Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
What braindead, troglodyte moron would want censorship? Do they realize that essentially the entire online world is against them? Absolutely no one wants censorship, or any sort of limitations on their use of the internet. Does that mean nothing? Why should we surrender and yield to lawmaking bodies that don't have our genuine interests at heart?

Nonsense there's lots and lots of people want the internet censored.

And loads and loads of people are quite happy to see limitations of people's use of the internet.

I think most people are more than happy with sites that host or deal in things like child pornorgraphy or the like being shut down.

Quite a lot of people, a lot religious but not all of them by any means, would like the availability of any online pornography restricted at the very least.

And a lot of companies and people would be more than happy to see torrent sites and their ilk shut down.

Outside of the World Health Organization, what major achievements has the UN done in the last 20 years?

How many world wars have we had post the formation of the UN compared to prior to it ?

 reds8n wrote:

Outside of the World Health Organization, what major achievements has the UN done in the last 20 years?

How many world wars have we had post the formation of the UN compared to prior to it ?

It wasn't the UN that stopped WWIII. It was the fusion bomb.

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Outside of the World Health Organization, what major achievements has the UN done in the last 20 years?

How many world wars have we had post the formation of the UN compared to prior to it ?

It wasn't the UN that stopped WWIII. It was the fusion bomb.

*Fission. And I think you'll find that it was the Soviet Union that did.

 Frazzled wrote:


It wasn't the UN that stopped WWIII. It was the fusion bomb.

No, that's what nearly ended WW III
.Very swiftly.

The UN however was quite key in helping to defuse the Cuban Missile crisis, and has been similarly involved in many such situations.

Of course the situation might have been resolved in a non everyonesnowaradioactivehusk way anyway -- we'll never know -- just as we'll never know how much worse things might have been without the UN stumbling around over the decades either.

But there's really no point in wasting everyone's time by trying to have a debate with you over this. Let's just save time and pretend we did.

It really scares the hell out of me that we are even allowing the UN to act as any sort of legislative body. Given the percentage of nations that are hateful of the US/UK and others, those nations who willingly ignore/tolerate/participate in genocide and other gross human rights violations, and all the graft and corruption that goes on under the auspices of the UN, I am wholely untrusting of them.

Right, it was the UN that was ready to go to the mat about Russia putting nukes in Cuba.....

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Outside of the World Health Organization, what major achievements has the UN done in the last 20 years?

How many world wars have we had post the formation of the UN compared to prior to it ?

It wasn't the UN that stopped WWIII. It was the fusion bomb.

*Fission. And I think you'll find that it was the Soviet Union that did.

NO. Fusion Bomb. Militaries were talking wars when fission bombs were in play. Once the hydrogen bomb was invented, it switched to funding proxy wars.

 Breotan wrote:
Given the percentage of nations that are hateful of the US/UK ...

Maybe if the US listened to the UN and stopped invading people whenever the hell it wants, there would be less people that hate them all over the world... just saying

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


It wasn't the UN that stopped WWIII. It was the fusion bomb.

No, that's what nearly ended WW III
.Very swiftly.

The UN however was quite key in helping to defuse the Cuban Missile crisis, and has been similarly involved in many such situations.

Of course the situation might have been resolved in a non everyonesnowaradioactivehusk way anyway -- we'll never know -- just as we'll never know how much worse things might have been without the UN stumbling around over the decades either.

But there's really no point in wasting everyone's time by trying to have a debate with you over this. Let's just save time and pretend we did.

NO. The UN had absolutely nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was resolved through direct discussions between the two countries, and nuclear brinksmanship. We were minutes out from a nukewar. The bomber wings were in the air through most of it, at their launch stations. Dad's bomber squadron was in the air for a week, being refuelled on station.

I'm pretty sure the US and allies hold the most influence in the UN by a long shot. So how does the UN hate us?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Given the percentage of nations that are hateful of the US/UK ...

Maybe if the US listened to the UN and stopped invading people whenever the hell it wants, there would be less people that hate them all over the world... just saying

Yes, its almost liked thousand of our people were killed in an attack and we went berserk about it...

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, its almost liked thousand of our people were killed in an attack and we went berserk about it...

Yep, that is pretty much exactly what happened to launch your last set of overseas adventures. In fact I am pretty sure that Afganistan and Iraq flew fighter escorts all the way to the targets of their soldiers stationed on the civillian planes while their governments declared war on the USA... rather than the whole thing being planned and carried out by a loose association of terroists

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, its almost liked thousand of our people were killed in an attack and we went berserk about it...

Yep, that is pretty much exactly what happened to launch your last set of overseas adventures. In fact I am pretty sure that Afganistan and Iraq flew fighter escorts all the way to the targets of their soldiers stationed on the civillian planes while their governments declared war on the USA... rather than the whole thing being planned and carried out by a loose association of terroists

Not up on facts much are you.
Al Qaeda's operation was in Afghanistan. I agree we didn't need to invade. Just nuke them. But you'd probably get your panties in a bunch and say the USA was bad if we did that too.
Iraq, well, that was the attempt at a domino theory in reverse. Who knew that democracies in the ME turn into kill zones - bad move indeed.

 Frazzled wrote:

NO. The UN had absolutely nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_Thant

Not up on facts much are you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Al Qaeda's operation was in Afghanistan. I agree we didn't need to invade. Just nuke them. But you'd probably get your panties in a bunch and say the USA was bad if we did that too.

Yes, most people feel it's a bit off to kill innocent civilians who aren't anything to do with a situation.
That's why people tend to view the 9/11 attacks as being so terrible.

 reds8n wrote:
[ Yes, most people feel it's a bit off to kill innocent civilians who aren't anything to do with a situation.
That's why people tend to view the 9/11 attacks as being so terrible.

Er didn't you lot invent something called nightbombing cities?

EDIT, back to the topic, any achioevements of the UN (other than World Health Organization) that could in any way justify its incredible budget?

I think you'll find the concept of attacking the enemy at night predates both WW II and the foundation of America by quite some time. Steel yourself and you'll manage to swallow this seemingly insane concept.

So whilst we did indeed use this tactic I feel it's probably something of a stretch to add this to the long list of things invented by the British.

And, even if we did invent said tactic or even if we narrow the scatter gun approach of your approach and restrict it referring to UK/Allied bombing actions in WW II this would still not mean that " most people feel it's a bit off to kill innocent civilians who aren't anything to do with a situation." is incorrect.

( Plus I think there's a reasonable argument that the citizens of WW II era Germany are some what more complicit in the military engagements and actions of their govt. than a random Afghanistan native is with regards to an illegal organisation that happens to be using his country as a base to operate in due to the lack of a strong western style govt. in the country.

By the rationale you've presented you should also nuke Florida and San Deigo as that's where the 9/11 terrorists undertook some of their training. )

Also, of course, just because something is invented somewhere does not automatically mean that the people of that country approve of said invention, pehaps they do , for a while, and then change their minds. Leaded petrol was invented in the USA for example -- by the same genius who later came up with the idea of CFCs in fridges and the like -- but one can't really go around and say that the American people therefore approve of lead poisoning -- there's probably a joke to do with old fashioned bullets somewhere or other here maybe ? -- yes ?

any achioevements of the UN (other than World Health Organization) that could in any way justify its incredible budget?

The UN however was quite key in helping to defuse the Cuban Missile crisis, and has been similarly involved in many such situations.

Of course the situation might have been resolved in a non everyonesnowaradioactivehusk way anyway -- we'll never know -- just as we'll never know how much worse things might have been without the UN stumbling around over the decades either.

But there's really no point in wasting everyone's time by trying to have a debate with you over this. On the plus side at least the cut and pasting is easy.

So the UN puts forwards a proposed treaty on the internet to better administer the thing. The treaty appears to open the door to censorship in some places, so several countries say they cannot agree to it.

Fairly boring procedural stuff, but it's about the UN so a bunch of people on Dakka go crazy.

 sebster wrote:
So the UN puts forwards a proposed treaty on the internet to better administer the thing. The treaty appears to open the door to censorship in some places, so several countries say they cannot agree to it.

Fairly boring procedural stuff, but it's about the UN so a bunch of people on Dakka go crazy.

"Better to administer the thing"??

Uh... no... they'll feth it up.

 Albatross wrote:

One may also go further and make the point that the balance of power within the UN is blatantly skewed towards the USA, UK and their allies.

It is blatantly skewed towards the P5.

I could go on for days about the problems people, US citizens in particular, have with the UN but I would likely be banned as a result. Suffice it to say, the issue is not unlike why the US Congress is so collectively unpopular.

 Frazzled wrote:

EDIT, back to the topic, any achioevements of the UN (other than World Health Organization) that could in any way justify its incredible budget?

It achieved a relatively stable forum through which countries could air their grievances.

 whembly wrote:
"Better to administer the thing"??

Uh... no... they'll feth it up.

Umm, there's already an extensive series of international agreements in place to administer global communications. How do you think they stop all those satellites bashing in to each other, or decide who gets .au after their addresses or who doesn't need anything after their name because they're America so feth yeah?

This idea that there's no international co-operation on basic elements of IT protocol and infrastructure is really odd.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Better to administer the thing"??

Uh... no... they'll feth it up.

Umm, there's already an extensive series of international agreements in place to administer global communications. How do you think they stop all those satellites bashing in to each other, or decide who gets .au after their addresses or who doesn't need anything after their name because they're America so feth yeah?

This idea that there's no international co-operation on basic elements of IT protocol and infrastructure is really odd.

Um... there IS co-operation of IT protocol, mostly driven by ICANN, which is a nonprofit private organization tasked to coordination of the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers and, in particular, ensuring its stable and secure operation. They also participate in various advisory roles and technical liaison worldwide.

Putting ICANN under the umbrella of the UN would be disasterous in my opinion...

EDIT: has nothing to do with it's "America so feth yeah"... I could care less if ICANN moved to France. Only that it remains a nonprofit organization with it's stated goal to provide stable operational policy. (in fact, there was rumour of ICANN moving to Ireland recently... but not sure if that's going to happen).

 whembly wrote:
Um... there IS co-operation of IT protocol, mostly driven by ICANN, which is a nonprofit private organization tasked to coordination of the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers and, in particular, ensuring its stable and secure operation. They also participate in various advisory roles and technical liaison worldwide.

Putting ICANN under the umbrella of the UN would be disasterous in my opinion...

Sure, for domain names and stuff like that. Which is a role it was given through international consensus (when it was split off from the US government), and something they do with advice and contribution from a board based on UN member nations already.

And yeah, there is co-operation already. Which is my point. You have to have that kind of co-operation with anything like this. So freak outs that such co-operation might be formalised with international agreements through the UN is kooky.

EDIT: has nothing to do with it's "America so feth yeah"... I could care less if ICANN moved to France. Only that it remains a nonprofit organization with it's stated goal to provide stable operational policy. (in fact, there was rumour of ICANN moving to Ireland recently... but not sure if that's going to happen).

I was just talking about US not having a domain name (being the assumed default) while the rest of us did. And it was just me being a bit silly, and still having Team America in my head after a party on Tuesday where we broke into the Team America song at one point The more sensible, but longer and more boring answer would be that the US doesn't have an address protocol at the end, because it's the biggest user, biggest economy, and the place where most early internet systems and infrastructure were laid down. So it's naturally the default.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Um... there IS co-operation of IT protocol, mostly driven by ICANN, which is a nonprofit private organization tasked to coordination of the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers and, in particular, ensuring its stable and secure operation. They also participate in various advisory roles and technical liaison worldwide.

Putting ICANN under the umbrella of the UN would be disasterous in my opinion...

Sure, for domain names and stuff like that. Which is a role it was given through international consensus (when it was split off from the US government), and something they do with advice and contribution from a board based on UN member nations already.

And yeah, there is co-operation already. Which is my point. You have to have that kind of co-operation with anything like this. So freak outs that such co-operation might be formalised with international agreements through the UN is kooky.

I think you missed my point or I've done a poor job explaining my stance.

ICANN is for the most part is non-political... (for the most part). I believe that changes if it (or it's role) were under the UN umbrella.

EDIT: has nothing to do with it's "America so feth yeah"... I could care less if ICANN moved to France. Only that it remains a nonprofit organization with it's stated goal to provide stable operational policy. (in fact, there was rumour of ICANN moving to Ireland recently... but not sure if that's going to happen).

I was just talking about US not having a domain name (being the assumed default) while the rest of us did. And it was just me being a bit silly, and still having Team America in my head after a party on Tuesday where we broke into the Team America song at one point The more sensible, but longer and more boring answer would be that the US doesn't have an address protocol at the end, because it's the biggest user, biggest economy, and the place where most early internet systems and infrastructure were laid down. So it's naturally the default.

heh... gotcha

I don't think it's an arrogance thing here... its just that the USA was the first country to define the rules/infrastructure for the internet and it wasn't initially thought of to "default it to .us" as opposed to dot com.

 dogma wrote:
It is blatantly skewed towards the P5.

I would agree with this, but with one caveat. In recent years I would say power is skewed towards the P5+1. Germany has become more relevant to the UN.

 dogma wrote:
I could go on for days about the problems people, US citizens in particular, have with the UN but I would likely be banned as a result.

A modern travesty that would be!

 dogma wrote:
It achieved a relatively stable forum through which countries could air their grievances.

While I agree that it performs that function for the international community, I think the heart of what Frazzled is saying is that the UN has not done much of "substance". Not that I necessarily agree with him, personally I am quite content with a passive UN in most circumstances, but I am sure that most Americans are generally peeved with the UN because of a deep, cultural distrust of "foreign" powers and the portrayal of UN Peacekeepers in film. I don't know how you can't see the UN as pathetic and utterly hate worthy when you watch Hotel Rwanda.

You want a forum - fine. All you need is a building and a microphone. We already have those. You don't need a multibillion dollar slushfund disguised as a budget.

 whembly wrote:
I think you missed my point or I've done a poor job explaining my stance.

ICANN is for the most part is non-political... (for the most part). I believe that changes if it (or it's role) were under the UN umbrella.

Sure, and the point I'm making is that the member nations already have scope to influence it, if they so wanted to. But they don't because they, more thank likely, know they wouldn't be adding value.

Now, I'm not arguing that therefore ICANN should be formally rolled up into the UN - right now it's working, and changing the formal structure could just give a few countries the idea to start screwing with it. All I'm saying is that these kinds of things are built around international consensus already, so the kind of freak out we see in threads like this don't really line up with reality.

I don't think it's an arrogance thing here... its just that the USA was the first country to define the rules/infrastructure for the internet and it wasn't initially thought of to "default it to .us" as opposed to dot com.

Well we all get .com and .gov and all that as well. Its just that it goes .com.au, whereas the US its just .com, because you're the default, so leaving it blank means you guys. Though as we both agree, the US being the default makes sense for a lot of reasons.

No that it matters one bit to your average internet user these days anyway. When was the last time you typed an address in anyway?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JEB_Stuart wrote:
I would agree with this, but with one caveat. In recent years I would say power is skewed towards the P5+1. Germany has become more relevant to the UN.

Japan's influence among the various Asian nations gives them considerable clout as well.

I don't know how you can't see the UN as pathetic and utterly hate worthy when you watch Hotel Rwanda.

Thing is, though, the UN is a product of its member nations. To the extent that the member nations don't give a gak about an atrocity, or don't give enough of a gak to risk lives and treasure preventing it, then the UN will be ineffective. It's really something of a cop out to say 'well the UN should have done something about it'. If we the people cared, then you'd see demand put on our governments, which in turn would produce a response through the UN.

 sebster wrote:

 JEB_Stuart wrote:
I would agree with this, but with one caveat. In recent years I would say power is skewed towards the P5+1. Germany has become more relevant to the UN.

Japan's influence among the various Asian nations gives them considerable clout as well.

While I would like to say that is true, especially when looking at it through an "us against China" point of view, I have some major hesitations towards that. Japan's ailing economy, horrendous demographics pyramid, and now their new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is up for round 2 mind you, with his crazy, "We waged WWII with honor/didn't do anything wrong in China and Korea" nonsense doesn't really do them much in the way of favors. I would say this was definitely more true of Japan under Junichiro Koizumi, but even still I am certain that once Japan amends its constitution to get rid of the pacifist element, many in Asia will welcome that as a powerful step to help curb China's rising influence. That, and I see such an amendment actually being a major boon to their economy, and get their demographics under control.

 sebster wrote:

 JEB_Stuart wrote:
I don't know how you can't see the UN as pathetic and utterly hate worthy when you watch Hotel Rwanda.

Thing is, though, the UN is a product of its member nations. To the extent that the member nations don't give a gak about an atrocity, or don't give enough of a gak to risk lives and treasure preventing it, then the UN will be ineffective. It's really something of a cop out to say 'well the UN should have done something about it'. If we the people cared, then you'd see demand put on our governments, which in turn would produce a response through the UN.

Absolutely, I agree. I was merely commenting on one of the reasons I believe the average American tends to have a angry view towards the UN. True enough though, it would take a major international effort, and a watchful eye, to actually make the UN effective at combating things like genocide. But I don't see that happening, with consistency, ever. Case in point: Sudan, Syria...the Netherlands

The ultimate problem with the U.N. as an international ruling body is that tyrants get just as many votes as democracies. And there are more tyrants in the world than actual democratic governments. So the needs of the people get ignored.

Of course, the American version of democracy hasn't exactly been doing a bang-up job of handling the needs of the people lately either...

 Vulcan wrote:
Of course, the American version of democracy hasn't exactly been doing a bang-up job of handling the needs of the people lately either...

As said time and time again, America is not a democracy, and neither is anyone else in the Western world. Also, one shouldn't assume that the job of the Republic is provide for the people.

 JEB_Stuart wrote:
While I would like to say that is true, especially when looking at it through an "us against China" point of view, I have some major hesitations towards that.

Sorry, I might have lost track of the conversation. Is it just about who is powerful, or who is a counterweight to China?

Japan's ailing economy, horrendous demographics pyramid,

People stare too much at growth rates and ignore the base of the economy. That is to say, Japan's economy is stagnant and has been for a long while, but they're still the third biggest economy in the world. That gives them plenty of aid to splash around the various minor countries of Asia to secure their votes.

Absolutely, I agree. I was merely commenting on one of the reasons I believe the average American tends to have a angry view towards the UN.

True, and fair enough.

True enough though, it would take a major international effort, and a watchful eye, to actually make the UN effective at combating things like genocide. But I don't see that happening, with consistency, ever. Case in point: Sudan, Syria...the Netherlands

The UN, though, is just a handful of buildings, a budget and a charter. None of which stops it being as powerful an instrument of world peace and human rights as its member nations choose to make it. The problem being, basically, that its member nations aren't very hesitant to spend blood and treasure on someone else's human rights. Now that's understandable, as I wouldn't want my kid getting blown up in some part of the world I can't find on a map, but it doesn't make sense to then blame the UN for committing only the few military resources it's member nations are willing to commit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
The ultimate problem with the U.N. as an international ruling body is that tyrants get just as many votes as democracies. And there are more tyrants in the world than actual democratic governments. So the needs of the people get ignored.

The UN isn't there for the needs of the people. It's there to represent the wishes of its member nations, in the hope that by resolving international disputes in the UN larger conflicts can be avoided. Whether another country has a democratic government or a tyrant doesn't really matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JEB_Stuart wrote:
quote]As said time and time again, America is not a democracy, and neither is anyone else in the Western world. Also, one shouldn't assume that the job of the Republic is provide for the people.

Of course you're a democracy. You just had elections. Everyone got out and voted, and representatives were subsequently put into all kinds of positions. That's democracy.