WTF U.N.?

[MJDub]

So how about all the unethical stuff that's been reported about the U.N.? First they got the Oil-for-Food debacle and now employees saying that the U.N. bosses promote corruption. The U.N. is pretty U.N.-ethical, no?

[Civic_Zen]

You didn't just figure this out now did you.

The UN is a pile of rubbish, they might as well not exist.

[mixu]

You didn't just figure this out now did you.

The UN is a pile of rubbish, they might as well not exist.

Welcome back Civic Zen - the voice of reason.

[MJDub]

You didn't just figure this out now did you.

The UN is a pile of rubbish, they might as well not exist.

Welcome back Civic Zen - the voice of reason.

Just about to say this myself. Welcome to your new favorite board on [ms] :P

[brakada]

hi Civic, Good to have you back.

As for the U.N. If they are that worthless, why is Bush trying to pass thorugh a new U.N. resolution about Iraq? I mean, I know that the U.N. is a bit corrupt and never acts in time, but I still think that the world situation without U.N. would be a whole lot worse.

[Balanc3]

Definately. The oil-for-food scandal was enough to set me off. Just makes you wonder why the U.S. never received a U.N. resolution, maybe its cause theyre all a bunch of money hungry pigs. But I agreee, without the U.N. things could be a lot worse.

[Civic_Zen]

hi Civic, Good to have you back.

As for the U.N. If they are that worthless, why is Bush trying to pass thorugh a new U.N. resolution about Iraq? I mean, I know that the U.N. is a bit corrupt and never acts in time, but I still think that the world situation without U.N. would be a whole lot worse.

You do make an interesting point. Post WHORE. . But yea. Maybe worthless is a bit inaccurate, but only a bit. And I think Bush has done the right thing always trying to work with the UN and everything. I also think he did the right thing when he told them to f~ck off and just did what he felt was right.

[brakada]

You do make an interesting point. Post WHORE. . But yea. Maybe worthless is a bit inaccurate, but only a bit. And I think Bush has done the right thing always trying to work with the UN and everything. I also think he did the right thing when he told them to f~ck off and just did what he felt was right.

It's Mr. Post WHORE for you. And I'm not a whore, I just like to practice my English. :wink:

I think it was wrong that Bush told the U.N. to f**k off. I'm also quite sure that he could get the resolution about Iraq through in the security council if he tried a bit harder. Now it seems to me as he discovered that "leaving" U.N. was wrong and he just wants / needs them back.

[Civic_Zen]

You do make an interesting point. Post WHORE. . But yea. Maybe worthless is a bit inaccurate, but only a bit. And I think Bush has done the right thing always trying to work with the UN and everything. I also think he did the right thing when he told them to f~ck off and just did what he felt was right.

It's Mr. Post WHORE for you. And I'm not a whore, I just like to practice my English. :wink:

I think it was wrong that Bush told the U.N. to f**k off. I'm also quite sure that he could get the resolution about Iraq through in the security council if he tried a bit harder. Now it seems to me as he discovered that "leaving" U.N. was wrong and he just wants / needs them back.

Ya. He did get himself into a mess thats for sure. But he didn't want to wait any longer. Mistakes were made, I won't argue that, but I still say ousting Saddam was a good thing as a whole. Especially when the UN acted like they wouldn't do a damn thing. Besides, they had their chance the 8 years that they "inspected" his country for WMD. And what about the 2 years or so that Saddam refused to allow them in, or the 6 weeks Saddam demanded before he would let them in before Bush actually told them to F~ck off. Saddam was in no position to demand anything, or disallow anybody. And now its going to take a frickin decade of trials before the bastard gets what he deserves.

[brakada]

But he didn't want to wait any longer.

His impatience probably cost you guys a whole lot of money IMo, because if the campaign was better prepaired or better planned, a lot less $$$ would be spent, a lot less Americans would be dead, and the situation would have been a lot better. Again, that's just my opinion.

but I still say ousting Saddam was a good thing as a whole.

No one ever tried to deny this. It was definitely a good thing. But what will happen in Iraq next? Well, we'll see. And although I was strongly opposing the Iraq campaign I hope things will get better and I think that US troops shouldn't move out before life gets back to "normal" in Iraq.

[acmatos]

BACK to normal?? I don't see where the "back" part applies.

I think the world would be better off without the UN. For example, how effective can the U.N. Human Rights Committee be when countries like China and Syria are on it. Think of the places where the U.N.has been involved: Iraq, Congo, Haiti, just to name a few. Somehow all these palces never seemed to improve much. They propped up a dictator in Haiti, have had money laundering and prostitution charges against them in the Congo, and Saddam Hussein ignored 17 resolutions while top UN officials got rich off the oil-for-food program at the expense of millions of people. Furthermore, of all the countries and dictators in the world, they've issued more resoultions against Israel than ANY OTHER nation. Screw the UN.

[brakada]

BACK to normal?? I don't see where the "back" part applies.

I think the world would be better off without the UN. For example, how effective can the U.N. Human Rights Committee be when countries like China and Syria are on it. Think of the places where the U.N.has been involved: Iraq, Congo, Haiti, just to name a few. Somehow all these palces never seemed to improve much. They propped up a dictator in Haiti, have had money laundering and prostitution charges against them in the Congo, and Saddam Hussein ignored 17 resolutions while top UN officials got rich off the oil-for-food program at the expense of millions of people. Furthermore, of all the countries and dictators in the world, they've issued more resoultions against Israel than ANY OTHER nation. Screw the UN.

Well things were much better in Iraq than in europe or the entire western world once, but that's a really long time ago (a few thousand BC) :wink:.

I have to disagree strongly about the U.N. though. The things without U.N. the world would definitely be a much worse place. I AM AWARE THAT UN IS FAR FROM PERFECT, but you can't look like it's just a civil rights movement. Do you claim that without UN people's rights would be respected. Even the USA do not respect the civil rights entirely. So f*ckin' what? People never will. They do to some extent, which imo is increased by the UN. It has a faint influence on things. China is slowly opening to the world and will in some time (a hundred years or less) probably progress to a democratic country. Countries like China and USA are cooperating today, while 50 years ago they couldn't stand each other (I know they don't love each other now, but still, they're progressing). It's not like the UN is a magical box to solve all problems, but it helps solving some issues, which could have ended in blood and violence. It isn't controlled by anyone (although a lot of people could argue with that one), but because of the variety of interests it is hard to produce results to everbody's likening.

To conclude:

IMO the problem isn't the UN. The problem is the world we live in (all the countries). It has been corrupt and "selfish" for as long as we can remember. The UN is the best thing we have to solve international problems and to help the world improve (OK and there's the WTO, too :wink: ) and until we find something better, we should at least give it some respect and credit, after all it represents the world and people.

UN Council

UN representatives
(appointed by the governments)

Governments
(at least in some cases democratically elected by people like you and me :wink

So, the UN is kind of a reflection of our morals and principles.

[acmatos]

I have to disagree strongly about the U.N. though. The things without U.N. the world would definitely be a much worse place. I AM AWARE THAT UN IS FAR FROM PERFECT, but you can't look like it's just a civil rights movement. Do you claim that without UN people's rights would be respected. Even the USA do not respect the civil rights entirely. So f*ckin' what? People never will. They do to some extent, which imo is increased by the UN. It has a faint influence on things. China is slowly opening to the world and will in some time (a hundred years or less) probably progress to a democratic country. Countries like China and USA are cooperating today, while 50 years ago they couldn't stand each other (I know they don't love each other now, but still, they're progressing). It's not like the UN is a magical box to solve all problems, but it helps solving some issues, which could have ended in blood and violence. It isn't controlled by anyone (although a lot of people could argue with that one), but because of the variety of interests it is hard to produce results to everbody's likening.

To conclude:

IMO the problem isn't the UN. The problem is the world we live in (all the countries). It has been corrupt and "selfish" for as long as we can remember. The UN is the best thing we have to solve international problems and to help the world improve (OK and there's the WTO, too :wink: ) and until we find something better, we should at least give it some respect and credit, after all it represents the world and people.

UN Council

UN representatives
(appointed by the governments)

Governments
(at least in some cases democratically elected by people like you and me :wink

So, the UN is kind of a reflection of our morals and principles.

Ok you make a good case for the UN. And, I can appreciate your idealism, which I share in many respects. Nonetheless, I don't see exactly how the UN is responsible for promoting human rights or for bringing China and the USA closer. I would credit capitalism and free trade(WTO is good,as you pointed out). In the case of China, it is the Chinese officials' desire to stay in power by improving the standard of living there. As you said, the world is corrupt, but this is minimized by ECONOMIC measures not political ones. The problem witht the UN is that it plays exactly to the selfish desires of humans. You have all these world "leaders" living it up in NYC, and in most cases(i.e. Africa, Middle East, Asia), the people in their countries have barely enough food to eat. They sit there with all these other "leaders" and pretend to fix things. What have they done so far. How far along is Africa? Asia? The middle East? Not far. And, any progress has come directly through economic policy which manifests itself in a higher standard of living that allows people to go to school and get medicine.. But these guys in NYC are living the life, so what do they care if people back home are swatting flies. And anyway, why can't government officials interact directly with one another? Why does there need to be some intermediate area?(other than being a great place for money to disappear)
I say the UN should exist to distribute food and only food to struggling countries. Other than that, it is just another example of a wasteful and corrupt governing body. A "faint influence on things" isn't good enough. There is just too much money, most of which comes from the USA, being spent on failed programs and disappearing into foreign bank accounts.

We will most likely disagree on this issue at a fundamental level, but these discussions are what politics are all about. This forum could get fun! :wink: I would encourage you to look into some of the things that are currently going on in the UN. Some intersting links are:

www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000773.html (may be slow to open)
www.instapundit.com (lots of info on many subjects)

[brakada]

And, I can appreciate your idealism, which I share in many respects.

I am far from being idealistic, I try to be as realistic as I can. I am aware of the flaws of the UN, but name one "perfect" organization or company which is that diverse and that complex. Even employees of large companies, where workers should share their interests to benefit the company (in theory though) and their co-workers are often subjected to corruption. That's just the way it is. Sadly, though.

Nonetheless, I don't see exactly how the UN is responsible for promoting human rights or for bringing China and the USA closer.

IMO every economical and other cooperation was preceeded by diplomacy and political agreements (most of which took place inside the UN). It's not just the capitalism that makes the world better (if?).

But these guys in NYC are living the life, so what do they care if people back home are swatting flies.

I agree that's a large part of the problem. UN council should be moved to Angola. with councelours living in mud huts without water and eating flies. Well, I'd let Annan out, cause he seems quite an honest guy, who really tries to improve things (but 1 man is never enough to change the world).

And anyway, why can't government officials interact directly with one another? Why does there need to be some intermediate area?(other than being a great place for money to disappear)

because they're too busy scratching their asses, falling off bikes, playing golf and lying to their own people, so someone has to lie in the UN for them.

Other than that, it is just another example of a wasteful and corrupt governing body.

Most of the governments are wasteful and corrupt. The bigger the government, the more corrupt it is. :wink:

A "faint influence on things" isn't good enough. There is just too much money, most of which comes from the USA, being spent on failed programs and disappearing into foreign bank accounts.

I just checked the UN operations list at:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Timeline%20of%20UN%20peacekeeping%20missions

and I think the UN solved quite a couple of crisis. They always came late, but you know what they say: It's better late, than never. I am aware that the situations in most of these countries hasn't gotten much better, but you can't blame the hatred between different nations on the UN. On the other hand, you must admit that the UN was the place for settling most of the diplomatic and politic problems in the 20th century.

And we should not forget the UNICEF and the UNESCO program. Although some money goes into private accounts, still a lot of children and people depend on these programmes.

And everybody's bitching about the UN (the Americans, teh Europeans, Arabs,...) but noone does a thing to improve the UN.

Still, almost all the UN operations (whether they were successful or not) had more international reputation then i.e. the War in Iraq.

We will most likely disagree on this issue at a fundamental level, but these discussions are what politics are all about. This forum could get fun! :wink: I would encourage you to look into some of the things that are currently going on in the UN. Some intersting links are:

www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000773.html (may be slow to open)
www.instapundit.com (lots of info on many subjects)

Well, this forum is fun already!!! I tried the links, but the 1st one just wasn't working. I read a couple of things on the second one though.[/url]

[Yao]

I agree on the stand that the UN is an obsolete entity (wow, that one was hard to produce).
It is indeed gulping up to much money in comparison with the results it gets, and I for one think that it is the enormity and complexity of it that makes it so immobile in the face of world politics. Always acting to late is not better than doing nothing: the bad has already happened and all you can do is clean up the mess.

The mandates they issue before intervening are also something I just can't understand: most of the time it says that no violence is permitted, only in case of direct violence against UN-peacekeeping forces. How do you expect to stop 2 people from fighting if you're only allowed to stand at the side yelling "Stop fighting, you fools!!".
Give 'em both a slap in the face, that'll draw their attention.

And maybe countries acting on an individual basis can act faster if needed. It would be easy to form temporary allegiances with a few other countries that share your views, without having to take your proposal up for accordance to the UN Security council: there's just too many different interests involved to come to a quick decision. You're more likely to end up with a weak compromise, which in terms of taking action is almost equal to nothing...

In that view, I respect the USA and France, even though they haven't always made the right decisions. They took action whenever they deemed it nessecary and for the benefit of the international community.