inebriation-free zone

Stonewall · Mar 4, 2013

The United States called on Monday for a ban on drunk diplomats at budget debates at the United Nations.

This seems a tad excessive.

We make the modest proposal that the negotiating rooms should in future be an inebriation-free zone," Joseph Torsella, deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform, told the General Assembly's budget committee.

That's a 'modest' proposal, Joe?

While my government is truly grateful for the strategic opportunities presented by some recent past practices, let's save the champagne for toasting the successful end of the session, and do some credit to the Fifth Committee's reputation in the process," he said.

Who is paying for the champagne, Joe? And why do we continue to even spend money on this UN? If this is the budget committee, who better would understand a budget cut, the US withdrawl from this useless UN would save billions.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/un-us-drunk-

David · Mar 4, 2013

Stonewall said:
This seems a tad excessive.

That's a 'modest' proposal, Joe?

Who is paying for the champagne, Joe? And why do we continue to even spend money on this UN? If this is the budget committee, who better would understand a budget cut, the US withdrawl from this useless UN would save billions.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/un-us-drunk-

I never understood why so many Americans are opposed to a world gov't we created, dominate and which for the most part works. My guess is historical and civic ignorance.

Stonewall · Mar 5, 2013

David said:
I never understood why so many Americans are opposed to a world gov't we created, dominate and which for the most part works. My guess is historical and civic ignorance.

Not understanding any opposition to a world government more proof we've moved from our roots and American foundation. Thanks for the example, David, this opinion here exactly what I've been trying to highlight.

Thanks again.

Iolo · Mar 5, 2013

How could anyone bear the total hypocricy of the present world system sober?

Stonewall · Mar 5, 2013

Iolo said:
How could anyone bear the total hypocricy of the present world system sober?

Don't know...but then I'm still struggling with David's "I never understood why so many Americans are opposed to a world gov't"

For the love.....

David · Mar 5, 2013

Stonewall said:
Don't know...but then I'm still struggling with David's "I never understood why so many Americans are opposed to a world gov't"

For the love.....

Yes but in the UN's case world = America. The UN is our plaything for the most part (benefit of owning the place), it's hardly a threat to American sovereignty and it allows us to project diplomatic power as far and as aggressively as we do our military power. The SC needs to go, the GC could probably do the job better anyway but as a whole the UN is a powerful diplomatic tool to say nothing of it's welfare (not is the monetary support sense) programs it runs.

Stonewall · Mar 6, 2013

David said:
Yes but in the UN's case world = America. The UN is our plaything for the most part (benefit of owning the place), it's hardly a threat to American sovereignty and it allows us to project diplomatic power as far and as aggressively as we do our military power. The SC needs to go, the GC could probably do the job better anyway but as a whole the UN is a powerful diplomatic tool to say nothing of it's welfare (not is the monetary support sense) programs it runs.

Hardly a threat and yet you labeled it a world government entity. If welfare programs or attempts at diplomacy are it's uses, I have no problem with them. However, the UN cannot enforce it's own Resolutions, it cannot determine what is legal, it cannot even define terrorism, it's completely useless today, I don't think recent world events prove them useful at all.

That's a budget cut that makes sense.

David · Mar 6, 2013

Stonewall said:
Hardly a threat and yet you labeled it a world government entity. If welfare programs or attempts at diplomacy are it's uses, I have no problem with them. However, the UN cannot enforce it's own Resolutions, it cannot determine what is legal, it cannot even define terrorism, it's completely useless today, I don't think recent world events prove them useful at all.

That's a budget cut that makes sense.

As I said, abolish the SC and give it's powers (minus the veto) to the GC and most of the UN's administration problems would come to an end. As it stands the GC is the 'governing body' yet the SC has all the teeth and can be obstructed by a single no vote no matter how overwhelming the support for any issue they take up. That's why the UN, as a government, is a failure. I'd also suggest giving the UN a standing military (each member state should be allowed to send only as many troops as they want or none at all, it shouldn't be compulsory) so that it's peacekeeping mission will actually work.

Stonewall · Mar 7, 2013

David said:
As I said, abolish the SC and give it's powers (minus the veto) to the GC and most of the UN's administration problems would come to an end. As it stands the GC is the 'governing body' yet the SC has all the teeth and can be obstructed by a single no vote no matter how overwhelming the support for any issue they take up. That's why the UN, as a government, is a failure. I'd also suggest giving the UN a standing military (each member state should be allowed to send only as many troops as they want or none at all, it shouldn't be compulsory) so that it's peacekeeping mission will actually work.

The Blue Helmets are a standing military. So you want a UN not just for diplomacy channels and world welfare roles.....but want them to have a standing military to enforce all this welfare and diplomacy?

Interesting. Odd, but interesting.

David · Mar 7, 2013

Stonewall said:
The Blue Helmets are a standing military. So you want a UN not just for diplomacy channels and world welfare roles.....but want them to have a standing military to enforce all this welfare and diplomacy?

Interesting. Odd, but interesting.

It's not a standing military under the UN, they're still under national commands working on a UN mandate. A combination of weak mandates and contrary national policies undermines many politically sensitive operations and is, along with SC vetoes and GC resolutions being non-binding without the SC support, why the UN lacks teeth. A military loyal to the UN (remember, my idea involves voluntary national commitments so no nation need worry about undermine their militaries) along with my previous suggestion, would do much to reform the UN.

Aeonpax · Mar 8, 2013

`
I'd like to start with our elected representatives in Congress first.

David · Mar 8, 2013

Aeonpax said:
`
I'd like to start with our elected representatives in Congress first.

For that, make senators appointed, raise the pay of Congresspeople so the poor can actually afford to be in gov't and make campaigning publicly funded only so nobody can buy elections.

Stonewall · Mar 11, 2013

David said:
It's not a standing military under the UN, they're still under national commands working on a UN mandate. A combination of weak mandates and contrary national policies undermines many politically sensitive operations and is, along with SC vetoes and GC resolutions being non-binding without the SC support, why the UN lacks teeth. A military loyal to the UN (remember, my idea involves voluntary national commitments so no nation need worry about undermine their militaries) along with my previous suggestion, would do much to reform the UN.

A military "loyal" to the UN? I must confess I have no idea what you're saying here. Would you mind rephrasing?

Stonewall · Mar 11, 2013

Aeonpax said:
`
I'd like to start with our elected representatives in Congress first.

May I suggest your word elected is dead on correct...and is the primary word in your statement. We need to start with voters, Aeonpax. This United States constituency is a great place to start, we can't seem to quite figure it out. I hear complaint after complaint about Congress, lowest poll figures in history, corrupt and incompetence....and yet we vote them right back in every election, incumbency of vital importance in any campaign, it's very difficult to unseat Congresspeople.

Look at Obama.....a former Illinois Senator. Who then makes his running mate a Joe Boden. A Delaware Senator. Obama winning the Dem primary over another....Senator from New York. Hillary then becomes Sec of State. Followed by former Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Our elected representatives are heralded as heroes today.....so where you'd like to start with those elected representatives, careful you don't make matters worse....removing them sends them to the executive branch....where they utterly prove how incompetent and corrupt they are.

David · Mar 11, 2013

Stonewall said:
A military "loyal" to the UN? I must confess I have no idea what you're saying here. Would you mind rephrasing?

A UN appointed general/admiral giving orders to UN troops that are outside the chain of command of their home countries.

Stonewall · Mar 11, 2013

David said:
A UN appointed general/admiral giving orders to UN troops that are outside the chain of command of their home countries.

Giving "orders to UN troops"....but defining the united Nations "as a whole the UN is a powerful diplomatic tool to say nothing of it's welfare (not is the monetary support sense) programs it runs."

I guess I'm still confused on what role you suggest they play. Diplomacy and welfare actually require a standing army?

David · Mar 12, 2013

Stonewall said:
Giving "orders to UN troops"....but defining the united Nations "as a whole the UN is a powerful diplomatic tool to say nothing of it's welfare (not is the monetary support sense) programs it runs."

I guess I'm still confused on what role you suggest they play. Diplomacy and welfare actually require a standing army?

Remember what happened when they tried feeding the Somalians? The UN couldn't do anything so long as the militias didn't attack the peacekeepers and the UN couldn't issue orders changing the rules of engagement because the peacekeepers weren't actually their troops. A UN command structure independent of the UN's member states would have allowed for such orders and those peacekeepers would of been allowed to defend the food drops.

Stonewall · Mar 13, 2013

A UN command structure independent of the UN's member states for welfare and diplomacy? And feeding Somalians?

David · Mar 13, 2013

Stonewall said:
A UN command structure independent of the UN's member states for welfare and diplomacy? And feeding Somalians?

Why are you avoiding the point?

Stonewall · Mar 13, 2013

What point? That your role of the UN being diplomatic and welfare has now morphed into a UN military and a 'UN Command Structure?"

inebriation-free zone

Similar threads