Rebuild the U.N.? No, implode it

[Noblese_Oblige]

I think that Romney recently spoke about the UN and had the same sort of inclination that you did, in that the UN is just too corrupt, too ineffective etc.

My only problem with that idea is that if the UN were somewhere else they would probably be so much worse regarding how they work with us.

Also, if a "new" world body were established we would likely lose significant power. In the late 40's and 50's we were considered saviors in a way...

Well don't need to go down that route.



I had a college professor who was a passionate defender of the United Nations and one of his main arguments, incredibly, was that the UN's value was that people from totalitarian/authoritarian countries could come here and see how wonderful our system was and then go back home and make changes!

I thought that that was a "bit" naive.


IF regular people were to go to the UN, in massive numbers from those places and then go back his "plan" might work, but since the people who come to the UN are more likely to be the Tariq Aziz types than the guy from the slave labor camps in India or Brazil...the likelihood of there being any REAL change are just about nil.

[Noblese_Oblige]

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Yeah..why not take the "show" on the road?...

Well, when the UN goes on the road they tend to spread corruption and rape the populace.

That would be more like punishing places like Sudan than benefitting them.

Just doesn't seem fair.

[Noblese_Oblige]

Originally Posted by dabateman

I would agree that the UN should be more active, but logistically they have to have a base of operations. It shouldn't be super lavish either, no permanent representatives and such unless deemed necessary by mission (ie. AIDS). More accountability is important, but the same can be said for the US Government.

No permanent representatives?

Does that mean that you think that the Security Council should sometimes be represented by countries like Burma and Iran?

[Noblese_Oblige]

Originally Posted by dabateman

I don't have a problem with the headquarters being in New York considering that New York is essentially the center of the civilized world. It makes sense to me to have it there. I do however take issue with the fact that they don't even seem to have regional headquarters. They should learn from multi-national companies when it comes to the theories of corporate style organization.

They do sort of have "regional" quarters, but all of them are in the Western world.

I think that, for example, the WHO is headquartered in Switzerland.

[KnightOfSappho]

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Well..some may not agree with you there..you and I know we are "civilized" but remember,this is a world wide organization,some see us as war mongers and interventionists. I still believe the UN''s "headquarters" should be on neutral soil. In fact,I'm sure many Americans would be willing to pay the moving fee along with the first years operating expenses..

That would include a lot of New Yorkers that have to put up with these dumb-asses.

[Spencer Collins]

Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho

That would include a lot of New Yorkers that have to put up with these dumb-asses.

Amen to that..I still love the concept of the U.N. but since it's going under a major renovation,what a perfect time to relocate it to neutral soil. To me, this makes a lot of sense. Think about it...a rebirth of a noble idea without worrying about diplomatic immunity issues...

[Spencer Collins]

Originally Posted by Noblese_Oblige

I think that Romney recently spoke about the UN and had the same sort of inclination that you did, in that the UN is just too corrupt, too ineffective etc. My only problem with that idea is that if the UN were somewhere else they would probably be so much worse regarding how they work with us.

Romney is correct in his analysis and obviously,I agree with him. However,since the U.N. is going under major renovation with huge cost overruns,what a perfect time to consider blowing it up. The $1.8 billion project is a year behind schedule. Every month of delay adds an additional $10 million to the cost. The United States already is on the hook for nearly $400 million. Implode the U.N. and rebuild it on NEAUTRAL soil. To me..this just makes sense...even if "neutrality" is not an issue..the U.N. should not be headquartered in any one nation in perpetuity. I say..stop the fricken renovation and start looking for a more neutral and suitable location.
The political Olympic "games" should not be based in any one nation forever! Each month we delay.. the renovation costs us an additional $10 million dollars. The money could be better spent securing a new and neutral home for the U.N.

[Noblese_Oblige]

My natural inclination is to accept anti-UN stances.

However we have REAL power there and any remake would leave us with less power.

Now NATO......

[team_barlo]

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Rebuild the U.N.? No, implode it


Officials overseeing the behind-schedule and overbudget United Nations headquarters rebuilding project are considering emptying the massive New York City complex for three years to get the job done.
Might we be so audacious as to suggest that the structure at Turtle Bay be imploded once the last staffers leave and, with it, the mess that is the U.N.?

As with just about everything the U.N. does, the renovation project on the 56-year-old, 39-story headquarters is in disarray. The $1.8 billion project is a year behind schedule. Every month of delay adds an additional $10 million to the cost. The United States already is on the hook for nearly $400 million.

But The Washington Times reports that even with temporary relocation costs, it could be cheaper to empty the entire asbestos-filled facility and gut it, right down to the steel beams and concrete slabs. Seems like a half-measure to us.

Indeed, the United Nations was founded 62 years ago with the most altruistic goals. But it has degenerated into a cesspool of tyrant-loving, rights-defying, money-grubbing and assets-blowing one-world-government sycophants.
America can do better than this corrupt criminal enterprise. So, again, don't rehab the United Nations complex -- blow it up. And after the rubble is cleared, build an organization that promotes inalienable rights, not undermines them.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_534024.html

Simply blowing up the U.N. is not the answer,I think it's time to relocate it to say..Antarctica..

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is notoriously slanted to the right. Having said that--I think moving the UN to Antarctica or the Sudan are both very good ideas. Enough of this cushy-ness.

Albania is another thought. Anywhere but the bastion of the good life!

[Adept1]

TOP 10 NEW SITES
for the United Nations


Baghdad, Iraq
Antarctica
Paris, France
Switzerland (anywhere)
Bikini Atoll
Marianas Trench
Luna
Santa's House
Kennedy Compound
Guantanamo, Cuba (Gitmo)
Septic Tank
Sterilization Chamber
Incommunicado
Under anything impenetrable
On top of a bomb 3 seconds before detonation
The object that used to be a planet (Pluto)
On the nearest starbase
On Sol
Neverland
Memory
Recycle Bin
1938
2999 better known as Y3K
Reprocessing facility
A large asteroid, not in our solar system
In the 3,497th place suggested on this forum.
Where the sun don't shine