Seduction Spa

Is the UN really relevant??

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
I wish I could take credit for this article

Sometimes when I watch the president speak before the United Nations (search), I like to look at the faces watching him as the camera cuts away to delegates and country representatives clearly un-impressed by his words.

I don't think they like this president much. I'm not here to argue for or against this president. I'm just summing up what I see. From the faces I see, I'm not encouraged and from the words I hear, I’m not impressed.

They like to talk about our failures in Iraq, but say nothing about more than a decade of their ignoring Iraq.

They talk about their love of the people there, but say barely boo about the billions of dollars in U.N. funds that was stolen from the people there.

They claim to be outraged by our parading Iraqi prisoners, but don't say a peep about the beheading of Eugene Armstrong (search).

They rant about hostages we led by leashes, but say not a word about hostages heads lopped off by thugs.

They protect their own in that tiny independent real estate they call home here. They mock the services and comforts we provide them in the city we call New York here.

They're free to bitch, of course. I just kind of think given their track record, they're the last ones to judge on any course. They sit on their hands and pretend to feel for the world, while those same hands siphon off billions intended to help the world.

We are not perfect here, but we're trying. I just find it odd that they, of all people, are the ones criticizing.

So I'll tell you what, U.N. I won't lecture you on dieting, if you don't lecture us on leading.
 

Warm Hands

Member
Sep 1, 2004
119
0
16
The UN hasn't been relevant for a long, long time and unfortunately for reasons more numerous than this article has listed. This article focuses on a decidedly American perspecitve, and I'm not here to argue the veracity of that perspective. I will say that US foreign policy over the past 40 years has not been consistent towards the UN. The US has openly supported the UN when both had common goals, but has acted independently when in disagreement. In this respect, the US isn't all that different from any of the other permanent members of the Security Council.

Look at how the Security Council is set up. How can the UK and France possibly make a case for permanent membership? They certainly aren't world powers any more. And the original reason, protection from Germany, certainly doesn't exist any more either. Numerous wealthy member states don't pay their dues regularly. The UN only seems compelled to act in crisis when the direct economic and political interests of an "important" UN nation are at risk. Nobody goes into Rwanda, or into the Sudan right now, where help is desperately needed. We all leap to Kuwait's defence immediately, though. I'm not saying that it was wrong to help Kuwait. It was right. What I'm asking is why nations that don't float on top of a sea of oil don't get the same consideration.

If the UN ever has a hope of being relevant, there has to be wholesale systemic change. The security council permanent membership needs to better reflect the current state of the world. The rotational non-permanent members need to have some sort of veto apparatus, even if it is rotational or the result of cumulative voting amongst non-permanent members. All member nations need to pay their dues. Nations that blatantly pursue their own economic self-interest in the face of human suffering need to be called out on this (I'm thinking Russia and France most recently, but there are many guilty parties). And voting decisions need to be ultimately respected. If nations are only prepared to accept the votes that go their way, then what is the point of the body.

In it's current form, the UN is nothing more than the ultimate patronage appointment. Pay, prestige and privilige abound. But nothing of value is accomplished.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Not to mention the UN Commission of Human Rights has such great human rights defenders as China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Nigeria, etc.
 

banshie

Member
Jan 27, 2003
885
0
16
Ther are many problems with the U.N., but let's not give up on this organization. It's the best thing we have and has many achievements to its credit.

One problem currently, as I see it, is the the present U.S. administration has no regard for it, or its decisions. Of course, they would like to get U.N. approval, but the lack of it does not impact on what they do. As long as the most powerful nation on the planet treats the organization with such distain. the U.N. will be largely irrelevant.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
At what point in history was the UN ever relevant?
it is just another goverment like organization. Top- Heavy, inflexible, bloated, expensive and ineffective.
I am a little light on UN history, can anyone point out a major achivemnet.
All I can remeber is Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Palestine and the Cold War, hardly something I would put on my resume.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
3
0
The Middle Kingdom
langeweile said:
At what point in history was the UN ever relevant?
it is just another goverment like organization. Top- Heavy, inflexible, bloated, expensive and ineffective.
I am a little light on UN history, can anyone point out a major achivemnet.
All I can remeber is Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Palestine and the Cold War, hardly something I would put on my resume.

...and Cambodia, Ukraine, Chekosolvakia, Angola, Haiti...


At what point in history has the UN ever been relevant?

I'm thinking...
 

banshie

Member
Jan 27, 2003
885
0
16
DonQuixote said:
I guess it's time to return to the days of yesteryear when might makes
right and to hell with reason, logic and the law.

Don
I think we are already back there! I guess that was your point.

The U.N. resolution sanctioning Iraq is an example of one of it's successes. The sanctions were working! Unfortunately, Dubya ignored this fact and invaded anyway.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
Re: Re: Is the UN really relevant??

bbking said:
In his speech about the "Rule of Law" at the UN yesterday, Annan did mention the barbaric beheadings - so your wrong here. Lets hope the UN does not become irrelevant. With the kind of weapons mankind has at it's disposal there should be a buffer with the authority to deal with the darker side of humanity.
I would rather see the Rule of Law over the Rule of Might.


bbk
Kofi Annan .... was this the same Kofi Annan who turned his back on the situation in Rwanda?
Yeah, I thought so.
 

xarir

Retired TERB Ass Slapper
Aug 20, 2001
3,765
1
36
Trolling the Deleted Threads Repository
Slow going, but we'll get there ...

The UN, while admirable in concept is in reality probably the most Byzantine, convoluted political labyrinth ever created. In theory the UN is supposed to represent the best ideals of mankind by proferring the finest each individual country has to offer.

The trouble is that each country is governed in decidedly different fashions. Thus in practice it is an almost insurmountable task to table executable rulings as each member state has a generally different opinion. At a high level it's probably quite simple to get the member states to agree, but when it comes time to actually do something the UN can only move at one speed - glacial.

Consider Darfur - it's probably relatively easy to get each member state to agree that the human tragedy is high and that "something" should be done. But what exactly should be done, who should do it, when should it be done etc is a much more difficult task.

Why is this? Well if you consider the pace at which laws are passed here in Canada where you only really need to get 3 parties to agree to something, then consider that the UN consists of a few hundred countries ... well, you start seeing the complexity of gaining agreement. Each country needs to sell an idea at home amongst bickering parties there, then they need to agree with other countries whom they may inherently dislike & distrust.

Having said that, the accomplishments of the UN are not to be overlooked. The treaties on banning land mines, establishing UNICEF and the Human Rights Commission are indeed commendable deeds. It's true that each accomplishment is not perfect (not all countries have signed the land mine ban, UNICEF itself probably consumes much of the money that gets raised, and human rights are far from being solidly entrenched), but on the whole one must admit that progress, however slow, has in fact been made since the establishment of the UN after WWII.

That the UN seems impotent to proactively intervene in what we North Americans perceive as grave injustices is a decidedly unfortunate reality. But as long as the leadership of the UN is strong, the body should continue to evolve and make the world a better place to live in.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,768
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Re: Re: Re: Is the UN really relevant??

Originally posted by Ranger68
Kofi Annan .... was this the same Kofi Annan who turned his back on the situation in Rwanda?
Yeah, I thought so.

__________________________________________________

Hummmm....... kinda like the way Dubya is turning his back on N Korea, who is calling him a lunatic regularly lately & Iran who is 'flipping him the bird' and proceeding on with their Nuclear Weapons Program ( A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM THEY REALLY SAY THEY HAVE) unlike Saddam who never had one, along with those WMD.

Maybe Dubya is just mimicking Kofi.....Dubya did seem to have a good time visiting, making jokes, shucking & jiving with Kofi when they met at the UN today. Geez they looked like old pals and you know Dubya it couldn't possibly be him sucking-up to the UN & Kofi.....no not Dubya.........
 

Titmouse

New member
Nov 12, 2003
36
0
0
Toronto
www.xircus.photofolio.com
banshie said:
Ther are many problems with the U.N., but let's not give up on this organization. It's the best thing we have and has many achievements to its credit.

Are you joking? The only thing the UN seems to be interested in doing is bashing Israel. It's turned into a Moslem alliance. Witness the Durban human rights fiasco for one.

The best thing we can do with the UN is turn it into a museum to commemorate international political correctness and racism.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..the only thing that is really relevant is the ongoing "games" between the Great Powers of the Earth.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,478
12
38
Titmouse said:
Are you joking? The only thing the UN seems to be interested in doing is bashing Israel. It's turned into a Moslem alliance. Witness the Durban human rights fiasco for one.

The best thing we can do with the UN is turn it into a museum to commemorate international political correctness and racism.
Someone earlier asked "What has the UN ever done?" It passed the resolution that set up the state of Israel, and ran the organization thatwiped out smallpox. You're welcome to your opinions on the merits; both were significant achievements.

And could we please have less anti-UN talk from folks whose nation doesn't pay its dues. Might be nice too, if "the president" (now, which prez could that be?) actually respected the UN—who got WMD right when he blew it—instead of just using it to make empty election speeches. Might be less of a mess you-know-where today with a bit less cowboying and a bit more listening. Where else do we address world problems? Choking in the dust of America's "leadership"? ROTFL.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is the UN really relevant??

WoodPeckr said:
Originally posted by Ranger68
Kofi Annan .... was this the same Kofi Annan who turned his back on the situation in Rwanda?
Yeah, I thought so.

__________________________________________________

Hummmm....... kinda like the way Dubya is turning his back on N Korea, who is calling him a lunatic regularly lately & Iran who is 'flipping him the bird' and proceeding on with their Nuclear Weapons Program ( A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM THEY REALLY SAY THEY HAVE) unlike Saddam who never had one, along with those WMD.

Maybe Dubya is just mimicking Kofi.....Dubya did seem to have a good time visiting, making jokes, shucking & jiving with Kofi when they met at the UN today. Geez they looked like old pals and you know Dubya it couldn't possibly be him sucking-up to the UN & Kofi.....no not Dubya.........
Hey, not that I disagree about Dubya, but to compare North Korea and Rwanda isn't very useful.

And, just to be clear, it was CLINTON who, as well as Kofi, turned his back on 800 000 people being murdered in Rwanda.

The US Presidency has lacked moral authority for quite some time .......
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is the UN really relevant??

WoodPeckr said:
Originally posted by Ranger68
Kofi Annan .... was this the same Kofi Annan who turned his back on the situation in Rwanda?
Yeah, I thought so.

__________________________________________________

Hummmm....... kinda like the way Dubya is turning his back on N Korea, who is calling him a lunatic regularly lately & Iran who is 'flipping him the bird' and proceeding on with their Nuclear Weapons Program ( A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM THEY REALLY SAY THEY HAVE) unlike Saddam who never had one, along with those WMD.

Maybe Dubya is just mimicking Kofi.....Dubya did seem to have a good time visiting, making jokes, shucking & jiving with Kofi when they met at the UN today. Geez they looked like old pals and you know Dubya it couldn't possibly be him sucking-up to the UN & Kofi.....no not Dubya.........

Seems like you are very concerned about Korea.
Maybe we should have an alternative coalition of Canada, Germany, France, China and Russia get involved.
Instead of crying about what the USA does or doesn't do, maybe one of those nations should step in and provide a solution.

It is very easy to sit on the side lines and compplain about what should or shouldn't be done. Actions speak louder than words.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
I thought Kuwait was a UN sanctioned and approved mission.
Wasn't one of the reasons Bush gave for attacking Iraq
was Saddam's refusal to comply with UN resolutions?

Isn't Slobodan Milosovich (sp) being tried by the World Court, an extension of the UN, in the Hague?

If there's no UN then what right does one sovereign nation have
to remove a dictator in another sovereign that is practicing genocide
on his own people?

If there's no body like the UN then I guess we'll have to duel it out at high noon on main street.

The reason the UN isn't always relevant is because individual countries don't respect it's authority and decide unilaterally to disregard previously agreed rules and procedures. If the rule of law isn't respected then it doesn't have relevance in our personal lives or in the actions of nation-states.

I guess it's time to return to the days of yesteryear when might makes
right and to hell with reason, logic and the law.

TALK>>>TALK>>TALK.

The UN is really good at that. I am sure the 500000 dead people in Rwanda feel better already.
And the people in Sudan are boosting with optimism, and since you bring up Yugolslawia, the dead muslims there are still waiting for justice.
Evaluations and negotiations are a necessary means to get in to a conflict.
At what what point do negotiations stop? And actions have to begin?
At 1 or 2 million or maybe three million dead people?Or once the nation is completely wiped out?
Mr. Kofi Annan has pledged in a speech in front of the security council last year "That we can't have Rwanda happen again" at the same time that close 100000 sudanese had been slaughtered.
It is easy to sit in front of the TV, sip an ice cold beer, and complain about all the bad things in the world.
It is something else, having to watch your mother and sister being brutally gang raped and watching your dads head being chopped of with a machete.
Do you continue negotiations at this point? or do you pick up a "licensed gun" and blow that guys head off?
 
Toronto Escorts