As Long as the US is Crawling to the UN...

[Mr Manifesto]

...why doesn't it think about paying her debt to the UN? (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/info/usdebt.htm) According to this site, it's in the order of 1.2 billion. I thought it was more like $700 million, but what's half a bil here and there?

It shouldn't be too hard to get. Bush is asking Congress for 20 billion (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/international/middleeast/20DIPL.html?hp), so why not use some of that to pay off the UN debt?

I know Americans don't like to pay their taxes, but let's get real here- you can't expect the UN to help an not pay for it.

Or do you?

[Tmy]

How about we have the UN pay market rent for that snazzy manhattan building they use, the security they enjoy...etc.

Didnt Guliani float the idea of taking the building away from the UN and moving them somewhere else? I hear theres some space in Newark. After all when it comes to the UN its not about the perks and status, its about saving the planet.........right?

[Mr Manifesto]

How do you think the US will look if she moves the UN building to a slum (which I assume Newark is, but truth be told I don't know)? What if the UN decides to move its headquarters to Paris, or London? Don't you think that the US gets some prestige by having the UN headquartered in the US?

While I don't have the figures, I also assume the UN is paying rent in the US.

[Tmy]

Originally I think it was a staus thing. But now if they left Im sure the New Yorkers woudl be bglad to see them go. It would free up that prime real estate in Manhattan (which Im not sure they pay anything for) and the UN'ers are notorious for being pains in the ass. They have immunity so they dont pay parking tickets among other things. that 700 mill should cover their parking tab.

Newark is across the river from Manhattan. Its not as metropolitain as manhatten. If they did move them the UNers would kick n scream.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tmy
Newark is across the river from Manhattan. Its not as metropolitain as manhatten. If they did move them the UNers would kick n scream.

UN diplomats kicking and screaming? Nooooooo.

By the way, "Kicking and Screaming," the movie starring Eric Stoltz (among others) is great.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tmy
How about we have the UN pay market rent for that snazzy manhattan building they use, the security they enjoy...etc.

Didnt Guliani float the idea of taking the building away from the UN and moving them somewhere else? I hear theres some space in Newark. After all when it comes to the UN its not about the perks and status, its about saving the planet.........right?

I thought the US housed the UN voluntarily, in order to facilitate spying on other countries. Well worth any costs for high-quality information.

[Cain]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I thought the US housed the UN voluntarily, in order to facilitate spying on other countries. Well worth any costs for high-quality information.

Does anyone recall the article in the _Observer_ saying the US essentially had to spy on other members of the Security Council? The story never made its way to the _New York Times_,and appeared only briefly in the _LAT_ and _WaPo_.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain


Does anyone recall the article in the _Observer_ saying the US essentially had to spy on other members of the Security Council? The story never made its way to the _New York Times_,and appeared only briefly in the _LAT_ and _WaPo_.


I remember it.

[Tmy]

Spy!?!? Do you reallythink the stuffed shirt delegates at the UN are privy to any real information.

[Kodiak]

How about moving the UN building a couple hundred miles to the east?

[Tmy]

Kodiak,

I think the people of Nantucket would object to that plan.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Kodiak,

I think the people of Nantucket would object to that plan.

Let the Kennedy's and their ilk deal with them... :D

[Suddenly]

How 'bout West Virginia? Byrd's managed to move almost everything else here.

They can buy my house.

Here is a side view:
http://photos.flexmls.com//fbr/20031010141210254561000000.jpg

I'm sure they will enjoy senic Fayette County much more than dreary old Manhattan. Close to fishing and two quality whitewater rivers (New and Gauley).

[Mr Manifesto]

Bush still pleads for the UN to help them out of his mess (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3676232.stm)

He said the world had to tackle violence and oppression as there was no safety in looking away.

He urged the UN to "do more" to help build a safer, more prosperous Iraq.


Now, who said, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" before acting unilaterally on Iraq?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kodiak
How about moving the UN building a couple hundred miles to the east?

a couple of hundred yards east would put them in the middle of the east river.:D

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Now, who said, "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" before acting unilaterally on Iraq?

Nobody.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
...why doesn't it think about paying her debt to the UN? (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/info/usdebt.htm) According to this site, it's in the order of 1.2 billion. I thought it was more like $700 million, but what's half a bil here and there?

I think the US should, but then on the other hand, Ted Turner outright gave the UN a billion dollars a few years ago. I don't think that the UN is hurting because of association with the US.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ed
a couple of hundred yards east would put them in the middle of the east river.:D

*****, lets just demolish the building while the delegates are in session. That would be the best possible thing for world peace we could do.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by epepke
I think the US should, but then on the other hand, Ted Turner outright gave the UN a billion dollars a few years ago. I don't think that the UN is hurting because of association with the US.

Ah, but then photographs of the UN with Jane Fonda surfaced.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I know Americans don't like to pay their taxes, but let's get real here- you can't expect the UN to help an not pay for it.

Or do you?

Well, us Americans expect something for our tax dollars. You know, useful things like roads, schools, police....

What UN "help" do we Americans want or need from the UN?? Help in Iraq? Iraq is a world problem...not just a US problem. What we're doing in Iraq is the UN's job...as usual.

The UN is about as useless as tits on a doorknob. Unless of course you're a dictator in need of a smokescreen behind which to enrich yourself. Can you say "Oil for Food" Manifesto?? AKA the Al Qaeda relief fund.

The only aid we should give the UN is help moving their corrupt debating society to a host nation that actually wants them.

-z

[TragicMonkey]

The UN prefers to do nothing, until things get bad enough for the US to do something. Then the UN stops dithering and proceeds to tell the US what it did wrong, and why, and what it should have done, and how upset the US makes them, and how hurt their feelings are....

Hell, the UN sounds exactly like my mother.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Can you say "Oil for Food" Manifesto??
-z

I know I've heard much critizism and stuff about it, but does anyone have a link to a fairly serious site about the happenings in the program?

[epepke]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Ah, but then photographs of the UN with Jane Fonda surfaced.

A digression: Now that Ted Turner and Jane Fonda have split up, why aren't they showing Barbarella on Spike TV?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by daenku32
I know I've heard much critizism and stuff about it, but does anyone have a link to a fairly serious site about the happenings in the program?Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food) is often useful for things like this.

Although I can't guess in which direction the article is supposed to be slanted, the neutrality is apperently still in dispute. So it's a good idea to read some of the talk pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oil_for_food).

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What if the UN decides to move its headquarters to Paris, or London?

How much extra - over and above the $1.2 billion - would we have to pay to get this done?

Just let us know. I am willing to pass the hat around.

[UserGoogol]

Maybe the UN prefers to do nothing, but you have to realize that the UN has no real military of their own so there's only so much they can do. Of course, I imagine that if the UN developed a standing army, there would be complaints.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The UN prefers to do nothing, until things get bad enough for the US to do something. Then the UN stops dithering and proceeds to tell the US what it did wrong, and why, and what it should have done, and how upset the US makes them, and how hurt their feelings are....

Hell, the UN sounds exactly like my mother.


Somehow, a lot of people seem to think that the US are not part of the UN and thus not partly responsible for what the UN is doing or not doing.

How come?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food) is often useful for things like this.

Although I can't guess in which direction the article is supposed to be slanted, the neutrality is apperently still in dispute. So it's a good idea to read some of the talk pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oil_for_food).

Another site about 'Oil for food': http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

[Patrick]

I know Americans don't like to pay their taxes, but let's get real here- you can't expect the UN to help an not pay for it.

"Help"? Whaaatttttt???? When has the UN "helped" anything? A bunch of eurofarts, anti-americans, deadbeat bureaucrats, and dictator's and theocracy's representatives, who didn't have anything useful to do recently so they scammed the "Oil for Food" program. That the U.S. is even still a member of this dinosaur, the oldest continuous circus in the world, is an outrage.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Patrick
I know Americans don't like to pay their taxes, but let's get real here- you can't expect the UN to help an not pay for it.

"Help"? Whaaatttttt???? When has the UN "helped" anything? A bunch of eurofarts, anti-americans, deadbeat bureaucrats, and dictator's and theocracy's representatives, who didn't have anything useful to do recently so they scammed the "Oil for Food" program. That the U.S. is even still a member of this dinosaur, the oldest continuous circus in the world, is an outrage. I agree. It is embarrassing for the President of the United States to go begging to the UN to help him in Iraq.

They wanted nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. They clearly stated they would veto any vote on the matter.

When the US went in and sorted the situation out it was only right that they should be able to reward themselves with all the rebuilding contracts to the exclusion of all others. Even if they were slightly overpriced that is a cost that the American installed interim government are happy to pay.

To now try to involve the very people who were so against the liberation of the Iraqi people from fear and terrorism, is wrong. Bush should not be grovelling to the UN but should be showing how great America is by finishing off the remaining loose ends themselves.

After all, America has, for years, been derided for joining the last two world wars late and taking all the glory. Why should the UN be allowed to do the same ?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Patrick
"Help"? Whaaatttttt???? When has the UN "helped" anything? [/B]

The UN has saved millions of lives. Ever heard about UNICEF for example?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Lothian
They wanted nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. They clearly stated they would veto any vote on the matter. [/B]

Clearly wrong. Can pou back up that claim?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
How much extra - over and above the $1.2 billion - would we have to pay to get this done?

Just let us know. I am willing to pass the hat around.

Then stop yapping and start passing.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony
Nobody.

He should be a nobody, but thanks to equal opportunity employment gone horribly wrong, he's actually your president.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well, us Americans expect something for our tax dollars. You know, useful things like roads, schools, police....

What UN "help" do we Americans want or need from the UN?? Help in Iraq? Iraq is a world problem...not just a US problem. What we're doing in Iraq is the UN's job...as usual.

The UN is about as useless as tits on a doorknob. Unless of course you're a dictator in need of a smokescreen behind which to enrich yourself. Can you say "Oil for Food" Manifesto?? AKA the Al Qaeda relief fund.

The only aid we should give the UN is help moving their corrupt debating society to a host nation that actually wants them.

-z

Then... Why is your vaunted leader grovelling to them for help?

It's funny watching people trying to hold on to their dignity with egg on their face. Or perhaps since we're talking about the 'reformed' drunkard Bush, ***** is a more appropriate word.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Clearly wrong. Can pou back up that claim?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2835241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2838269.stm

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Lothian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2835241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2838269.stm

From the first article: It is the first time that Russia has explicitly warned that it will veto the resolution if it is presented to the UN Security Council in its present form.

From the second: French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.

So, how exactly to you come from the article to this conclusion: They wanted nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. They clearly stated they would veto any vote on the matter.

Bold emphasis by me.

And how are Russia and France representing the whole UN in that matter?

[Mr Manifesto]

Kofi Annan on the US going unilateral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2254288.stm)

Every government that is committed to the rule of law at home must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All states have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order.

On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.

Individual states may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and co-operation among all states, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.

On all these matters, for any one state - large or small - choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience.

Is Kofi Annan representative enough, armageddonman, or would you like a signed petition by more than 95% of UN delegates?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by armageddonman
From the first article:

From the second:

So, how exactly to you come from the article to this conclusion:

Bold emphasis by me.

And how are Russia and France representing the whole UN in that matter? The UN can not pass any motion if it veto’ed by a member state with the powers of veto. Therefore if a member with the power to veto a motion vetos it then the UN can not carry that motion. This does not stop constituent members from following that course of action but the UN can not.

So for a random example resolution S/1997/241 demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem. One nation voted against it so the UN did not demand an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem. However I am sure that many other nations did.

So I am happy to say the UN did not want to invade Iraq because it could not pass a motion to do so. I am also happy to say that many members of the UN would have voted for the invasion (which I think is your point) but the UN only acts in the whole and as a whole the UN did not support the invasion

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Lothian
So I am happy to say the UN did not want to invade Iraq because it could not pass a motion to do so. I am also happy to say that many members of the UN would have voted for the invasion (which I think is your point) but the UN only acts in the whole and as a whole the UN did not support the invasion

Russia and France are still not the UN, so saying that "they", meaning the UN, did something is simply wrong.

Also, claiming that the UN would have vetoed any resolution on Iraq is still not backed up by facts.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Kofi Annan on the US going unilateral (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2254288.stm)



Is Kofi Annan representative enough, armageddonman, or would you like a signed petition by more than 95% of UN delegates?

I'm not quite sure what you are refering to.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Russia and France are still not the UN, so saying that "they", meaning the UN, did something is simply wrong.

Also, claiming that the UN would have vetoed any resolution on Iraq is still not backed up by facts.
If you want to play with semantics that is fine.

Yes I see how ‘any’ is confusing. The UN could have passed a motion to send yellow umbrellas to Iraq.

I know the UN is not France and Russia but the UN can not act without them.

There are two choices with the UN they support something or they don’t. There is no part measures.

If someone with a veto does not support a resolution then the UN does not support the motion.

It is very like your Senate which passes motions. If the rules say that the motion is failed then it is failed even though many senators support the motion. You say that the Senate did not support the bill. That is all I am saying. Your response is equivalent to saying that the senators who voted against the bill are not the Senate is missing the point.

So to go back to my original point. The UN would not have passed a motion to invade Iraq.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Lothian

If someone with a veto does not support a resolution then the UN does not support the motion.


So by your logic the UN both is in favour and disfavour of Israel (for example).

This has nothing to do with semantics. If all of the UN agress with someone but one veto-power does not, than that does not mean that the UN as whole does not agree. It simply means that a veto-power disagreed.

And in the case of Iraq, it is still untrue to claims that Russia/France or whomever stated that they would block any resolution concerning Iraq, in fact, this is a balant lie.

So could you please be a little more precise before you make general allegations?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by armageddonman
So by your logic the UN both is in favour and disfavour of Israel (for example).

This has nothing to do with semantics. If all of the UN agress with someone but one veto-power does not, than that does not mean that the UN as whole does not agree. It simply means that a veto-power disagreed.

And in the case of Iraq, it is still untrue to claims that Russia/France or whomever stated that they would block any resolution concerning Iraq, in fact, this is a balant lie.

So could you please be a little more precise before you make general allegations? I am unaware of the possibility of motions for or against a county in general, however to repeat my old example the UN did not demand an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem.

I have conceded the '‘any’ point, but I do not accept it is a lie to say that the UN would not have passed a new motion supporting the invasion of Iraq. Rather than merely calling me a blatent liar I would appreciate evidence that such a motion would have been passed.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Then stop yapping and start passing.

I don't know about Paris. I have talked to a friend in Toulouse who states that he can find an apartment that the UN can rent out until they find something bigger. I have mailed the address and a check for $6.50 to UN headquarters and have asked people at work to start dpreading the word.

Can the UN be out by the end of the month?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
He should be a nobody, but thanks to equal opportunity employment gone horribly wrong, he's actually your president.

"My" president didn't attack anyone unilaterally. Last time I checked, it wasn't just the US who attacked Iraq, many other countries took part in the attack and rebuilding.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Tony
"My" president didn't attack anyone unilaterally. Last time I checked, it wasn't just the US who attacked Iraq, many other countries took part in the attack and rebuilding. I agree that other countires took part in the attack but am not sure about the rebuilding.

I understand that all contracts for rebuilding had to be awarded to American companies. UK companies while funding (through taxes) the war effort were not allowed to bid for rebuilding contracts.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Lothian
I agree that other countires took part in the attack but am not sure about the rebuilding.

I understand that all contracts for rebuilding had to be awarded to American companies. UK companies while funding (through taxes) the war effort were not allowed to bid for rebuilding contracts.

Ditto Australian.

And I see Tony wants to play word games to divert from the fact that the president made an ass out of himself. Okay, Tony, substitute 'acted outside the UN' for 'unilaterally'.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

And I see Tony wants to play word games to divert from the fact that the president made an ass out of himself.

Nope, you're the one playing word games (unilaterally=! Outside the UN) to make things sound worse than they are. I don't care about the president.

Okay, Tony, substitute 'acted outside the UN' for 'unilaterally'.

Thanks for rectifying your dishonesty. I assume it's too much to ask you NOT to engage in such blatant dishonesty from now on?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
How do you think the US will look if she moves the UN building to a slum (which I assume Newark is, but truth be told I don't know)?

Why not buy up some farmland in Eastern Pensylvania and move 'em all there?

Don't you think that the US gets some prestige by having the UN headquartered in the US?

:D

What if the UN decides to move its headquarters to Paris, or London?

Then I can imagine that they can pay for the entire move buy selling tickets to a UN-leaving-the-U.S. party.

NYC has learned that when one has diplomatic immunity from even parking tickets, the urge to park on the sidewalk becomes overwhelming. I am not the only one who would say buh-bye if they threatened to move.

[evildave]

Originally posted by armageddonman
The UN has saved millions of lives. Ever heard about UNICEF for example?

Smallpox, too.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ed
a couple of hundred yards east would put them in the middle of the east river.:D


Really?!? Hmmm... ;)

[Patrick]

The UN has saved millions of lives. Ever heard about UNICEF for example?

Yaaaa ... Unicef says about 500,000 Iraqi children died consequent to the UN sanctions in the 1990's, a number that dwarfs the several thousand iraqis killed as an unfortunate side-effect of president Bush's liberation war. The UN, unlike Bush, was too gutless to do what needed to be done, and graveyards full of children are the result.