greenj - as a side issue: why does the UN stand with the Palestinians do you think - ?

troll,

It's all numbers and money, troll. The African countries are all as artificial as "Palestine" is and they all know it. Birds of a feather fly together. Then there are 22 Arab countries. It pays to get rid of the "Arab refugees" and try to knock off Israel at the same time.

The Europeans are basically interested in oil and shutting up the Arabs who have been imported to do the shit work on the continent.

So.......

...so you're saying that the national interests of most countries put them at odds with Israel

how are they to behave differently then - ?

I think you are beginning to see the glimmering of the problem. The national interests of most countries do put them at odds with us, and therefore, in some way or some form, they will come up against our very existence if they can.

The UN is a good, cheap forum for this behavior. Countries that wish us ill can meet in Durban under UN auspices, give us the middle finger and not suffer any retaliation. They've already had a hatefest there, and they're planning one more next year.

My point is that the overall framework that I attempt to overlay on the whole situation, one that greenj may disagree with on details, but agree with fundamentally, is a Biblical one, because our books of Prophecy predict just this kind of situation.

The UN is an apt example of this, and greenj can write the same article under different (article) names from now until the cows come home, and still be dead on target.

Just imagine somebody like the author learned how to think, how dangerous they'd be. Fortunately that seems unlikely, to judge by this poorly thought through writing.

"Christopher Rose: Just imagine somebody like the author learned how to think..."

Just imagine if Christopher Rose actually knew what on earth he was talcing about. The author gives facts and figures, and all Christopher Rose has is a meaningless comment. Anyone cam talk like Christopher Rose, and unfortunately many people do. It's a little more difficult to disprove the facts presented and come up with your own. Christopher Rose's lack of such a solid, factual response actually goes to show how right the author is.

"Talcing about"? Should I take a powder?

All you've done is express a highly subjective opinion, greenj; one that is typical of the special pleading of the particular minority you belong to.

You expressed an opinion and I expressed mine - the only difference is that you have a vested interest in your subjectivity, which is why the king of subjectivity, my old acquaintance Ruvy, agreed with you so enthusiastically, whereas I have an interest in a rather more sober and reality based approach.

I completely support the right of Israel to exist as a nation and would like to see it taking a more constructive line in its behaviour with regard to its neighbours.

I have no idea what minority greenj is supposed to belong to, but I think it's irrelevant. His criticism of the UN and its corrupt leadership is dead on. As an institution it has chosen to become an instrument of dictators and criminals and its policies represent their interests. It's long overdue for reform.

Dave

Well, Dave, as the self-styled master of logical thinking, you'll just have to put your vast dome to work and give it some thought.

You are well known for your somewhat hysterical and kneejerk anti UN stance but as the UN is dominated by the non-dues paying USA, your favourite nation, maybe it is no surprise that it needs some reforming, just as the USA itself does.

"Christopher Rose: All you've done is express a highly subjective opinion, greenj ... "

People like yourself always ignore facts, and this exactly what the article is about. I've cited many cold hard facts, and you've clumped all that together into something that's "highly subjective." The article is not about Israel. It's about the UN. And unless you undo the facts presented, that show unmistakable corruption in the UN, it is your words that are hysterical. Stop ignoring facts, and stop calling everyone's views, that are based on facts, just "opinions." Your opinions are based on no facts whatsoever. You're opinions are pure emotion. Putting your opinions now in a more eloquent manner doesn't make them anything more than just your personal viewpoint. You're entitled to your personal viewpoint, but a viewpoint based on facts is still better than a viewpoint based on absolutely nothing. If I show you proof that the moon exists, your opinion that it doesn't just doesn't hold water -- but you're still entitled to your opinion.

Blaming the UN for Palestinian attacks against Israel sounds a little bit misplaced (or should we blame the decision UN took in 1947?).
For years of peace talk, Israel has never stopped colonizing Palestinian territories. And what's colonization but a kind of war conducted by civilians? The look ofnew settlements is much nicer than rockets, but the intent is the same: get rid of the Arab people in the land of Palestine.

"Shimon: Blaming the UN for Palestinian attacks against Israel sounds a little bit misplaced..."

Did you even read the article? Do words and verifiable facts mean anything to you? I prove to you that a car crashed into someone and you tell me you can't blame the car -- the poor victim crushed himself, or whatever. Address the facts. Again, you're entitled to you opinion, but ignoring facts just presented -- that anyone can verify are so -- makes this a pointless exchange.

On the one hand, there has indeed been a global increase of the use of terror as greenj has documented. Attributing this to a specific UN resolution is at least trying to find an explanation for it, which I don't seem to see my government (US) trying to do. Maybe if they could spend some of this Homeland Security (that still sounds so very fascist) money I am giving them with my taxes on finding a cause for the growth of and the use of terrorism, then maybe the government would see that the fighting terrorism as a "war" is inappropriate. Perhaps they should see it as a justice issue and try to correct the injustices, economic and social, that are being perpetrated around the world.

However, this is not to say that terrorists and those that plan and support such attacks should get away with such vile actions with a pat on the shoulder and a comment about how they are excused because they are just victims. Justice should be applied to them as well.

As for the UN resolution, something should be said that it does not explicitly say to go out and kill people if one has a grievance. That is merely one way to interpret it and those that do so in that way, and then see that as permission to kill further innocents probably could use some severe therapy while they are serving their time in prison.

This is an asinine piece.

I have yet to hear of any terrorist who, when confronted with the opportunity to sound off on his crimes, ever cited the UN as his motivating force....

Is the UN long overdue for reform (or possibly demolition)? - very probably. Has the organization, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, become rudderless and increasingly caught up in anti-colonial diatribes driven by specific interests? - Yes.

Is it the 'font of all evil'? - No, it lacks the competence to be an effective 'font of all evil'. If the UN was the driving motivational support for terrorism, then, quite bluntly, we'd all be very safe because they can barely motivate discussion much less action.

This is a badly written, poorly reasoned and loosely targeted opinion piece that offers few insights into either the Arab-Israeli situation or the difficulty in reforming the UN and other multilateral institutions into anything effective. It demonstrates a poor understanding of the driving forces behind modern terrorism and offers superficial, spurious reasoning to justify its poor conclusions.

Damn good thing it's only online, I'd hate to think a tree died to give this space...

"Shimon: Israel has never stopped colonizing Palestinian territories..."

This misses the whole point of the article. NOTHING justifies blowing up civilians up on a bus, shooting a mother and her children to death in animalistic cold-blood. How can you even cite such relatively trivial stuff in face of butchering people like animals -- and in many cases torturing people? Are you part of the human race? Nothing justifies barbarism.

"Deano: I have yet to hear of any terrorist who, when confronted with the opportunity to sound off on his crimes, ever cited the UN as his motivating force...."

I've never heard anyone who drinks Coke say he does so because he saw an advertisement for it. But it's well known to even people not in advertising that mass media exposure influences people in a big way.

You're statement comes from pure ignorance.

"David Kelley: ...the UN resolution ... does not explicitly say to go out and kill people..."

This is plain childish.

If the court locked you up because the guy who burglarized your house said you annoyed him the day before -- and the court did NOTHING to him -- don't you think this would give the burglar incentive to commit more crimes? You have to be a child to get a message only when your told explicitly "Go out and burglarize" or "Go out and murder." Terrorists are a lot smarter than you -- they get the message.

It seems very obvious that the writer has a Pro-Israeli slant. When I was younger I was also pro-Israeli, they were being attacked by terrorists on a daily basis. Innocent Israelis were being maimed by suicide bombers and random mortar and rocket attacks. Then I decided to read a little more into the conflict (John Pilger, Freedom Next Time amongst others). What I discovered truly horrified me. If my people, friends and family were treated in the same way that the Israelis treat the Palestinians then I too would have hate in my heart and could even be pushed to take up arms against them.
Nothing can justify the murder of innocents, but for Israel to think it is hard done by compared to the daily humiliation and virtual imprisonment they have brought upon the Palestinians then they are living in a fantasy.
As for the UN being the root of all evil, could this be a dig at the organisation that repeatedly calls for Israel to follow security council resolutions? Other countries have been invaded for failing to comply with resolutions or had economic sanctions brought upon them. But not Israel, instead they receive Billions in U.S. military aid, tanks and jets which they have used to kill Palestinians with.
The UN has become ineffective. It needs to be reformed and given more powers to help ensure that the will of the international community is enforced rather than when it's just in the interests of the U.S.

greenj, you appear to have confused interpretation with fact, but don't let that stop you defending your subjective little rant, we need more comedy on Blogcritics.

PS: You have noticed your article is marked as opinion above, right? That means you are writing your own interpretation of events, and one that clearly comes from a massively partisan perspective. You can assert it is all fact as much as you like but that doesn't make it so, it just demonstrates with great, if unintended, eloquence the nature of your dogmatic bias.

Could this story have been written by a supporter of Ron Paul, who thinks it would great for the US to leave the UN. Or is about the UN supporting a return to agreed-upon borders for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

Oh, one problem with the US/UN thing.

The US, as a permanent member of the security council, has the right of veto.

Without the right of veto, the US is in far more danger than it is now.

Does anyone actually think any of this sh.t through, or is dribbling away standard operating procedure when it comes to presenting highly subjective points of view?

Wouldn't that be great. Just what America and the world needs right now ... a UN without the US, or even better if you dislike the two-state Israel/Palestine fix, no UN at all.

When will you guys get it through your thick skulls that American politics isn't just about America?

And what about this from the writer, in relation to an escalation in mass killings and bragging about it: "Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine all this. This scenario has been played out in real life, although not (yet) in the U.S."

Are you serious? Did you forget 9/11 (yes, I know you've mentioned it, but not in this context), and the various plots uncovered before and after? And the bragging?

The UN as the source of world terror? Hardly.

Instransigent attitudes in other quarters, including until now the Bush administration (too little, too late), might be closer to the mark

...not about America anymore - ?

damned tranzis

Greenj: I respect your right to have a point of view about this (even if I don't agree in the slightest), BTW, because really, isn't what this stuff is actually all about in the first place?

But I'm not sure you've hit the nail on the head anywhere here. Far from it.

I'd think in regard to your arguments about the young-male/teenage murder/suicides and your attempt to work them into story to back up your point of view in regard to the UN, they are two totally different issues - that might have more to do with teen/young male angst coupled with the proliferation and easy availability of guns in America.

In places where kids can't get hold of guns, they might punch someone in the mouth. Add easily available firearms to the equation and you've got a whole ne wball game.

It has no correlation to Palestine at all. You know as well as I do that Palestinian kids who might go out and do this stuff are virtually brainwashed from birth about the rightness of their cause, and unfortunately their religious beliefs aid in the view that the only weapons they have are themselves and it's a thing worth doing.

I'd suggest that without the UN, the situation might be a whole lot worse around the world.

STM---POST 22 - more dribble [Edited]

Gee..the UN made of up of third world idiots who rape and pillage their own countries while preaching morality to America!

We should burn the UN down and let "The Donald" build one of his condo complexes...


JOM

My second favourite quote on BC, from Doc Dread: "Just one brain cell" :)

My Number One BC quote from STM

"duh...er...ummmm...ahhh..."

Pure Left Wing Genius!

Don't like "trans-national progressive" eh troll.

Neither do I, but it still doesn't alter the fact that American politics is no longer just about America.

We know that to be true about American business.

Try living here. Every time someone farts in the US, it has an effect here. Is that just our fault? No, it's yours too.

In my case, the US sub-prime mortgage crisis has led to a global credit crunch that has seen my mortgage interst rates rise and billions wiped off the local stockmarket.

All about you? Don't think so.

JOM: "Pure Left Wing Genius!"

What, you JOM?

Ha. I always suspected you were a member of the loony left in disguise.

You make about as much sense as one.

So now it all makes sense - unlike your posts

STM...

"I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" Mony Python

JOM..some countries survive living in the stench of American farts...God Bless America!

But, JOM, will amerika survive living in the stench of god's farts???

greenj,

Just a little hint - claiming something as "fact" does not make it so.

I'll be blunt about it - life's too short to spend anytime at all tearing up this little implausible house of "facts" that you've constructed (damned poorly by the way), as I suspect nothing anyone can or would say would shake you from your inflexible path of idiocy.

P.S. Work on your spelling

JOM: "some countries survive living in the stench of American farts...God Bless America!"

Yeah, well not this one

STM: Every time someone farts in the US, it has an effect here.

Uh-oh. I had cauliflower for dinner yesterday.

My apologies in advance for the cyclone that's about to hit Sydney...

Sh.t. I hope it wasn't mornay

Greenj,

Keinem hut zein eigener mishigass.

Don't worry, Chris, no attacks on anybody - yet.

Greenj has cited facts and figures. And some, like you, can only make snide comments. When the day comes that you can string together a better article, then you can talk. I suspect there will be a long wait.

Others, writing under the name Shimon, sound like self-hating Jews whose brains are filled with gefilte fish. The world is filled with such Jews, unfortunately, and they are all over BC like a bad smell, too. Kinda like some folks from Joizey I know....

Truth is, I agree with Dave Nalle. Greenj has pegged the UN dead on - a pack of well paid criminals who attack one target only.

Ruvy - God bless you.
It's good to hear a sane voice in all this muddle.

Truth is, I agree with Dave Nalle. Greenj has pegged the UN dead on - a pack of well paid criminals who attack one target only.

Let's be fair, Ruvy. Israel is hardly their only target. They'll go after anyone who doesn't play along with their schemes, criticizes their abuses of power or tries to expand free market capitalism or national self-reliance.

Dave

Can you substantiate the wacky sounding theory that the UN is opposed to capitalism?

Let's be fair, Ruvy.

Dave,

When I lived in the Middle West, I kinda felt compelled to be fair. Now that I live in the Middle East, that compulsion seems to have left me....

I have a feeling that of all people commenting here, you'll comprehend why the most.

When the overpaid pricks at the UN are not busy attacking Israel, they occasionally have time to go after some other folks.

Were I running this place, Israel would have long left that organization of overpaid pigs, Armon haNetziv (the UN HQ in J-lem) would be a homeless shelter with its damned radio antenna torn down (so that the rest of us could pick up radio signals), ALL the UN personnel would be kicked out, and the Arab refugee camps would either be closed down, or run like autonomous PEACEFUL towns. The terrorists there would be exterminated like the cockroaches they are, and the rest of the residents would be able to live in peace, even if they do hate our guts.

"STM: ... Palestinian kids who might go out and do this stuff are virtually brainwashed from birth about the rightness of their cause, and unfortunately their religious beliefs aid in the view ... "

You hit the nail on the head -- this is exactly my point. There is something wrong with that society. It doesn't matter if it's the kids, the parents, the teachers, the religious leaders, or whoever. A society that produces such animals, it's not our job in life to understand why someone comes into a house and wipes out a family in cold blood. Nobody asked Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer what their problem was. It IS our job to removed such people from society. We all have problems of one sort or another. It's only the lowest of low who go to this extreme to deal with their problems.

And let's be a little more honest about this -- Palestinians have made it clear over and over that their objective is to wipe out Israel. This evil mindset is the crux of the problem. All this nonsense about land and "occupation" is meant for many of you useful idiots who swallow every stupidity, hook, line and sinker. Wake up people.

The best thing to do with the UN is to move it's headquarters to Haiti and/or the Dominican Republic. Since all of the ambassadors and staff would need cooks, bodyguards, drivers, etc. they could provide nearly full employment for the island. Of course someone there would have to import a couple of thousand strippers and hookers of various races to keep the so called "diplomats" happy. Here in the USA we could turn the old hq. into something useful like low income housing. This way the UN could actually accomplish something useful in this world.
Look the UN was a good idea on paper, so were Soviet style communism, and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's now time for the UN to follow the League of Nations into the history books. The corruption and lust for power at the UN was probably inspirational to the last 2 US presidents (especially GB).
If those of you from other nations like the UN so much please please move them to your country! After you realize what a hungry monster it is, kill it, don't send it back.

Yes, of course; there's absolutely no reason at all why the many countries of our world should have a forum in which they can get together and address issues of mutual interest, absolutely not.

Christopher, they absolutely should have that forum to resolve their differences diplomatically. It just shouldn't have taxing ability, a court system, a military (sort of) or control over a great deal of money which it uses poorly. And it certainly shouldn't have a large and corrupt cadre of professional bureaucrats.

Dave

Dave: "And it certainly shouldn't have a large and corrupt cadre of professional bureaucrats".

You sound like Pablo. Seriously.

Facts please, old chap.

Dave, as you are opposed to anything more than the most limited form of government on principle, it is no surprise that you don't want to see any kind of global entity with effective powers.

I think most people would actually prefer to see an international body that was actually capable of being effective in achieving its purposes and it is this weakness, coupled with the blatant manipulation of the organisation by certain member nations, including the USA, that is undermining the UN.

In most of its programmes, such as UNESCO, UNICEF, et cetera (full list of UN Organizations) it is surely doing good, valuable and much needed work, to the betterment of the planet.

Some people are given to taking advantage of systems to their own perceived benefit, whether it be US politicians supporting porky projects or UN delegates from anywhere in the world trying to exploit these efforts for their own advantage.

That doesn't mean that all such systems should never be initiated, just as theft by staff doesn't mean that shops or other businesses shouldn't exist.

In most of its programmes, such as UNESCO, UNICEF, et cetera (full list of UN Organizations) it is surely doing good, valuable and much needed work, to the betterment of the planet.

Only you, Chris, would defend such trash. No surprise. But get that nasty stink of hypocrisy out of my country. Get the liars at TIPH out of Hebron - before I'm tempted to kill them myself. Get them out of Armon haNetziv - they pollute the neighborhood I lived in for five years. Get the scum from UNESCO, and their Arab propaganda out of this nation.

If you want the UN to do good, send the trash home to starve in the failed states they escape represent in New York. Or let the shit be stuck in Geneva where they can have Geneva weekends to their heart's desire. Or better yet, let them all stay in Durban permanently, out of the world's way. Let them sink in the mire in Durban.

Ruvy, just because your beliefs have led you to adopt Israel as your new homeland and that country is defying several UN resolutions does not mean that all its works are worthless or that everything that Israel does is right. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your beliefs...

Chris,

When have I ever been accused of slavishly supporting the State of Israel? Most of its leaders ought to be hung for treason.

But that doesn't change the fact that since voting for partition in November of 1947, the UN has done everything it could to damage and weaken this country and destroy it. We owe the UN and the world nothing. We terrorized the perfidious British into leaving this country, and we fought for our independence when the world was content to sit and let us die.

Today, the traitors who run this country, more and more as a dictatorship daily, are cooperating with their foreign masters to destroy their own country; part of that cooperation means allowing the scum from the UN in at all when they should be driven out of this nation at the point of a cocked rifle, or better yet, the point of a bayonet.

As I said, the UN should be left to rot in the slums of Durban, where it belongs.

Greenj certainly put in time and effort to research this piece. I respect the amount of reading and rereading he must have done to construct this essay. While the "facts" may be accurate, that doesn't mean his links between them are valid. While I don't care to argue or pick apart his position, I will say that greenj could improve his credibility by refraining from answering every dissenting comment with what appears to be disdain and venom.

I can imagine that greenj is accustomed to defending what is apparently an unpopular position, but it undermines his apparent confidence when he responds with all caps and insulting or visceral terms like "evil," "butchering," "useful idiots," and "shooting a mother and her children to death in animalistic cold-blood." Such retaliatory statements shouldn't be necessary when one has confidence in the original argument. Again, I have not put any time or effort into this line of research and I'm not here to disagree, but greenj's rhetorical skills could use some improvement if he wants more readers to understand or even adopt his position. This gentle admonishment also goes for respondents to greenj's article, but since it is greenj's space, I think it is up to him to set a good example of civil debate.

I am thankful that there is (electronic) room for everyone to speak. Gods bless the intar-web.

Dumbest piece of horse crap i've read in a while. Good thing this is not actual journalism but nonesensical ranting.
How much did AIPAC pay you?

"Christopher Rose: Israel ... is defying several UN resolutions ... don't let reality get in the way of your beliefs."

Talk about a reality problem. Palestinians have broken just about every resolution and lived up to none. Do you even know what's going on?

"Christopher Rose: Some people are given to taking advantage of systems to their own perceived benefit, whether it be US politicians supporting porky projects ... "

The US is the biggest benefactor of the UN. Why in the world would it need to give to the UN then use money for porky projects when it can just use the money in the first place? Chris, stop making up stuff that makes sense to you but not to normal people.

Capricious -- Your point is well taken and, believe it or not, I actually agree with you. However, I am also a believer of "Speak softly, but carry a big stick in your pocket." The blog responses have gotten kind of "load." I believe that a loud response often (although not always) needs a loud response to get the point across. I think this is probably where you and I may disagree. But thanks for your input -- it is well taken.

Ga, I don't know whether your understanding is deliberate or an accident of birth but to try and help you along:-

My remarks about Israel and the UN were in response to a remark from a fairly extreme response by our resident pet hardcore Jew (I'm calling you that as you have so many issues with the state of Israel, rather than in any pejorative meaning, Ruvy, just for the avoidance of any doubt), so your "contribution" about the Palestinians makes no sense. That's not to say that they are innocents in all this but clearly responsibility is proportionate to power and Israel is the dominant power in that area.

Similarly, the second point you try to take issue with was in response to a remark from someone who is opposed to the UN on principle and accused it of corruption. I was making the point that corruption is just as easily found in the USA and many other countries so to criticise the UN for that is hardly an effective or meaningful complaint.

If you are indeed a "normal" person, well, I guess I'm happy not to be, but thanks for your considered and totally well thought through input, you've really helped.

"I was making the point that corruption is just as easily found in the USA and many other countries so to criticise the UN for that is hardly an effective or meaningful complaint."

"It doesn't matter; everyone's doing it."

Merde, m'sieu...

Christopher Rose:

There you go again.

"clearly responsibility is proportionate to power"

Says who? Where do you come up with this stuff? You make statements that are nothing but your personal perspective and state them as if they're universally known facts? Do you have any proof that this is so, by Israel or anyone? Please, google it and post it.

Do you deal in facts at all, or do you live in tree on top of a mountain?

Ga, you appear to be losing consonants as well as the ability to think. So you think nations with less power should exercise greater responsibility than more powerful ones? And strong people should just go beat on weaker folk?

Whilst you're at it, please explain to us what dealing in facts has to do with living in a tree? Do you also believe that one's domestic situation affects the ability to think?

What a quaint world you live in. Is it flat?

Christopher Rose:

"you think nations with less power should exercise greater responsibility than more powerful ones? And strong people should just go beat on weaker folk?"

What the heck are you talking about? That's not what I said, that's not what my worlds imply, that's just the way you'd like to pervert my words.

If someone half your size confronts you with a gun or deathly violence, you should not defend yourself because your more powerful than him? What kind of nonsense is that? All people, weak or strong, should exercise responsibility to the same degree. Because some guy is weaker than you he has a right to do things to you that you have no right to do to him? You have the right, by our law and the laws of all civilized nations, to kill anyone who threatens to kill you.

You talk as if Palestinians are just a bunch of nice guys and Israel has nothing better to do than just beat up on them. The Palestinian territories are, and I know you don't watch or read the news much, a hotbed, hornet's nest of terrorism. It's been like that for year, and it's people with your sense of "logic" that allow terrorism to flourish. You have a very sophisticated way of talking nonsense.

And ga has a very unsophisticated way of speaking the truth.

Nonetheless...

"with great power comes great responsibility" - Stan Lee

Dave

"with great power comes great responsibility" - Stan Lee

Thank you.

He didn't say "on a great power's face you may step"

(I know, that wasn't very sophisticated, but it makes the point.)

gar/ga,

Nice to see another voice of common sense and sanity here.

Greenj--I am glad to see that a thoughtful and measured critique gets a thoughtful and measured response from you. I agree with speaking "softly while carrying a big stick in your pocket." but I think you've been carrying that stick in your dominant hand, ready to strike. I am a firm believer in capitalism (that is, *not* consumerism and especially not corporatism) and the marketplace of ideas, especially in this medium. I think that if your argument is strong, thoroughly researched and well-presented, it should be able to stand on its own as long as it's in a public forum to be read. People who childishly respond to your argument are very unlikely to agree with you no matter how you over-shout them.

And to those who think they have a better position, I highly encourage you to write a researched and carefully written essay to illuminate the rest of us. Petty arguing over details won't get us anywhere (and if I see another reference to "strawmen" I will scream; there are other fallacies, people on other blogs). We are very blessed to have a medium of intellectual expression that the corporate barons don't yet control, so please add to the discourse! I am myself a pragmatic, independent swing voter, so I soak up information and opinions like a sponge. Thanks everyone, for giving me stuff to read and think about.

Ga, as dealing with reason seems to cause you such distress and confusion, I'm going to be kind to you and spare you further suffering.

Dave, this is another of your classic double speak comments. Ga is speaking utter nonsense and responding to things that were never said and you encourage his idiocy and then agree with me.

Ruvy, as Bc's leading proponent of "Moebius Logic", it is no surprise at all that you support this gibberish. You're still wrong though.

Christopher Rose: "as dealing with reason seems to cause you such distress"

You haven't had anything reasonable to say since this discussion started. Actually, it's dealing with biased stupidity that causes me stress. You act as though your word is gospel. Your word is just your silly little word. If you want to disprove what someone else has proven, you need to present something that supports your argument. Just your silly rants aren't going to do it. Dave and Ruvy have actually made a lot more sense than you have. You seem to "understand" only your own nonsensical "logic" and not others' rational arguments. You remind me of some people.

Hold on, the phone's is wringing ...

Christopher, the UN just called. They want you back at work Monday morning.

Christopher, I was just supporting what he'd said in the immediate previous comment, not the rest of his goofy ranting. That should have been obvious.

Dave, as you are opposed to anything more than the most limited form of government on principle, it is no surprise that you don't want to see any kind of global entity with effective powers

Actually, I'm only opposed to the UN as currently structured and operated. I think a real global entity which is structured within specific limits and run in a responsible way might not be a bad thing.

Dave

Ga, right back at you. I've been nothing but reasonable in the face of hysterically overwrought remarks by people who have a vested interest in opposing the UN.

Dave, presumably that would be that you object to an organisation that allows itself to be bullied by the USA? On that we could agree!

Chris,

We all know that you think the UN is the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe they would do better off on the Isle of Wight where they would have you to root for them. And think of all the tourists they would bring, not to mention all the whores escort and sex workers, and drug dealers.

The Isle of Wight could enter the 21st Century with a bang, and you could get your liquor and your lines with no trouble at all....

Dave, presumably that would be that you object to an organisation that allows itself to be bullied by the USA? On that we could agree!

No, my objection is to an institution which creates situations where the only way the USA can make it behave reasonably is by bullying it or withholding funds.

Dave

Ruvy, you are too busy making up nonsense to know what I think about anything but please do carry on being so mature and thoughtful.

Dave, only a self-professed elitist like you could consider the behaviour of the USA with regard to the UN as appropriate.

More seriously, I find it odd that such a champion of democracy as the USA finds it convenient to abandon such principles when things don't go its way, despite having a veto, particularly as it is also subject to fraud and corruption on such a massive scale at home.

Of course, consistency and even-handedness when dealing with the rest of the world are not qualities the US is noted for either...

Chris, the fault here lies with the UN which has failed its mandate. In the breach of that promise, the US is certainly entitled to defend its own interests.

Just for you I think I'll finish and post my article on UN reform.

Dave

Dave: "I think a real global entity which is structured within specific limits and run in a responsible way might not be a bad thing."

What would that be Dave? A global entity run by the US and according to your worldview?

You've already got one of those. It's called the United States.

What would that be Dave? A global entity run by the US and according to your worldview?


Well, something along the lines of a world-wide US with us as one of the states, yes.

Dave

Dave, a blanket statement that the UN has failed its mandate is meaningless. You would need to address specific issues for that kind of statement to have any meaning.

The last major project I recall the UN working on was its work on the alleged Iraqi WMD programme. Funny how so many high ranking US officials either lied through their teeth in presenting "evidence" on that matter and then just flat out ignored it.

The only thing that the US wants is to get its way all the time, which you have disguised as defending its own interests. You, and the US, need to learn that only accepting getting your own way all the time or storming off in a sulk is something done only by the immature, whether they are nations or individuals.

Sure, the UN needs to step up its performance, but that's true for all imperfect organisations and their works - and nations are no different in that either. There is no such thing as a perfect world - yet.

There are many great things about the American way but there's a load of bogus crap too.

Rosey: I think the Poms told a few porkies too over the WMDs. In fact it was partly their intelligence reports that fed into the US view of what was going on.

I'm well aware of the lies put out by my own government too, Stan, but that wasn't what was under discussion.

It's relevant in this discussion, as the British government seemed to believe the reports as well. Which is fine, as long as people don't tell pork pies when they discover these things are wrong.

As for Dave's view of the UN, it's wrong IMO.

I also think it's bizarre that people are carrying on about the behaviour of UN people in New York ... New York, of all places - that paragon of virtue.

A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you think, lecturing about morality from sin city.

Dave, a blanket statement that the UN has failed its mandate is meaningless. You would need to address specific issues for that kind of statement to have any meaning.

You know I've written on this at length before. The UN peacekeepers raping and murdering people in the Congo and Rwanda, the massive misdirections of funds, the presence of genocidal nations on the human rights commission (old and new versions). The purpose of the UN is to bring peace to the world and instead it brings corruption and oppression. That's what I mean by failing its mandate, though I would have though tit was obvious.

The last major project I recall the UN working on was its work on the alleged Iraqi WMD programme. Funny how so many high ranking US officials either lied through their teeth in presenting "evidence" on that matter and then just flat out ignored it.

I hardly think that their assistance in covering up Iraq's activities and actively assisting Saddam in some of his criminal activities is 'funny'.

The only thing that the US wants is to get its way all the time, which you have disguised as defending its own interests.

Sorry, I don't see the difference.

You, and the US, need to learn that only accepting getting your own way all the time or storming off in a sulk is something done only by the immature, whether they are nations or individuals.

Christopher, your assessment of the maturity of US behavior is meaningless. The US is a sovereign nation. Its government has an obligation to protect the interests of its people. If that means not cooperating with the UN or going off in a sulk, then I'm fine with that. It's far better than selling out the best interests of the nation to international forces which do not have the best interests of the American people at heart.

Sure, the UN needs to step up its performance, but that's true for all imperfect organisations and their works - and nations are no different in that either. There is no such thing as a perfect world - yet.

The problem is that the UN is structured in such a way that improvement is virtually impossible. It needs to be scrapped and replaced with something better.

Dave

Here are some "specific issues" that the UN has failed its mandate.

If you need more than this, you're not paying attention.

Funnily enough Dave, I'm not tracking the stuff you write as I don't find your politics that interesting or even relevant.

I'm not denying that there have been massive abuses under UN auspices but that is not unique to them. The US has also committed some pretty atrocious crimes in its limited global engagements for example.

The UN is a fairly young organisation and is faced with a very challenging set of tasks that are not made any easier by the blatant manipulation it is subject to from a variety of directions. Not the least of these is that the USA, one of its prime originators, is working so hard to undermine it through a policy of withholding billions of dollars in contributions and directly interfering in its workings.

The full purpose of the UN is actually "The purpose of the United Nations is to bring all nations of the world together to work for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of all people. It affords the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems". This is not the same as bringing peace to the world.

As many people are corrupt, it is no surprise that there are corrupt officials and corrupt nations. This doesn't mean that it is wrong to work towards improving global conditions. Your "oh, they are corrupt and won't do what we want" attitude is simply immature egocentricity.

Well done on ignoring the blatant US corruption in lying to the UN with regard to Iraq. I think the real truth here is that the US government wanted to lash out in response to the attack on the WTC in New York, regardless of any other considerations such as the absence of WMD there and the absence of Al Qaeda.

There has been a lot of sanctimonious tosh uttered about getting rid of a dictator and introducing democracy but as there has been no action to bring that forward as a consistent policy and the US is completely ignoring what is happening in places like Burma or Zimbabwe, to name just two, I think we can rightly recognise what a load of trash that line is.

It's no surprise that you can't see any difference between "getting your own way all the time" and "defending its own interests". This is entirely consistent with the same lack of understanding displayed by the adolescent.

It's your response to my depicting the US as immature that is meaningless. Of course the US has an obligation to protect the interests of its people, that's not the issue. It's far more relevant to consider that when the US enters into international agreements, it has an absolute responsibility to stand by those agreements, not storm off in a sulk.

The whole point of international forces is that they serve the interests of a wider community than just one nation, so it is to be expected that the interests of the US are only one element, one voice in the choir of humanity if you like.

As to your final point, the majority of US citizens believe they live in the land of the free, that anybody can do or achieve anything and that anybody can become president. None of these things are actually true in absolute terms and are probably impossible to change. According to your simplistic approach, the US should be "scrapped and replaced with something better".

nel, I didn't say there weren't issues where the UN has some serious problems, I said that Dave's blanket remark was meaningless without specifics. Thanks for paying attention.

Christopher Rose, you live in your own world. You just make stuff up, and you believe it.

OK, Nel, if you say so...

"Trick or Treat for UNICEF." Remember the little orange cardboard houses the kids use to use for collections on October 31? The UN promised Treats, but have we ended up with Tricks instead?
Don't discount the reality of the Tricks enumerated by Greenberger, Ruvy, and Dave Nalle just because you're all starry-eyed about the promise of Treats.

The UN's stated goal of world peace and Marxism's stated goal of equality and a decent standard of living for all are certainly wonderful goals to have, and they'd be worth persuing through such CENTRALIZED institutions as a benevolently totalitarian state, or in the UN's case, a benevolently totalitarian Uber-State, if it weren't for the power-lust that is a hallmark of human nature.

The individual should be endowed with as much sovereignty as possible. When necessary for the maintenance of the rights of those around him, a little of that sovereignty should be redirected to local government, and when absolutely necessary for the defense of the nation and its economy, a little bit more of that sovereignty should be redirected toward the state. Instead, the states have been squeeziing the rights of the individuals, the Federal government has been squeezing the sovereignty of the States, and now the right of self-direction is being squeezed from the nations by a cadre of men who, not being happy with the traditional means of attaining world peace through diplomacy and mutually beneficial compromise, have the ambition to literally rule the world. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

STM mentioned that the author of the article sounded like a supporter of Ron Paul. Not really, though Ron Paul DOES favor withdrawal from the UN (as do many who are aghast at the way the UN has successfully disarmed ethnic groups, leaving them vulnerable to genocide.) Ron Paul would agree that the goals and methods of Palestinian terrorists intersect to some degree with those of the UN, but not entirely. Ron Paul is more for the "old fashioned" way of maintaining vigilance for the peace that is continually threated by the greed of man: listening to the grievances of all parties, and containing the horrors of war to as limited a population as possible: the parties who are DIRECTLY involved in the issues being contested.

Kudos to Irene Wagner.

No, the UN is not the cause of global terrorism. Do I win a bun?

No Colin, just 7 hours of fame while coCommenter is stuck. :)

...perhaps the UN should follow the example of the US and work toward privatizing its' functions - were enough profit involved in addition to the standard bribes and kick backs I'm sure that the US and other Haliburton investors would get behind it

Way to go troll ... hitting the nail on the hoof.

Thank you, Irene....

In my opinion Christopher Rose's comment in Post 79 is naive at best, and amazingly simplistic. The purpose of the UN is to create a global government which will supplant the sovereignty of the USA, with a very centralized, omnipotent, world body.

I wholeheartedly agree with Irene Wagner's excellent commentary. An example that comes to my mind is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am never cease to be amazed how under the guise of "good" such evil can be done. This convention if ratified by the Senate, the UN and not you the parents of your child will decide such things as,
whether or not your child can be home-schooled, what your children can read, what type of discipline parents may use, who they associate with, and various other forms of global control.
This convention is binding upon all nations that sign it. Talk about big brother.

An excellent resource of someone that has spent decades deciphering and challenging the real agendas of the UN is Joan Veon, some of her videos are available on google video.

Another treaty that in my opinion of the UN is the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST. This treaty will make the UN the sole owner of ALL of the resources outside of the territorial limits of its member states, to do with what they want.

Another thing of note is the declaration of human rights accord in the charter of the UN. The UN never says where said rights come from, and one is left with the impression that they come from them!! I disagree wholeheartedly with that impression. My rights do not come from the UN, nor from the USA or from any other organization of humans. I was BORN with them, I will fight to keep them, and I will assert them until I no longer have breath to do so.

The purpose of the UN is to create a global government which will supplant the sovereignty of the USA, with a very centralized, omnipotent, world body.

No Pablo, that is NOT the purpose of the UN. That may be the use to which the tranzis are trying to put the UN and some of its institutions, but it is definitively not the purpose for which the UN was founded. The problem with the UN is that like so many institutions it has been subverted and dragged away from its original laudable objectives and perverted into something entirely different.

To quote from the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Pablo: "The purpose of the UN is to create a global government which will supplant the sovereignty of the USA".

OK, fess up, who let Pablo out again??

Stan, Pablo thinks that the CFR which was obviously specifically designed to subjugate the rest of the world to the economic and cultural domination of the US is actually designed to do the exact opposite, so there's really no reasoning with him.

Dave

Mate, in fairness, I reckon Pablo would be EXTREMELY worried by the fact that there are Americans, Britons, Australians, Kiwis and Canadians on this site - all expressing similar if slightly differing viewpoints.

And in my view, he SHOULD be worried (if, indeed, we are REALLY of ANY of those nationalities. It COULD be a plot!!).

Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that blogcritics might in fact be chock full of members of some new Milner Group-type conspiracy, and that the British and their offspring are quite possibly continuing to spread their foul message of global domination and world Empire to the US through big business and groups like the CFR - and thanks to new technology like the internet, it's happening almost by osmosis!!

Just a bit of reading on this site convinces me, in fact, that influential commentators on blogcritics is just part of a larger CFR plot and that AMERICANS AREN'T IN CHARGE IN WASHINGTON.

Then again, how do we know Pablo isn't a stooge planted by the CFR and other organisations it conspires with, to divert us away from looking at the REAL issues (whatever they actually are).

Because everyone with half a brain knows that America is actually STILL being run by those pesky British, who even 200 years after the event refuse to go away.

The Anglosphere - world government - is coming (if it's not already here), we all know that, and Pablo probably won't like it much when it does because he believes only in the Constitution and the natural rights of man :)

Of course, all this theorising depends on whether Pablo's actually real, and not just part of the wider conspiracy and therefore simply the figment of someone's feverish imagination - just like EVERYONE ELSE HERE.

See, nothing is what it seems.

There's a BLACK HAND behind everything.

Beware. You have been WARNED.

It's not true that Americans simply get the government they deserve.

George Bush's presidency, 9/11, the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, the sub-prime crisis, the falling dollar, the slowing down of the US economy, etc ... these things have nothing to do with AMERICANS.

They were ALL orchestrated by the BRITISH and their spies and agents in Washington, who are waiting for America to flush itself down the dunny bowl of history so that they can once again bring it into the fold and re-establish the Empire.

PROOF: Has anyone noticed that Americans are today drinking more TEA, which has a soporific effect. Britain controls the world tea trade, and uses tea to numb the minds of its citizens. It exsports this stuff to CONVENIENCE STORES all over the world.

OTHER EVIDENCE: An influx of Indians, Pakistanis and West Indians to America means that cricket, too, is becoming more popular in the US, and this also has a bizarre soporific effect. It's just another form of MIND CONTROL practised by the BRITISH.

It's quite ingenious. Ask yourself this. Why do you think all those dreadfully mistreated countries have stayed loyal to the British Commonwealth??

TEA and CRICKET!!

That is the simple secret of Britain's world domination. You are all DOOMED.

Best leave now before the ice cream really HITS THE FAN.

PS, has anyone seen my little puprple pills? I put 'em down before and now I can't find the buggers. Could it have been the British guy next door, maybe ... I saw him peering through my window a bit earlier.

......and here I though that it was the crumpets

Nothing like a nice bit of crumpet troll.

tsk tsk - and you a married man

So Stan, we run the world (secretly) and yet I still don't win a bun! No fair... I'd start learning Mandarin anyway, the anglosphere has some competition.

Well, those Chinese already guzzle tea like champions. Better start teaching them cricket damn quick...

Stan nailed it.

Soon you will all be riding in "lifts", watching the "tellie", putting things in the "boot" of your car and going to the "loo"...

The hidden benefit is that you might start developing access to much better beers.

Stan IS right!

AND he's one of the principal subversives; I recall his constant references to having the Union Jack in the corner of the Aussie flag AND the lack thereof in Old Glory, his incessant denigration of our cars, with their steering wheels on the "wrong side," etc. etc.

Blimey, the sodding bastard even has some of us saying "mate" all the time!!

Bet he's really a Pom, masquerading as an Aussie.

If so, he's probably a Cockney pickpocket, they're the only Limeys who can speak passable 'Strine...

Dave thinks that the CFR which was obviously specifically designed to protect America against the rest of the world; is actually designed to do the exact opposite, so there's really no reasoning with him.
:)

And to those of you that have tried to reason with Dave on anything you certainly know what I am talking about. I have also noticed very often how Dave characterizes his opinions as FACTS. They aren't and usually in MY opinion are dead wrong.

I am still waiting for the all-knowing Dave to comment on his ridiculous story concerning the gunboat incident that was clearly staged as referenced in the Asia Times recently. Dave will believe ANYTHING. smirk ;)

Colin:

If you think that you as a Brit are in control of anything other than your little Queendom, you are mistaken. Citizens of England for the most part are serfs, and contrary to what you may believe, have no say in said global empire run out of the "City of London". You have about as much say in your country as I do in mine, NONE.

While on the subject of her Queendom, I find it amazing that her subjects like being treated as children. The newest Orwellian addition is the cameras with speakers, that talk down to her serfs, telling them to stop what they are doing, and from what I have read using a child's voice to do so.
The only thing missing is a local bobby appearing on the scene to spank the offender!

It must be a cozy warm feeling knowing that everything that the Brits do in public is monitored with facial recognition cams, microphones, speakers, gps devices in all of their autos, and phones, so that her majesty can protect them from the boogeyman. In the wise words of a great American Patriot, "those that would give up their freedom for security, deserve neither." That is just what is being served up in her Queendom.
Enjoy!!

Hey Colin,

Remember the other week? You were telling about all those secret cameras they've got on every second oak tree in the forest of dean??

And how the British police have been armed with a new high velocity bow and arrow?

Mate, you DO win a bun.

Cheers Pablo... I was being sarcy (not snarky) mate...
I'm pleased to hear about the bun Stan - where do I collect it, or will it be deposited on my head via F1-11 delivery systems. The writ of no police runs in the Forest - that's truer than you'd think, truly a race apart (of which I, on account of my birth outside the Hundred of St Briavels cannot claim membership).
You're right to an extent of course Pablo, although I am a Citizen (or subject) of Wales and Britain, not England. If you gave the British police a bow and arrow Stan, they'd almost certainly put their own eye out. :o)

YOu ignore the reality ... its a clash of MIND ... which is a part of evolution of Universal Spirit.. Humanity has accumulated too much of ignorance and arrogance .. UN was and is a platform for these anomalies to meet and understand .. Terrorism was always here .. look at the brutal past of humanity .. ..

To Raj:
Talk about ignoring reality. You talk in meaningless generalites. The article spells out the facts behind its contentions. You simply say it ignores reality. That's an incredible insight on your part. Got anything else we can sink our teeth into?

"I think the real truth here is that the US government wanted to lash out in response to the attack on the WTC in New York, regardless of any other considerations such as the absence of WMD there and the absence of Al Qaeda."

Chris, actually that's somewhat inaccurate. I wouldn't use the word "lash." To me, this implies an immediate lethal and military response. If we assess how the U.S. reacted to 2001 it was fairly measured all things considered- for a world power anyway. Even Bush was statesmanlike in his speeches. Stop laughing people. He implored people to not "lash out" to Muslim-Americans.

What they did do was go into Afghanistan soon after- which the world agreed with (not that the U.S. needed its blessings in my opinion).

Iraq came after and this is where neo-con doctrines rose to even further prominence. Furthermore, Foreign Policy mag studied the reasons used to go into Iraq and there was no one reason. In fact, I believe 23 were cited.

WMD just seemed to be the best one to go with for the public. I could be wrong. I don't know anything.

WMD failed but that doesn't mean some of the remaining 22 reasons weren't valid. But this is spinning off into another direction and does not get enough attention. It's WMD all the time but we should look at the whole picture of what the State Department was considering.

At least this is how I observed it.

Other than that I do see your point and the author's.

If what the author is saying is correct then the UN is acting in bad faith. It may be imperfect but it shouldn't preclude them from taking the appropriate stance - whatever it may be.

That all being said, all the bantering that followed reminds me a little of the McLoughlin Group and a game of oneupmanship.

Like when Eleonore Clift always shouts, "Excuse me!" Gosh, she's soooo annoying and incredibly predictable. Buchanan - that dude knows his political history. I digress.

Irene, are you married? If not, marry me.