Barack Obama gives a speech before the general assembly and cuts Israel off at the knees?  No US president has ever spoken of Israel in this manner before, least of all on the world stage.

And he's followed by Khadafi, who delivers a rambling, convoluted speech that lasts 90 minutes but was only supposed to go 15?  A speech in which he refers to Obama as a "son of Africa" and as "my son" and hopes that he can stay president forever.  Keep in mind, Khadafi can probably be considered the 'centrist' of the Middle East.

And of course, the evening was topped off by a speech from Ahmadinejad.  That turned out to be the uneventful delivery of the evening.

How can the UN even be considered a legitimate world body anymore?  Not that it ever really could be anyway, but it continually shows its ability to sink to new lows.  It can't even keep Khadafi from limiting his speech to 15 minutes.  How is it going to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

The world is turning upside down.  Some of you might find this story interesting.  I found it while doing a little research.  It's about a prophecy by a 17th century Imam who makes a very striking prediction.  I'm not making any connections, mind you; I'm just putting it out there.  It just seems to have a little more significance after what happened today.

They can't keep Iran form getting nuclear weapons. The US and Isarel would have to.

There are people who consider the UN legitimate? You're joking, right?

Obama Happend

Ok I Admit I just wanted to post this ;p

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are people who consider the UN legitimate? You're joking, right?

People misunderstand the purpose of the UN

It is not designed to be a world government
It is not designed to be a tool for enforcing US policy onto smaller states, such as Iran.

It is designed as a place where a bunch of people from lots of different countries can come together and talk to eachother. I.e. it's a place for diplomacy. In that respect it has been largely successful.

It is also designed as a tool to make it more difficult for soverign countries to invade eachother. It's been mostly successful - compare the frequency of foreign invasions nowadays with how common they were during the 19th century. That may be inconvenient for countries that enjoy foreign invasions (such as the US), but the UN itself is pretty much working as intended.

Bush is Pro-palistian state also.  Most people are,  including a number of israelis.

He has spoken,   for the first time in 3-4 thousand years peace will reign.  All thanks to the 5 minute speech of he that spoke it.

Really,  the only options are to eigther recognize the state and create borders or create Nazi style palistian death camps.  I doubt option two is even really an option but for maybe a tiny tiny number.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are people who consider the UN legitimate? You're joking, right?

 

People misunderstand the purpose of the UN

 

It is not designed to be a world government
It is not designed to be a tool for enforcing US policy onto smaller states, such as Iran.

 

It is designed as a place where a bunch of people from lots of different countries can come together and talk to eachother. I.e. it's a place for diplomacy. In that respect it has been largely successful.

 

It is also designed as a tool to make it more difficult for soverign countries to invade eachother. It's been mostly successful - compare the frequency of foreign invasions nowadays with how common they were during the 19th century. That may be inconvenient for countries that enjoy foreign invasions (such as the US), but the UN itself is pretty much working as intended.

Without further evidence, you engaging in what they call post hoc ergo propter hoc. You are confusing correlation with causation. It is equally likely that other factors, such as the increase of democracy and free republics is what has led to less and less foreign invasions.

That's the product of a lot more factors than the UN -- I don't even see the UN having much to do with that at all. It seems far ore likely that it is the influence of other prior wars and the weapons which have been produced. Also the advent of the super powers.

McDonalds has risen in the same period. Is the UN responsible for the growth of McDonalds?

Of course, in something as complicated as international diplomacy, causality can be debated endlessly - especially since much of what happens at the UN (i.e. the diplomacy) takes place behind closed doors, with outsiders only able to see the results.

However, my primary point is that it's hard to say "the UN has failed", when it's primary objectives have, by whatever means, been achieved.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Of course, in something as complicated as international diplomacy, causality can be debated endlessly.

 

However, my primary point is that it's hard to say "the UN has failed", when it's primary objectives have, by whatever means, been achieved.

I never said it failed; I merely implied it has no legitimacy. That has nothing to do with success or failure. I feel any organization that embraces tyrants as the equals of democratically elected leaders has no legitimacy as an international body.

I would also say that it's wrong to criticise the UN for preventing Iran's attempted acquisition of atomic weaponry when:

a) It wasn't designed to do that.

and

b) Iran hasn't yet obtained atomic weaponry

and

c) We have no control. There is no way of knowing how much further atomic proliferation would occur if the UN didn't exist.

I'd agree that preventing Iran from getting nuclear weaponry would be a good thing. But such a goal, whilst worthy, would be impossible to attain without the co-operation of nearby powerful states such as Russia.

Hence blaming the UN is pointless. If you want to blame anyone, blame Russia/China. The situation would be no better, and possibly much worse, if the UN didn't exist.

Originally posted by Antipathy

I would also say that it's wrong to criticise the UN for preventing Iran's attempted acquisition of atomic weaponry when:

 

a) It wasn't designed to do that.

 

and

 

b) Iran hasn't yet obtained atomic weaponry

 

and

 

c) We have no control. There is no way of knowing how much further atomic proliferation would occur if the UN didn't exist.

 

I'd agree that preventing Iran from getting nuclear weaponry would be a good thing. But such a goal, whilst worthy, would be impossible to attain without the co-operation of nearby powerful states such as Russia.

 

Hence blaming the UN is pointless. If you want to blame anyone, blame Russia/China. The situation would be no better, and possibly much worse, if the UN didn't exist.

Russia and China have been empowered and validated by the UN -- just as the UN empowers all tyrannies vs the freer nations. Without the UN, and if we had had a real alliance of free nations going, who knows what Russia and China might look like today?

With the UN, we  have chosen peace over freedom, and we have neither. I think it would have been better to have chosen freedom over peace, because it seems peace is more the product of freedom, than freedom is the product of peace.

I'd agree - you didn't actually use the term failed - but it was clearly implied by your posts. However if you want to be taken at face value I'd suggest you learn to use language accurately (i.e. if you really want to show that something is illegitimate, you would need to speak in terms of laws broken).

It seems to me that you really don't have a clue about international diplomacy. Here's a few hints:

- Not everyone in the world agrees with you.

- Not everyone in the world is very nice

- If you only speak to the nice people who agree with you, then you achieve less than if you speak to everyone.

- In order to get your viewpoint accross to the not very nice people, you occasionally have to allow them to express their viewpoint to you.

Originally posted by Antipathy

I'd agree - you didn't actually use the term failed - but it was clearly implied by your posts. However if you want to be taken at face value I'd suggest you learn to use language accurately (i.e. if you really want to show that something is illegitimate, you would need to speak in terms of laws broken).

 

It seems to me that you really don't have a clue about international diplomacy. Here's a few hints:

 

- Not everyone in the world agrees with you.

- Not everyone in the world is very nice

- If you only speak to the nice people who agree with you, then you achieve less than if you speak to everyone.

- In order to get your viewpoint accross to the not very nice people, you occasionally have to allow them to express their viewpoint to you.

just because I don't agree with YOU that the UN is the best avenue for international diplomacy doesn't mean I don't have a clue about it. Can we leave the childish personal attacks in the schoolyard please.

I feel that giving legitimacy to tyrants is NOT the best way to go about international diplomacy. It isn't about no speaking with peole, but in not legitimizing tyranny.

This has NOTHING to do with allowing tyrannies to express "their views," but what avenue we should take. I feel legitimizing through bodies such as the UN is not the best way to go.

Russia and China have been empowered and validated by the UN -- just as the UN empowers all tyrannies vs the freer nations. Without the UN, and if we had had a real alliance of free nations going, who knows what Russia and China might look like today?

With the UN, we have chosen peace over freedom, and we have neither. I think it would have been better to have chosen freedom over peace, because it seems peace is more the product of freedom, than freedom is the product of peace.

I don't know what they would look like without the UN. I know that communist Russia existed long before the UN, and that the UN had very little to do with the foundation of communist China. I also know that, under the present international system (including the UN), both have become far more open to western ideas over the last few decades.

And what the heck does "chosen freedom over peace" mean? Are you suggesting arbitrarily invading anyone who doesn't agree with your concept of freedom?

Originally posted by Fishermage 

just because I don't agree with YOU that the UN is the best avenue for international diplomacy doesn't mean I don't have a clue about it. Can we leave the childish personal attacks in the schoolyard please.

I feel that giving legitimacy to tyrants is NOT the best way to go about international diplomacy. It isn't about no speaking with peole, but in not legitimizing tyranny.

This has NOTHING to do with allowing tyrannies to express "their views," but what avenue we should take. I feel legitimizing through bodies such as the UN is not the best way to go.

Well so far you haven't said anything about an alternative way to go. All you've done so far is whine about the UN.

I'd suggest if you want your critique to be taken more seriously, you should make it more constructive.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Russia and China have been empowered and validated by the UN -- just as the UN empowers all tyrannies vs the freer nations. Without the UN, and if we had had a real alliance of free nations going, who knows what Russia and China might look like today?

With the UN, we have chosen peace over freedom, and we have neither. I think it would have been better to have chosen freedom over peace, because it seems peace is more the product of freedom, than freedom is the product of peace.

 

I don't know what they would look like without the UN. I know that communist Russia existed long before the UN, and that the UN had very little to do with the foundation of communist China. I also know that, under the present international system (including the UN), both have become far more open to western ideas over the last few decades.

And what the heck does "chosen freedom over peace" mean? Are you suggesting arbitrarily invading anyone who doesn't agree with your concept of freedom?

Nope, nothing of the sort. there is something between inviting dictators into your club, and invading them. It's called diplomacy, which obviously you haven't a clue about since you think those are the only two options.

Originally posted by Antipathy

Originally posted by Fishermage 

just because I don't agree with YOU that the UN is the best avenue for international diplomacy doesn't mean I don't have a clue about it. Can we leave the childish personal attacks in the schoolyard please.

I feel that giving legitimacy to tyrants is NOT the best way to go about international diplomacy. It isn't about no speaking with peole, but in not legitimizing tyranny.

This has NOTHING to do with allowing tyrannies to express "their views," but what avenue we should take. I feel legitimizing through bodies such as the UN is not the best way to go.

 

Well so far you haven't said anything about an alternative way to go. All you've done so far is whine about the UN.

 

I'd suggest if you want your critique to be taken more seriously, you should make it more constructive.

Actually in your desire to attack someone and drag a discussion into the schoolyard, you missed the part where I made a positive suggestion.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Nope, nothing of the sort. there is something between inviting dictators into your club, and invading them. It's called diplomacy, which obviously you haven't a clue about since you think those are the only two options.

Well - in order to have diplomatic negotiations with anyone, you need to invite them somewhere. And you'd also need to allow them to speak (otherwise they'd be unlikely to come).

So if you got rid of the UN you'd only need to create some other club at which to do your diplomacy.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Actually in your desire to attack someone and drag a discussion into the schoolyard, you missed the part where I made a positive suggestion.

Nope - i missed it because I failed to bring a microscope. Or maybe I just mistook it for empty rhetoric.  Please point out your positive and well considered suggestion.

Originally posted by Fishermage

There are people who consider the UN legitimate? You're joking, right?

i was surprised by this too. Just found out not to long ago my best friend and his brother think the UN controls the world's militarys and can do anything they want with them. Also they think the UN is trying to create 1 world power ..... hard to argue with conspiracys and stubborness though.