More proof that the UN is irrelevent

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by twospirits

Which I do believe was one of the steps that lead to World War. hmmm yeah thats a good thing.

You should read up on your history. It wasn't the collapse of the league of nations that was a step to WWII, it collapsed because it did nothing to stave off WWII.


As for

http://www.americanprogressaction.o...4257&ct=1352241

Are you upset that someone isn't towing the failed UN line? Are you upset because someone thinks the changes being suggested will be a failure and wants to fix that? I'm all for letting them go as is - it'll put the UN's other foot in the grave. Forgive Bolton from doing what he thinks is best - though I want the congress to cut all funding and withdraw - to fix the failed UN. To bad so many people just expect everyone else to just fall in line.

[YogsVR4]

And let me add this to the whole 'Bolton as an obstructionist'
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8956

Bolton Resists U.N. Push For Global Taxes
By Cliff Kincaid
August 29, 2005

We are in the midst of an orchestrated campaign by U.N. supporters to force the Bush administration to go along with a pro-world government agenda at next month's "World Summit" at the world body in New York. The script is a familiar one--depict John Bolton, the new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as someone obstructing the progress of the international community. The main players in the campaign are the World Federalists, the Open Society Policy Center of billionaire George Soros, and Ted Turner's Better World Campaign. In terms of the media, Reuters news service, the New York Times and the Washington Post have already opened fire on Bolton. Most recently, Arianna Huffington and Steven Clemons of the New America Foundation have joined the campaign, urging the State Department to bypass Bolton and acquiesce to U.N. demands that the U.S. commit to hundreds of billions of dollars in new foreign aid spending.

What the media have carefully concealed is the fact the summit's "draft outcome document," as it's currently called, would put the U.S. on record in support of global taxes on the American people. Bolton wants those and other parts of the document eliminated.

Two new developments are expected in this propaganda campaign. First, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will release a letter to President Bush urging the U.S. to play a "positive role" in the negotiations on a final document. Second, liberal members of Congress will release a similar letter. The major media will fawn over these developments, leading to more anti-Bolton stories.

The media campaign began on August 17 when Reuters news agency falsely accused Bolton of trying to "scrap" U.N. reform by challenging the document. The very next day, the Citizens for Global Solutions, previously known as the World Federalist Association, Ted Turner's Better World Campaign, and the Open Society Policy Center announced they were going to send a letter to Bush on this matter and wanted other groups to add their names to it. "A similar congressional sign on letter will be circulated shortly," they said. They only want Bush to "cooperate" with the U.N., they insist.

Then, on August 25, the Washington Post and the New York Times ran stories by their U.N. correspondents raising alarms about the changes Bolton is seeking in the document. Colum Lynch of the Post accused Bolton of throwing the proceedings of the U.N. into "turmoil." Warren Hoge of the Times quoted William R. Pace, general secretary of the World Federalist Movement, "which promotes a strong United Nations," as saying, "It would be very unfortunate and not in the interest of the United States or the international community for the new U.S. ambassador to barge in and undermine an important summit negotiation process."

Notice use of the loaded words and phrases "barge in" and "undermine," designed to convey the impression of Bolton as obstructionist.

But also notice the misleading description of the World Federalists promoting "a strong United Nations." The group openly favors world government, financed by global taxes, and Bolton stands in its way.

It's unfortunate that the major media have reporters at the U.N. who are either too lazy or too liberal to inform the American people that the draft supports "a solidarity contribution on plane tickets to finance development projects." This is a euphemism for a French proposal for an international tax on airline travel. The document goes on to say that the nations of the world will "agree to consider further other solidarity contributions that would be nationally applied and internationally coordinated..."

If the idea of global taxes is shocking, it's only because the Big Media have failed to report that the U.N. issued a 17-page August 17, 2004, report under the title of "Innovative sources of financing for development." The phrase "innovative sources" is another euphemism for global taxes. The report was approved by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, made explicit references to global taxes, and carried the endorsement of the U.N. General Assembly. This kind of thinking is reflected in the summit document that Bolton wants to change.

The U.N. also prepared a book, New Sources of Development Finance, advocating global environmental taxes and a global currency tax that would affect the international investments of ordinary Americans. One contributor to the book suggests that taxes be collected by national governments and then provided through a "World Tax Authority" under the U.N. system.


In seeking a global tax, the U.N. is demanding that the U.S. spend 0.7 percent of our gross national income on foreign aid. According to Jeffrey D. Sachs, Annan's special advisor, the U.S. is short by $65 billion each year. Over the 13-year period of time when the U.S. is expected to meet its own "Millennium Development Goal," this amounts to $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends on foreign aid. Sachs favors a global tax to force the U.S. to pay up.

All signs point to a propaganda blitz on behalf of the U.N. over the next several days as negotiations on the summit document intensify. Bolton, who will be depicted by the media as the villain, has been standing firm. The question is whether the U.S. State Department will buckle under the pressure. American sovereignty hangs in the balance.

[lazysmurff]

i find it odd that arianna huffington is behind global taxes. shes like the poster child for conservativism.

though i must say, Bolton is a bit of a tool.....

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

i find it odd that arianna huffington is behind global taxes. shes like the poster child for conservativism.

That changed some time ago.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Yogs, the UN has already fallen into the dust. I don't think that the U.S. leaving the UN would somehow make it even less respectable.

UUGGHH!!! So true! So true!

[Cbass]

If the UN is so irrelevant, why do you keep posting about it?

I find it shocking how relevant the US is when it comes to staring down North Korea and Iran, both countries are openly pursuing nuclear technology, despite threats by the US. I think it has something to do with the fact that if the US tried to invade either country, it would be thumped. Even if the US could tactically defeat either nations army, which are considerable, especially N. Korea's, there would be resistance that would make the current "insurgency" in Iraq seem like the French resistance during WW2(threw that one in for Yogs. )

[YogsVR4]

Yeah - the US would get thumped. I recall the Iraqi army ranking only behind the US, Russia and China some years ago. But, at this point, those two countries might just toe the line.
French resistance? Capitualation you mean

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Yeah - the US would get thumped. I recall the Iraqi army ranking only behind the US, Russia and China some years ago. But, at this point, those two countries might just toe the line.
French resistance? Capitualation you mean

It seems to me as if the Iraqi army is giving the US a thumping right now. Incredible how those Republican Guard units simply broke up and disappeared, yet a short while later there were well organized and even better equipped "insurgent groups", many operating wearing camo uniforms... Oh but I forgot, they are "terr'rists".

Also, those "improvised explosive devices" seem to be very well constructed, almost as if they were remotely detonated high explosive charges, built by well trained munitions experts.

Iran and North Korea both have some pretty impressive missiles that US countermeasures CAN'T stop. Also, I'd wonder exactly how sure we are of their nuclear capabilities, and whether anyone would like to risk it.

[YogsVR4]

You must have a bizzare definition of thumping

Nothing in Iran or N. Korea's arsenal can hit the US. Israel and Japan on the other hand are a different matter. If North Korea actually demonstrates that it has a bomb, you can bet Japan will stock up. China will stand up and take serious notice then. If Iran goes Nuclear then you can also bet that Israel will also demonstrate that they also have the bomb (though a lot of people speculate that they do already).

I don’t think either Iran or North Korea have any intention of building the bomb or selling them on the open market. They’re using it as a tool to show they could do it and to squeeze out concessions for giving it up.

India and Pakistan have already had a mini arms race. If either of those two countries built the bomb, we’ll have some more.

[Cbass]

North Korea could sink US air craft carriers if they want to come into the theater of operations. North Korea can shoot down any warplane teh US has, even those fancy stealth 117's. The problem is the stealth tech works well against high frequency cold war era radar, but is practically useless against the low frequency older style of radar, when it's given sufficient amplification.

North Korea has no intentions of using nuclear weapons, of course not, it'd be the end of North Korea as a country. It's a bargaining chip for trade with South Korea and Japan, and lifting economic sanctions.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by Cbass

It seems to me as if the Iraqi army is giving the US a thumping right now. Incredible how those Republican Guard units simply broke up and disappeared, yet a short while later there were well organized and even better equipped "insurgent groups", many operating wearing camo uniforms... Oh but I forgot, they are "terr'rists".

Also, those "improvised explosive devices" seem to be very well constructed, almost as if they were remotely detonated high explosive charges, built by well trained munitions experts.

Iran and North Korea both have some pretty impressive missiles that US countermeasures CAN'T stop. Also, I'd wonder exactly how sure we are of their nuclear capabilities, and whether anyone would like to risk it.

The Iraqi army is fighting alongside the Americans right now. So how is it posssible for the Iraqi army to be thumping the US? The republican army units didn't break up and disappear, they tucked tail and ran away. From the reading I have done I see most of the insurgents being non-iraqi.

Also IED are easy to build, not much talent is needed to make a roadside bomb. A google search will find you directions on how to build many different bombs.

You know Saddam said he had some impressive weapons too but they were all smoke and mirrors.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

The Iraqi army is fighting alongside the Americans right now. So how is it posssible for the Iraqi army to be thumping the US? The republican army units didn't break up and disappear, they tucked tail and ran away. From the reading I have done I see most of the insurgents being non-iraqi.

Guess that shows who's news you've been reading.

The "Iraqi army" as you would call them is not doing a great deal of anything, the few recruits they can get are a long way from a cohesive fighting force. Even the pentagon will admit that much.

So where did the Republican Guard run away to? Into the cities, where they are waging a guerilla war.

Ah yes, all of the insurgents are foreigners, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...576666,00.html

The report itself.

http://www.csis.org/press/wf_2005_0919.pdf

Originally Posted by Flatrater

Also IED are easy to build, not much talent is needed to make a roadside bomb. A google search will find you directions on how to build many different bombs.

You know Saddam said he had some impressive weapons too but they were all smoke and mirrors.

A fairly high level of competency is required to construct an effective antivehicle bomb, whether remotely detonated or self triggering.

Iraq did have some pretty good weapons for the 80's, that's for sure. I recall some hundreds of tons of them being stolen from underneath the noses of the occupying army after the invasion.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by Cbass

The problem is the stealth tech works well against high frequency cold war era radar, but is practically useless against the low frequency older style of radar, when it's given sufficient amplification.

The problem with the older radars whether Soviet vintage or ours is that they are easier to jam, are susceptible to ground clutter and do not have adequate range. The moving target indicator (MTI) circuits are ineffective and whatever signal is received cannot be used by a computer or data processor to properly guide a missile for a kill. Regardless, our Stealths do not give off much of a return to amplify. Prior to any attack on the enemy we saturate them with various frequencies to jam and send out SAM seeking Wild Weasel aircraft to deliberately force their air defense units to radiate. When that occurs, they have been detected and are ultimately taken out.

The North Koreans basically use the Soviet SA systems. For proof of their ineffectiveness just refer back to Gulf War I, the War in the Balkans and the current Iraq War. We have in our possession just about every older and newer SA systems made courtesy of Egypt and other former Soviet backed countries.

And our M1 Abrams battle tank proved better than the Soviet made T-72 and T-80.

If we ever attack North Korea or Iran, which I seriously doubt, it will be based on air power. We have the best in the world and in recorded history.