Rebuild the U.N.? No, implode it

[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..

[cnredd]

Although I believe the UN should be disbanded, how about this for a compromise...Every two years, the UN delegates have a vote on where the most pressing need is in the world(currently, I'd go with Sudan)...

Here comes the fun part...The UN packs up, gathers the airline tickets...and GOES there!

No more mid-afternoon tea breaks and immunity status...Watch the genocide firsthand from the shack-view...

Maybe that will get them to do a little problem-solving...

[cnredd]

From an old post from someone else that I've kept in my notepad...

Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.

In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.

Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling... Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?

[Spencer Collins]

Originally Posted by cnredd

Although I believe the UN should be disbanded, how about this for a compromise...Every two years, the UN delegates have a vote on where the most pressing need is in the world(currently, I'd go with Sudan)...

Here comes the fun part...The UN packs up, gathers the airline tickets...and GOES there!

No more mid-afternoon tea breaks and immunity status...Watch the genocide firsthand from the shack-view...

Maybe that will get them to do a little problem-solving...

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

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

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

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.

[Spencer Collins]

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.

Perhaps the U.N. should be located on truly "neutral" ground? Antarctica could fit the bill nicely. They could have another main facility at the North Poll,that way they would be bi-polar and on neutral soil...

[cnredd]

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Perhaps the U.N. should be located on truly "neutral" ground? Antarctica could fit the bill nicely. They could have another main facility at the North Poll,that way they would be bi-polar and on neutral soil...

Baghdad...

[Spencer Collins]

Originally Posted by cnredd

Baghdad...

Sure..why not?...

[dabateman]

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Sure..why not?...

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.

[Spencer Collins]

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.

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..