world and capable of intervening anywhere on the globe, as soon as the commanding structures deem it necessary.

All this can never be accomplished without US. If United States leave UN, the organization will completely fall apart. The only remaining international forum with reasonable influence will be the G7, and I don't like the idea of living in a world where what little direction and coordination exists in international policies is entirely governed by corporate interests of several major powers.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

All this can never be accomplished without US. If United States leave UN, the organization will completely fall apart...

Leading to a Wasteland Universe idea of bickering nation-states.

Seriously though. The UN is completely corrupt in many of its dealing, but for just simply being a place that international leades can convene in relative safety to negotiate I think its well worth the price.

I also think that those who want to blame the UN for terrorism just from the corrupt "oil-for-food" program need to realise that every major institution has its mis-dealings now and then. I mean if one example is enough to call an organisation terror-supporting than the US government is just as guilty as are right-wingers. (remember the Oklahoma city bombing? They were very right-wing...I mean not mainstream, but still)

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[st0lve]

I think they just got to remove USA's veto from UN, since they just say "no" when people are trying to find a way to peace in the middle east.
Because they do not want to loose a single vote from a jewish voter.

 

[Briosafreak]

Wilsonian Liberalism IS Neoconservativism.

The term Right Wing Wilsonians is indeed used to name the neo-cons, and it`s actually more correct than Neo-Conservatives, they are everything but conservatives, they want to do a revolution in IR, to destroy the principles of Realism and to say that the notion of Order from the International Society schools of thought doesn`t matter. They are wrong of course, but that´s another discussion.

Having said that they have their own interpretation of the liberalism and cosmopolitanism from Wilson at the time of the end of the Great War, and they are driven by completely diferent motivations, let`s get that clear. Their blind idealism is intended to defend the State of Israel and to destroy any obstacle to the american interests and supremacy in the world, wich they take are the interests of Halliburton and a few other companies, or anyone interested tin acting as a good poppy, supported in complete ignorance about history, anthropology, sociology and religion, and some weak basis in Political Science, while Wilson was instead really obsessed with peace and democracy, not with war and some weak forms of democracy, with an unfortunate hipervalorization of public opinion as a driving force of I.R., the same public opinion right wing Wilsonian don´t care at all.

Wilson was Interventionalist like the neo-cons, but he dreamed of a multilateral world, let`s not forget he created the concept of the League of Nations and forced it against the many doubts of the french and others at the time, while the neo-cons HATE the UN, they only like Likhud or Republican governements anyway.

And before you try to say the oposite again Constipated, just go this place you probably know so well and tell me they remotely like the UN. That`s so false i couldn`t believe you even wrote that, please remember what their objectives are, in their own words:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

America is the only thing they say they are interested (actually i guess Israel is probably an even bigger priority to a few of them), multilateral organizations are just in the way.

The UN should be completley overhauled. It does alot of good, but it's become totally, utterly corrupt to it's core.

Not totally, and the corruption on the UN isn`t all that diferent from what happens in the American administration, with Halliburton and Carlyle, but still i can agree with this. The thing that made me laugh was a sentence on that petition:

While the United Nations is chartered to promote peace, it’s actions recently have made it an accessory to terrorist crimes.

Seriously, how ignorant can someone be? I`m really amazed, since the three successes the US had against Al-Qaeda terrorism were:

-Some success disrupting their action in Afghanistan, an action carried out by the US armed forces and a few of their allies with a solution given inside the UN for the legitimacy of the military action. to the international eyes.
-Success in capturing Al qaeda operatives and leaders, a success that came in first place from bilateral and multilateral actions taken with the cooperation of the Pakistani, Egiptian and Iemenite governements, and a bit (just a bit...) of the Saudis, so multilateral actions do work, and the UN still has the best frame to allow such cooperation in many other issues;
- But mainly because the third success , the way the financial flows of Al-Qaeda were disrupted, was in great part achieved with help of the UN, that had the means to make an international embargo and to monitor finacial flows of money worldwide, and always helped the US in their efforts.

A few instruments of the UN against terrorism
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1373/
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism.html

It had a Comitee run by a British to make reports about the financing of Al Qaeda that was quite outspoken regarding the many errors that have been made in the last years, wich lead the Americans to team up with the Russians to end it and put a politically correct group doing that mission instead.

More about UN and terrorism

 

[PsychoSniper]

I think they just got to remove USA's veto from UN, since they just say "no" when people are trying to find a way to peace in the middle east.
Because they do not want to loose a single vote from a jewish voter.

Um last I checked Isreal wasnt the problem for middle east peace. They simply want to coexist in the region. Theyve made peace with quite a few nations (Egypt, Jordan.....) though admitidly, that peace did come after a war, but those nations started said war. The true inpediment to peace in the middle east is the palastinens. They need to stop celebrating suicide bombrs as heros and start treating the terror groups as the reason that they live in abject poverty now. The palastenins used to get quite a few jobs working in Isreal before the current intafada (suported by the fianly dead arafat and the palastinein Govt) started, causing Isreal to have to keep all possible palestinens out of Isreal, because they didnt know who was going to blow him/herself up in the middle of a crowded place.

Ill let you in on a secret, in the form of a Golda Meir quote.
"The palastenins will have peace when they love their children more then they hate the Jew."
What does that mean ? When they stop celebrating suicide bombings, and deride them instead , then they will have peace, as well as a nation.


edit-typos and clarification

 

[Ashmo]

w00t!

Yeah, throw those nazi fascist commie jews out! Pillage their families, rape their cars, torch their pets and kill their homes! KILL THEM ALL!

:: calms down ::

Oh, right, we were talking about the UN. I suppose dissolving might be enough. Maybe reorganize it.

OT: What purpose does the NATO have now that the only threat to world peace is a bunch of tanned gun-fanatics with funny accents and the Islam-inspired terrorists? I thought it was meant to keep the commies out of Disneyland?

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

I think they just got to remove USA's veto from UN, since they just say "no" when people are trying to find a way to peace in the middle east.
Because they do not want to loose a single vote from a jewish voter.

There has not been peace in the Middle East for over 2000 years, I hardly think a resolution or two passed will change the fact of the situation.

I believe in the UN, but removing veto power from the US is absurd, given how much funding the US puts into the UN and the role it has played in many oft neglected programs others overlook in the quickness to condemn the country.

Obviously, all the US does is throw its weight around the world, overtake countries, commit hypocrisy, bully benign rulers and seek world domination. It never ever gives monetary aid to countries, make loans through the World Bank, contribute more to charity per citizen than any other country, send food to the starving, act in peacekeeping roles, or anything else. That would be SILLY....

 

[John Uskglass]

Wilson was Interventionalist like the neo-cons, but he dreamed of a multilateral world, let`s not forget he created the concept of the League of Nations and forced it against the many doubts of the french and others at the time, while the neo-cons HATE the UN, they only like Likhud or Republican governements anyway.

And before you try to say the oposite again Constipated, just go this place you probably know so well and tell me they remotely like the UN. That`s so false i couldn`t believe you even wrote that, please remember what their objectives are, in their own words:

That's not accurate. Their statment talks of America only, look at the articles

SUBJECT: Toward Regime Change in North Korea
Thailand Drops Democracy
Only Ground Troops Will End Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo Balkan Action Council, May 13, 1999

It's a thurougly internationalist movment, Brios, I have little/no idea how you can seriously beleive some fo this.

You seem to be confusing Kissinger-lovers with Neocons. Neocons are like Trotskyites without the funky, Erasurehead like hair, and socialist economic principals.

The core of neocon policy is that all people the right to shop at Walmart, and live long enough to shop for many years at Walmart, and that America is in the unique oppertunity to allow all people, all over the world, to democratic proccess, fundemental human rights and the ability to shop at Low, Low Prices at Walmart.

If the Neocons hate the UN, that is primarily because they are slow to react to genocide and it's ruled by Kissinger like people.

Christopher Hitchens is somewhat more eloquent then I am.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9847&highlight=christopher+hitchens

A few instruments of the UN against terrorism

I don't agree with this guy at all, he's an idot.

 

[Briosafreak]

You have to understand that if the rethoric in a few right wing wilsonians seems just like old cosmopolitanism in new clothes, their accent is a new american hegemony that is quite diferent from the benevolent one that was beeing defended in the Bush sr. years, or even in the Clinton years after the first two years. It`s more strictly militaristic adventurism with a messianic Teddy Roosevelt drive than a real concern about peace and democracy. They hate Realists in general, not only Kissinger, because Realism is Consequencialist, and they don`t like to accept their actions can have other results than the cibernetic hardpower imposes democracy that causes stability that they like so much.

They are a simplistic bunch in a complex post cold war world, that`s an explosive mix. I`ve been following them since 93, and with time you`ll find out that there`s much truth in the criticisms the neo-realists like Waltz do of them, or even in the irony Fukuyama sends towards them in the text he invented the Islamo-fascism expression you use a lot.

My main concern is that by removing probable consequences from the variables in stake, and go with blind faith in their moral views and capabilities instead, they go from small disasters to small disasters until interventionism becomes a foul word again for americans, and an isolacionist america isn`t of interest for americans and for the world.

Try to go beyond their rethoric a bit, see how Wolfowitz championed democracy in Indonesia, and then started to defend the military role in that democracy, or how he defended the indonesian paternalistic views on East Timor because his objective always was to find a new ally of Israel in the muslim world, or how Pearl is so closely conected with special interests that it`s impossible to give him any ideological credibility.

I do give them credit for beeing coherent many times, if oil prices and production was all it was in stake in Iraq then the americans should have intervened in Venezuela and Nigeria instead. But i don`t think they chose Iraq or Iran instead of those countries simply because of their love for democracy, but because they were/are the biggest enemies of Israel in the region... North Korea is one of their next targets, but given the fact they do have nukes and are really impredictable, with so many of their population dying of hunger, presenting a clearer danger to the region, the american interests and the world, shouldn`t they have been taken care before the Iraquis? Maybe it`s because they don´t present a threat to Israel...

The inicial core group came from the Bush father administration and not from the trotskysts or post liberal cosmopolitans that joined afterwards, and those are still the ones more important to follow in their actions and speeches.

Beware of the wolf that sings like a lovely bird, Constipated, it`s still a wolf...

 

[aegis]

UN, the guyz who helped kiddnap israeli troops, and deliever bombs on their ambulances.

now, revealed as aiders of tyrants and bad ass organizations...how about that?

or maybe that's not the point?

of course it isn't.

 

[Briosafreak]

UN, the guyz who helped kiddnap israeli troops, and deliever bombs on their ambulances.

now, revealed as aiders of tyrants and bad ass organizations...how about that?

or maybe that's not the point?

of course it isn't.

You know that Israel already apologised for saying the UN ambulances were carrying bombs and all of that? Maybe you should keep up with the news before posting sarcastic remarks?

 

[Paladin Solo]

I think they just got to remove USA's veto from UN, since they just say "no" when people are trying to find a way to peace in the middle east.
Because they do not want to loose a single vote from a jewish voter.

Riiight...another example of a complete moron.

Link or STFU. Everytime you say?

Hmm...me thinks back to the numerous resolutions to restrict Saddam Hussein's arsenal (including and excluding WMDs) and his government that never took to any effect other than United Nations weapons inspectors being denied to do their jobs. Also, do you think that the violence will simply stop because a bunch of politicians voted for it too? I wish I lived in your world of simplicity.

Anyhow, personally, I do not have an issue with the UN. I'm not as well educated on the UN as some of you here are, so I'll just say "meh, let them bicker." And I'm not saying they're useless, I appreciate them at times as well. I'm more neutral on the UN, contrary to what I may have been before.