Another reason the UN should be disbanded

.

Hi Mo,

On the major issues of the past decade, the UN has been absent or ineffective: Iraq (except to plunder their oil with that Oil for Food disgrace ), Sudan, Cuba, Liberia, Rwanda, Balkans, Korea, etc. NATO took the initiative in the Balkans forever redefining that organization. What would replace this abomination is perhaps smaller coalitions of like-minded states and/or a League of "Democratic" Nations -- where at least nations only got a vote who's own citizens had some form of determination in choosing their leaders.

Let the UN carry on it's merry way ... w/o US taxpayer money it won't last long. The US will certainly be a leader in whatever replaces it, because we are already demanded to be no matter what capacity we function in in this world. I prefer engagement to isolationism, but am tired of being taken for granted or supporting bogus commissions where member nations are themselves under investigation and nothing ever gets done to change a wit.

Evie

Dear Evie

I note your comments and thank you. I think our conversation has been overtaken by events (ensuing thread posts). I would only say on my own account that I feel happier when the US is within a discussion forum such as the UN.

Regards
Mo

well lets not disband it just send it to france or spain let them foot the bill

and they try to rewrite it.

Better hit the books and try to avoid the more recently written ones on WW II.

FUNNY! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hi, Ed.

The history book that came from was almost certainly written in the 50's, as I took the course in '62, and believe me, the books weren't new! As for liberals, what you seem to ignore is that this country was founded by liberals, based on the works of Locke, Hume, Russeau, and others -- the conservatives were complaining about the liberals' lack of respect for His Majesty's duly constituted government!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

You have repeatedly demonstrated a faulty memory regarding what you "learned" in school (fairly recent was your embarassing claim that you had been "taught" that gun ownership was rare "back then" and I had to remind you that you "learned" that from a relatively recent and well debunked "peer reviewed study").

Don't rely on your memory, get thee down to that educational institution's library and LOOK IT UP.

You are right about the founders being Liberals but the Liberal of the Revolutionary period is the Conservative of the present day. The only connection, as demonstrated quite adequately by their writings, between the Liberal of that period and the Liberal of today is that they have diametrically opposed ideas regarding government and taxation (spending other people's money on their own pet projects).

You definitely need a review of history.

Hi, Ed.

Well of course, times change -- so you freely admit to being 200+ years behind the times? For crying out loud, they had slavery and women couldn't vote back then. The point is that throughout history, progress is made by liberals and resisted by conservatives. The latter have their place (as a brake), as liberals do often move too fast, but long periods of conservatism don't show social progress.

As for gun ownership, you've not really refuted the claim that it was relatively rare (except along the frontier, which was the more lightly populated "leading edge" of civilization) -- you've simply stated that to be the case. You didn't even cite links to sources saying guns were common in large cities before the Civil War -- you simply asserted it to be so.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

if you had actually READ any of the links you would have seen that urban gun ownership was adequately covered. Almost 100% of the homes contained at least one firearm and most were kept loaded.

As for liberals "making progress" that is debatable because much of their "progressiveness" is actually regressive such as big government, taxes, social spending programs, appeasement rather than settling issues, etc., although some does indeed move a country in new directions. By your definition one MUST conclude that not only was Hitler a Liberal but so too were Marx, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung , and Father Ho--YOU said it Dave, not me.

Edward, he tried that line a while back, don't you remember? He was trying to use "facts" from the book "Arming America: The origins of a National Gun Culture", whose scholarship is questionable at best. The same game play over and over, toss it out and hope that people will automatically accept it as a "fact".

Hi, J.

That means you don't agree with the conclusions. It's the first scholarly study ever done one the issue -- you need to refute it with FACTS, not personal opinion.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

but that is the norm isn't it Dave. That way you can continue to deny the refutations and continue making the same false claims.

READ THEM THIS TIME!
A rather left leaning site
It also declared that Bellesiles's research in probate records was "unprofessional and misleading" as well as "superficial and thesis-driven," and that his explanations of errors "raise doubts about his veracity." Among other things, Bellesiles labeled one column of Table 1 "1765-1790" but deliberately excluded the years 1774 and 1775.

Scroll down to "INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY:"
But then the facts started catching up with Bellesiles. A number of other historians conversant with colonial history were intrigued by Bellesiles? thesis, and as academics do, they tried to verify his data. That?s when the trouble really started. Some of the documents and historical records cited by Bellesiles no longer existed (many, for example, having been destroyed in the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906, long before Bellesiles was even born).

How the gun banners hailed the "scholarly" report...
But Bellesiles? "myth busting" findings are not supported by his sources. Moreover, he presents a skewed selection of records, dismisses contradictory information, and even alters the language of quotations and statutes.

Well, let's start off with the class of pistols called derringers. The most famous one, of course, is the one that Booth used to kill Lincoln. Of course Henry Derringer was plagued with people duplicating his models and passing them off as his own. Companies like Remington and others had similar small guns which were also (mis)called derringers, but that competition is to be expected, as the market in this (as you call it, "relatively rare")type of thing was a big one and there was room in the market. I assume that being well-versed in history as you are familiar with Booth's preparation, going to the gunsmith to practice and having it reloaded there (a common proceedure). How fortunate that he found a "relatively rare" gunsmith shop to deal with his "relatively rare" gun.
Oh, what the hey, it's getting wordy and we haven't even touched on things like "muff pistols" "cane guns" and no end of other such things. Dave, what do you think such things were used for, buffalo hunting? Wait, I've got it, you said, "along the frontier". Slippery term there, frontier, the borders of what was called the frontier kept changing. I have a vision of a deer hunter in the wilderness whipping out his trusty derringer to deal with that deer. Or a lady in a wagon train with a muff pistol in her muff. Or possibly a "mule whacker" sauntering along on a drive with his fashionable cane gun.
It's amazing how many of those "relatively rare" items survived to hit the collector market. Granted, some specific models are relative rare, especially in good condition, a Remington cane gun will set you back quite a pile of change on the collector market.

I'd be terrified of any woman with a pistol in her muff!

DE

I'd say it depends on the caliber (grin). Shame on me for that one!

The UN has become a corrupt and inefficient political body which currently seems to have no real purpose than to try to limit the US's power.
For corruption, look to the current scandal involving the Iraq Oil for Food program, which some journalists have discovered that French and Russian banks have been skimming off money, and that numerous high UN officials have been profiting from it. What a surprise that France and Russia fought a resolution for war in Iraq.
The Security Council is outdated. The original nations were picked because they represented the winning nations of WW2, and they were the more powerful nations diplomatically, militarily, and economically. Hence, a Security Council resolution meant something. Now, many of these nations have no other diplomatic power than their presence on the SC, and fight any US policies simply because they gain prestige for fighting against us diplomatically. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if they're envious (a little simplistic, but these nations are led by ordinary men).
The idea behind the UN was a good one, but the organization as it stands now does not meet the ideals with which it was formed.

NT

Dave, wasn't the League of Nations a part of the Treaty of Versailles, and wasn't that treaty what the U.S. did not ratify?
After WWII, were not things improving in Germany? But when the Great Depression hit the eventual effects world-wide and banks started suddenly calling in loans. Germany had a lot of loans, but theirs were not the only ones called in.
BTW, high school level history books of the 60's in many cases fail to go into such depth. I'd recommend something else, even something like the Time-Life WWII series for a start, or the History or Biography channels on TV if you don't want to go the book route.
History can not only be entertaining, but you may be surprised at things you find that were not what they told you in school. Want a fairly recent history book that is so entertaining it's a ball of fun? Try George Washington's Expense Account by Marvin Kiddman.

Hi Dave,

Not forgetting history. IMO the UN has long since failed, and is beyond reform in it's bloated, disoriented state. A new international coalition of states where the people have at least some form of a vote for their leaders would be a good start. Your cliche is overused in this instance, or at least inappropriately applied.

Evie

The U.N needs a complete overhaul -
People living in the East get all the cream, while we in the west get the sour milk.
Steve

Hi, Steve.

"Disproportionate?" About half the world's population lives in China and India -- if anyone has a complaint, it isn't "the West," which together makes up about 20% of the world's population and has about 95% of its wealth...
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Ah ha!

Now we hit on your want for the UN -- to redistribute the wealth in the world.

I think the disproportion Steve is talking about relates back to the topic of the original thread. Given that there are a lot of Arab/Muslim states, Israel will never get a fair shake because she will always be outvoted. Now if the Syrians, the Saudis, etc. were denied a vote on such key issues until they cleaned up their internal houses, THEN the UN would regain a modicum of legitimacy.

Evie

That's it in a nutshell Evie.
People in the east get away with blue murder literally, and mountains of fire are brought down upon us for simply trying to defend ourselves against the killers. I think things have gone badly wrong with any justice associated with the U.N. Well! there isn't any justice against the terrorist countries.
They sit there in the U.N casting there vote while people from their country are blowing innocent men, women and children up.
When an apple is rotten to the core, it is thrown away, and the U.N is just that.

NT