UN has got to go [Archive]

Tactical Grace

05-01-2005, 20:14

First, the US has no claim to special status. Whether we do well or poorly, we will be judged on our merits, not on the merits of some kind of great utopian idea we are supposed to represent.
Erm, the US does represent a utopian ideal, and within the US at least, it is widely seen as living up to it.

Second, the US *is* doing better. Most recently, the people in the regions affected by the tsunami are getting US food that was shipped on US ships and planes by the US Navy/Airforce (and lots of Australian, Japanese, etc help too). UN help is virtually non-existent, which is especially damning considering the amount of money they have to work with.
Money, yes, transport, no. It is in the very Charter of the UN that it has no armed forces of its own, thus no heavy-lift capability. Am I surprised that the UN has absolutely no means of getting its aid to the people who need it, other than by piggybacking on foreign and private militaries? Not at all. Were it to be otherwise, one could speculate about the possibility of a global tyranny.

You appear to be criticising the UN for failing to do what it was never designed to do, but what it is now rather ambitiously expected to do. When the organisation was founded out of the ruins of WW2 as a means of discouraging people from waging further war over those ruins, shipping sufficient aid to feed millions to some inaccessible part of the world at a few days' notice was not really in the plan.

Nor is this objective easily achieved even today. The US is currently using a couple of dozen helicopters to drop food to people. Maybe this is more visible than what the UN has been able to coordinate using local staff on the ground, but it sure as hell is not any more adequate, when one considers the millions whose health is now at risk.

Frankly, I do not think any one nation can actually do a better job than the UN, except perhaps of creating the appearance that it is.

Superpower07

05-01-2005, 20:17

Oh? In what way?
That you use every chance possible to pounce on Americans - you don't see me attacking Germany at every chance, do you?

But yeah, Sudan and oil-for-food were the last straw for me concerning the UN

Aligned Planets

05-01-2005, 20:23

Britain (or rather, Tony Blair) has pledged an additional £300million on top of what our charities are already raising (£93million)

The Purple Relm

05-01-2005, 20:23

I'm not a big fan of the UN but I'm not sure getting rid of the UN is what we need right now. I would like to see massive reforms going on. The UN collects a lot of money from the various members and I don't see that much going out to help the people all the UN programs are supposed to help.

Aligned Planets

05-01-2005, 20:27

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Goddamn - it sounds so promising... :(

Von Witzleben

05-01-2005, 20:27

That you use every chance possible to pounce on Americans - you don't see me attacking Germany at every chance, do you?

But yeah, Sudan and oil-for-food were the last straw for me concerning the UN
Unless I'm mistaking it was an initiative by Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Anarcsyndica

05-01-2005, 20:33

Hmm, surprising that no one has started a "US has got to go" thread yet to counter this.. These things tend to follow and balance each other out, in a dualistic sense. :p

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 20:38

Well, I think at this point it is completely obvious that the UN has outlived its usefulnes.

* Let's take a close look at their response to the tsunami...

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/swine-before-pearls-un-plan-to-provide.html
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/would-you-like-fries-with-that.html
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/memory-hole-un-secretary-general-kofi.html
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/message-of-hope-diplomad-has-lots-of.html
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/livery-but-sick-and-green-any-argument.html

(in short: a lot of talk, next to no action, except for trying to take credit for the efforts of the countries that are actually providing relief)

* The oil-for-food scandal - help a dictator pocket $20 billion, take a nice cut off the top, then refuse to hand over the documents and deny that there was any wrong-doing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496422/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52758-2004Nov15.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041126/news_lz1e26perkins.html

* Squander money and live in luxury while "helping the poor":

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006109.php

* Sexually exploit refugees:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=524674
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38649

* Refuse to call Darfur a genocide, so they don't have to do anything about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3725770.stm

(and delay indefinitely in order to "investigate" while tens of thousands die)

Maybe it is time to conclude that the UN does not work? Maybe it is time to conclude that it cannot be made to work, and in fact nothing like it can be made to work?

Since flaws of the same type can be found on your country (or on mine) does that mean that your country (or mine) have to go?

Dont think on what things are with the UN, think on how things would be without one. And they would be alot worse. You wouldnt have UNICEF, you wouldnt have Peacekeeping operations, you wouldnt have a place were nations at least try to settle their disputes peacefully. You would have the same situation you had prior to WW1: Lots of powerful countries in a globalized society, competing without talking. Look how that ended.

Aligned Planets

05-01-2005, 20:40

Hmm, surprising that no one has started a "US has got to go" thread yet to counter this.. These things tend to follow and balance each other out, in a dualistic sense. :p

Would probably end up as flamebaiting...

Anarcsyndica

05-01-2005, 20:42

Would probably end up as flamebaiting...

Absolutely, but that hasn't stopped it from happening in the past..

Bunnyducks

05-01-2005, 20:49

Where is this UN situated in a map Cassini Belt?
a lot of talk, next to no action, except for trying to take credit for the efforts of the countries that are actually providing relief
They are urging membercountries to help. That equals to nothing? When one of the UN staff said developed nations seem stingy... we here spent a week discussing about it. Maybe it helped some countries give more, maybe our discussion helped some of us give something.
Every organization responds according to its repertoire and a UN captured by 'advocacy groups', riddled with ethnic politics, hamstrung by corruption and managed by individuals derived from academia and NGOs is no different
I assume this kind of thing is what you meant? Like they are pickering now when they are in a mission to help those poor people? They may have problems when they are doing politics when all is calm. I bet UN organizations are making great job in Asia right now.

What comes to the rest of your examples and sources... some truth to every one. But also a big pointy finger at SC. And SC, as we know... is far from all of UN.

The organisation needs reform, but being put to sleep...? Nopes.

Schlurven-Gypsy

05-01-2005, 21:06

I agree that the UN has had certain faults in this matter, and there is a definate need for reform, especially in the case of the tsunami. However, to dismiss a whole 50 odd years of progressive improvement, for the most part instilling peace in the world, is an incredibly radical view. We are trying to outlive the time of dictators, and instead democracy, on a global as well as national scale, reigns supreme. The UN has done so much good that an overhaul would be useless. The tsunami, tragic though it was, was a natural disaster and the UN is not necessarily designed to deal with such thing. In fact, individual countries providing aid is probably much more effective in this case. The UN could be reformed to help in these kinds of issues, but was sadly caught out this time by the earthquake and tsunami.

It is also important to consider the alternative: we do not want the entire world to act independantly, invading anyone it sees fit for any reason. It would be the Nixon Doctrine all over again. Or the George Dubya Doctrine but I don't intend to start a flamewar on this subject.

Poptartrea

05-01-2005, 21:07

I'm all for reform for the UN. It has many, many problems. However, I'm not willing to give up the best chance the world has for internationalization.

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 21:15

Since flaws of the same type can be found on your country (or on mine) does that mean that your country (or mine) have to go?

Things like that can be found anywhere, but in reasonably well-governed countries they are the exception, not the rule, and people are held accountable when they happen. The more I learn about the UN, the more I think that this is the rule not the exception... and the very way that the UN is set up makes that inevitable (no accountability).

Dont think on what things are with the UN, think on how things would be without one. And they would be alot worse. You wouldnt have UNICEF, you wouldnt have Peacekeeping operations, you wouldnt have a place were nations at least try to settle their disputes peacefully. You would have the same situation you had prior to WW1: Lots of powerful countries in a globalized society, competing without talking.

Well, a place to talk is fine, but it doesn't need anywhere near the budget that the UN has, or the bloated staff that it has for that matter. The problem comes when the UN tries to take on the functions of "world government", with resolutions (=legislation), international courts, departments on various things from health to agriculture (=ministires), peacekeeping (=police/military), etc, etc. It has long, logn ago ceased being merely a diplomatic forum, and started trying to do a lot more (with disastrous results).

The UN is at best ineffectual and corrupt, at worst simply evil. I think I'd take my chances without.

Bunnyducks

05-01-2005, 21:25

Faults the UN has, granted. I never seize to wonder the gall of people who say it has to go though. "It serves no purpose anymore". Or is it: "It doesn't serve our purpose anymore?" Whoever the us happens to be. By all means, lets get rid off the only forum in which Palau can address Finland, or Andorra USA. Without it, it's just everyone for themselves. And please, don't suggest things can be solved bilaterally (well, not in most cases anywho).

And for those who ask here why the UN doesn't react swiftly enough... oh man! Because you entertain yourselves here typing messages instead of pressuring your gov'ts to actually do something. Last time I heard, the UN doesn't have 300 000 Supermen in their basement ready to fly to every hotspot in the world.
"Why doesn't the UN do enough?" - Take a world atlas and look; the UN is US ALL.
I think I'd take my chances without. Well, why wouldn't you? You were lucky enough to be born where you did.

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 21:41

However, to dismiss a whole 50 odd years of progressive improvement, for the most part instilling peace in the world, is an incredibly radical view.

There has been no peace, just smaller and more numerous wars.

We are trying to outlive the time of dictators, and instead democracy, on a global as well as national scale, reigns supreme.

You see the UN as a promoter of democracy, I see it as a way for petty dictators to gain influence. Most of the members are not democracies (176 members, ~80 democracies and more-or-less-democracies, the rest are not). The way it works in practice is when one of the big guys wants to get a resolution passed, they just have to make enough promises to enough petty third-world despots... highest bidder and all that.

Zekhaust

05-01-2005, 21:46

I see the UN as more of a forum for leaders to come together and discuss things or figure stuff out without resorting to violence right off.

It may not directly do things, but the fact that it provides a place to debate and discuss for many countries is a positive.

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 21:47

I'm all for reform for the UN.

Okay, I'll bite. How about:

1) a body which has consultative powers only (no enforcement powers, no permanent staff, and no budget beside minimal administrative expenses)

2) members must have reasonably representative governments (you can work out the technical details, but China and Iran not be members)

3) votes are proportional to population of each member

Call it the "Council of Democracies".

THE EVILIST EVIL ONES

05-01-2005, 22:00

i agree with the dude that startedthis thing!
let the rebel nations take over!
too long have we stood in the shadows
beaten back by the UN!
evil rules over all!

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 22:00

You appear to be criticising the UN for failing to do what it was never designed to do, but what it is now rather ambitiously expected to do. When the organisation was founded out of the ruins of WW2 as a means of discouraging people from waging further war over those ruins, shipping sufficient aid to feed millions to some inaccessible part of the world at a few days' notice was not really in the plan.

If so, so why is it getting billions of dollars for that purpose? It is not what it was designed to do, agreed. But it is the function it has claimed for itself, and which it is completely failing at.

The US is currently using a couple of dozen helicopters to drop food to people.

Um, the US had a carrier group and several cargo ships on the way in under 48 hours. The Aussies redirected a logistics package destined for Iraq in about the same amount of time. The UN took that long just to form several committee and hold a press conference about forming committees.

"couple of dozen helicopters"? It's rather more than that.

Compuq

05-01-2005, 22:08

Okay, I'll bite. How about:

1) a body which has consultative powers only (no enforcement powers, no permanent staff, and no budget beside minimal administrative expenses)

2) members must have reasonably representative governments (you can work out the technical details, but China and Iran not be members)

3) votes are proportional to population of each member

Call it the "Council of Democracies".

Thats wise, leave the worlds next superpower out. I don't like the government of China, but they have done a lot for the Chinese people over the past 50 years, many mistakes were made too.

UN has helped the world A LOT more then it hurt it. Reforms my be nessecery, but without the UN we would be in the same situation before WW1. We need every nation at the table to stop wars.

Ix-1986

05-01-2005, 22:08

How much did the US give in aid to begin with? 13 million or something pathetic like that.

Embarrassing

Zekhaust

05-01-2005, 22:11

Siljhouettes

05-01-2005, 22:13

Well, I think at this point it is completely obvious that the UN has outlived its usefulnes.

* Let's take a close look at their response to the tsunami...

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2005/01/swine-before-pearls-un-plan-to-provide.html

(in short: a lot of talk, next to no action, except for trying to take credit for the efforts of the countries that are actually providing relief)

* The oil-for-food scandal - help a dictator pocket $20 billion, take a nice cut off the top, then refuse to hand over the documents and deny that there was any wrong-doing:

* Squander money and live in luxury while "helping the poor":

* Sexually exploit refugees:

* Refuse to call Darfur a genocide, so they don't have to do anything about it:
(and delay indefinitely in order to "investigate" while tens of thousands die)

Maybe it is time to conclude that the UN does not work? Maybe it is time to conclude that it cannot be made to work, and in fact nothing like it can be made to work?
You should have just linked directly to the UN rather than to an obviously biased, anti-UN site:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12945&Cr=tsunami&Cr1=

How is it so hard for neocons to understand that THE UN IS NOT A COUNTRY. It only has the power of its members. How much money can what is really a forum for world leaders have to contribute?

Moving on...

* The USA has supported and installed many dictatorships (Iran, Chile, Indonesia, etc.) and continues to support them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).

* Torture prisoners. (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib)

* Refuse to call Rwanda a genocide, so they don't have to do anything about it. I agree that the UN isn't doing enough, but your assertion that a government as corrupt as the USA could do better is easily refutable.

The UN is broken, there's no denying that. But abolishing it and returning to a pre-WW2 state of international relations chaos is no way to go.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 22:15

Not suprising since it was an American that came up with it.

If you mean Franklin D. Roosevelt, he was not an American. He was a disgraceful traitor, a piece of filth, and a communist. Not an American.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 22:20

You should have just linked directly to the UN rather than to an obviously biased, anti-UN site:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12945&Cr=tsunami&Cr1=

How is it so hard for neocons to understand that THE UN IS NOT A COUNTRY. It only has the power of its members. How much money can what is really a forum for world leaders have to contribute?

Moving on...

* The USA has supported and installed many dictatorships (Iran, Chile, Indonesia, etc.) and continues to support them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).

* Torture prisoners. (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib)

* Refuse to call Rwanda a genocide, so they don't have to do anything about it. I agree that the UN isn't doing enough, but your assertion that a government as corrupt as the USA could do better is easily refutable.

The UN is broken, there's no denying that. But abolishing it and returning to a pre-WW2 state of international relations chaos is no way to go.

The UN...

*Is pro-terrorist (they love the African National Congress, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Zimbabwe African National Union, etc.)

*Is pro-dictatorship (they love Colonel Quaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, etc.)

*Has committed mass atrocities against civilians (Somalia, Katanga, DRC, etc.)

*Helped cause the Rwanda genocide by disarming the population

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 22:28

I don't like the government of China, but they have done a lot for the Chinese people over the past 50 years, many mistakes were made too.

Yeah, they've done a lot... er, sorry I meant killed a lot. The Communist government of China has killed 40 million people (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm). Their "doing a lot for the people" started when they were fighting against the KMT at the same time as the KMT was fighting against the Japanese. That was really helpful. Since then they've engineered a couple of massive famines and putting people in labor camps. All for the people of course.

Granted, China has done well lately, but that is all due to the hard work of the Chinese people and not in the least due to the ruling regime.

Zervok

05-01-2005, 22:32

Let me put it this way.

We create international body X. Its demcratic, so every country gets equal vote. However, in reality some of these countries are dots on the map or have no power whatsoever. The powerful countries dont want X to gain much power as it give power to some insignificant country. At the same time we want X to do stuff.

Now there is the paradox. So the UN is useless, but any international body would follow. The only way to make it successful is to not make it democratic. Its not the UNs fault its our fault the UN doesnt work.

On a side note UNICEF is doing a lot with the tsunami relief.

Rainbirdtopia

05-01-2005, 22:45

Yeah some countries would love the UN to be disbanded because then they could invade countries at their pleasure and start another World War.

I think the UN does exactly what it should, sure they don't often DO alot but imo talk is alot better than war.

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 22:52

You should have just linked directly to the UN rather than to an obviously biased, anti-UN site: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12945&Cr=tsunami&Cr1=

Considering the amount of funding they have, this is pathetic.

How is it so hard for neocons to understand that THE UN IS NOT A COUNTRY. It only has the power of its members. How much money can what is really a forum for world leaders have to contribute?

What was intented to be a forum for world leaders, but what has at present a budget of $10 to $14 billion (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/tabsyst.htm), thus making it, in terms of disposable income, one of the top 50 governments in the world, roughly comparable to the governments of Finland or New Zealand. Of course, it doesn't exactly have citizens that it has to provide services to, or risk being voted out of office

It wasn't always like that... the UN budget was a much more reasonable $50-80 million during the 60's, enough to cover administrative expenses and nothing else

Silj - then you start talking about the shortcomings of the USA - why? I wasn't setting this up as a comparison.

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 22:57

Its demcratic, so every country gets equal vote.

That's a bizzare idea of democracy.

Democracy means one person=one vote. Countries are not people. The number of votes per country should be based on the adult population (to simplify: one vote per 100,000's).

The UN has precisely the problem you describe.

Allocating votes in thie way does not help if the people voting on behalf of a country's population do not in fact represent the population. That's why only representative governments should be admitted.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:00

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=386877 post #12

Bhutane

05-01-2005, 23:00

Keep UN, abolish all other organisations except maybe continental ones (though these should co-operate with the UN), keeping large military pacts, such as NATO should be abolished.

We need to expand the security council, get rid of the big 5s' veto, and make it a simple majority vote.

All countries should have equal say (ie no vote buying with private 'aid-packages)

What's wrong with Fidel?? Ok, his country isn't democratic but the people are pretty happy, although not wealhy.

Nations should pay their UN dues.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:02

Things like that can be found anywhere, but in reasonably well-governed countries they are the exception, not the rule, and people are held accountable when they happen. The more I learn about the UN, the more I think that this is the rule not the exception... and the very way that the UN is set up makes that inevitable (no accountability).

Well, a place to talk is fine, but it doesn't need anywhere near the budget that the UN has, or the bloated staff that it has for that matter. The problem comes when the UN tries to take on the functions of "world government", with resolutions (=legislation), international courts, departments on various things from health to agriculture (=ministires), peacekeeping (=police/military), etc, etc. It has long, logn ago ceased being merely a diplomatic forum, and started trying to do a lot more (with disastrous results).

The UN is at best ineffectual and corrupt, at worst simply evil. I think I'd take my chances without.

The UN as its flaws, yes. But only if you want to see the glass half empty that you can claim that malfunctions of the UN are the rule.

The UN is funded by its member states, it doesnt take money out of them. And the UN doesnt try to be a world goverment, it is more of a world forum. Its actions are made for the common good, not to take away sovereignty from anyone. I find it amusing that you should consider things such as the elimination of Small Pox, or peacekeeping operations as disastrous. At maximum, their only failure was that they were too weak. And the International Penal Court is a damn good idea. It will allow people that commit crimes against humanity to be held acountable for their actions, wherever they live. How is that bad? If you dont commit crimes against humanity, genocide, or something like that, than you wont be charged.

New Jeffhodia

05-01-2005, 23:03

The UN is becoming (or maybe has become) useless in the realm of controlling world leaders. It doesn't seem to be able to stop anyone from doing anything.

However, that doesn't mean it should be disbanded. It still does great work through charity (ie. UNICEF). That doesn't really make the news though, since it's known by everyone. We just tend to forget it.

Also remember, the UN recently contributed to goading the US into giving over $300 million extra to the tsunami aid. While the aid comparison arguments are total bunk, you can't argue with that kind of success.

Kroblexskij

05-01-2005, 23:03

the UN is great my idea of a great job would be in the UN

LATVERIA1

05-01-2005, 23:05

The reason why the UN doesnt work is because the countries within the UN orgnization dont contribute money nor follow there rules ie us and the iraq war
the point is of course the UN not gunna work if we think that way and dont make it work its up to us not them. and yea i agree there idiots but we should fix it its still important to have the un

Siljhouettes

05-01-2005, 23:06

The UN...

*Is pro-terrorist (they love the African National Congress, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Zimbabwe African National Union, etc.)

*Is pro-dictatorship (they love Colonel Quaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, etc.)

*Has committed mass atrocities against civilians (Somalia, Katanga, DRC, etc.)

*Helped cause the Rwanda genocide by disarming the population
* Let me guess, their members pass resolutions against radical Israeli actions, so the UN must support the PLO. I'd also like you to explain how they are in favour of the African National Congress and the Zimbabwe African National Union.

* Because they allow those dictatorship countries to be members? The UN is for all countries to convene. That's how things get done.

* Yes, the atrocities were discgraceful. But remember, the US has also committed atrocities.

* Sounds like on of those pro-guns freedom hypothoses. I didn't know that they took away their guns. Maybe it was an attempt to disarm the Hutu terrorists? I still don't consider it to be helping to cause the genocide. That was committed by Hutus, not the UN.

If you mean Franklin D. Roosevelt, he was not an American. He was a disgraceful traitor, a piece of filth, and a communist. Not an American.
Whatever your wacky opinion of him, he was technically an American and president.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:06

What's wrong with Fidel?? Ok, his country isn't democratic but the people are pretty happy, although not wealhy.

He slaughtered, tortured, and imprisoned thousands of his own people. He helped scores of other totalitarian dictators come to power; Nicaragua and Angola, for example. He is a huge sponsor of international terrorism and a prolific drug trafficker (sp?). In short, he's a piece of shit.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:08

That's a bizzare idea of democracy.

Democracy means one person=one vote. Countries are not people. The number of votes per country should be based on the adult population (to simplify: one vote per 100,000's).

The UN has precisely the problem you describe.

Allocating votes in thie way does not help if the people voting on behalf of a country's population do not in fact represent the population. That's why only representative governments should be admitted.

Here you show a basic misunderstanding of the UN charter ( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ ): In its inception, it was considered that each country had indeed one vote, independently of its political views, as it was not the UN business how each country was ruled.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:11

He slaughtered, tortured, and imprisoned thousands of his own people. He helped scores of other totalitarian dictators come to power; Nicaragua and Angola, for example. He is a huge sponsor of international terrorism and a prolific drug trafficker (sp?). In short, he's a piece of shit.

How about if you support Proven Data to support your claims? He isnt a saint and should indeed be removed, but because of rightous reasons, not because of lies. Well, if you are an American, i guess that lying is okay for you.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:14

How about if you support Proven Data to support your claims? He isnt a saint and should indeed be removed, but because of rightous reasons, not because of lies. Well, if you are an American, i guess that lying is okay for you.

Read, for example, Nicaragua Betrayed, which is loaded with documentation and evidence proving the U.S., Venezuela, Cuba, Panama, etc., openly collaborated and helped bring the Sandinistas to power. As for Angola, that's nothing new. Re-read your high school history book.

Bhutane

05-01-2005, 23:16

He slaughtered, tortured, and imprisoned thousands of his own people. He helped scores of other totalitarian dictators come to power; Nicaragua and Angola, for example. He is a huge sponsor of international terrorism and a prolific drug trafficker (sp?). In short, he's a piece of shit.

Prove it, the terrorism claim is bullshit. Drug Trafficking is more believable, but I doubt it.

Just because he's helped people we don't like come to power in other countries; does that mean we should remove a fairly benovelent, popular if totalitarian leader from his country, he's made mistakes.

Siljhouettes

05-01-2005, 23:19

What was intented to be a forum for world leaders, but what has at present a budget of $10 to $14 billion (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/tabsyst.htm), thus making it, in terms of disposable income, one of the top 50 governments in the world, roughly comparable to the governments of Finland or New Zealand. Of course, it doesn't exactly have citizens that it has to provide services to, or risk being voted out of office

It wasn't always like that... the UN budget was a much more reasonable $50-80 million during the 60's, enough to cover administrative expenses and nothing else
Maybe you should not compare them to countries like Finland or New Zealand. You might as well compare it to Esso, Microsoft or Pfizer in that case.

Perhaps you have never heard of UNICEF and other development agencies. You could say that the citizens they have to take care of are the citizens of the entire world, mainly the third world where the governments can't offer services to their people.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:20

Prove it, the terrorism claim is bullshit. Drug Trafficking is more believable, but I doubt it.

Bullshit, eh? Remember when he sent tens of thousands of troops to Angola? In the 1970s, Cuba openly supported anti-government movements in Mexico, El Salvador, Guetamala, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. Anyway, Cuba is on the State Department's roster of terrorist nations.

Seosavists

05-01-2005, 23:23

ok here's a list of UN organisations: http://www.unsystem.org/

United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) - New York, USA (e-mail)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) (Preparatory Commision) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations CyberSchoolBus - New York, USA (e-mail)
Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) (now CEB) and its former Subcommittees
Top of page

Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) - Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (e-mail)
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) - Santiago, Chile (e-mail)
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) - Bangkok, Thailand (e-mail)
Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) - Beirut, Lebanon (e-mail
Top of page
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Rome, Italy (e-mail)
Global Programme on Globalization, Liberalization and Sustainable Human Development - Geneva, Switzerland [UNCTAD-UNDP] (e-mail)
High Level Comittee on Management (HLCM) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
High Level Comittee on Programmes (HLCP) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
Former Inter-Agency Committee on Sustainable Development (IACSD) - New York, USA (e-mail)
Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE) (former IACWGE) - New York, USA (e-mail)
Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office (IAPSO) - Copenhagen, Denmark (e-mail)
Inter-Agency Working Group on Evaluation (IAWG) - New York, USA (e-mail)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) - Washington, USA [World Bank Group] (e-mail)
International Bureau of Education (IBE) - Geneva, Switzerland [UNESCO] (e-mail)
International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) - Trieste, Italy [UNIDO] (e-mail)
International Centre for Science and High Technology (ICS) - Trieste, Italy [UNIDO] (e-mail)
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) - Washington, USA [World Bank Group] (e-mail)
Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) - Trieste, Italy [UNESCO/IAEA] (e-mail)
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) - Montreal, Canada (e-mail)
International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) - New York, USA (e-mail)
International Computing Centre (ICC) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail
International Court of Justice (ICJ) - The Hague, The Netherlands (e-mail)
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - The Hague, The Netherlands (e-mail)
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) - Arusha, Tanzania (e-mail)
International Development Association (IDA) - Washington, USA [World Bank Group] (e-mail)
International Finance Corporation (IFC) - Washington, USA [World Bank Group] (e-mail)
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) - Rome, Italy (e-mail)
International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) - Paris, France [UNESCO] (e-mail)
International Institute on Ageing (INIA) - Valetta, Malta (e-mail)
International Labour Organization (ILO) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
International Maritime Organization (IMO) - London, UK (e-mail)
International Monetary Fund (IMF) - Washington, USA (e-mail)
International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) - Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (e-mail)
International Seabed Authority (ISA) - Kingston, Jamaica (e-mail)
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
International Trade Centre (ITC) - Geneva, Switzerland [UNCTAD/WTO] (e-mail
International Training Centre of the ILO (ITC/ILO) - Turin, Italy (e-mail)
Top of page

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail
Joint Inter-Agency Meeting on Computer-Assisted Translation and Terminology (JIAMCATT) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
Top of page

Media and Peace Institute (University for peace) - Paris, France (e-mail)
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) - Washington, USA [World Bank Group] (e-mail)
United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (NGLS) - Geneva, Switzerland and New York, USA (e-mail)
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) - Geneva, Switzerland and New York, USA (e-mail)
Office for Outer Space Affairs (OOSA) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) - The Hague, The Netherlands (e-mail)
Top of page
Panel of External Auditors of the United Nations, the Specialized Agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency - New York, USA (e-mail)
ReliefWeb - Geneva, Switzerland [OCHA] (e-mail)
United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) (formely ACC Subcommittee on Nutrition) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
Top of page
United Nations (UN) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Atlas of the Oceans - Washington, USA
United Nations Board of Auditors - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Capital Development Fund - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations Common Supplier Database (UNCSD) - Oslo, Norway (e-mail)
United Nations Communications Group (former JUNIC) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) - Bonn, Germany (e-mail)
United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) (now UNODC)- Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Development Group (UNDG) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) - Paris, France (e-mail)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - Nairobi, Kenya (e-mail)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - Bonn, Germany (e-mail)
United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Geographic Information Working Group (UNGIWG) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Office of the (OHCHR) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Office of the (UNHCR) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)- Nairobi, Kenya (e-mail)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force (UNICT TF) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations International School (UNIS) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) - Rome, Italy (e-mail
United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Mine Action Service - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (formely UNDCP) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON) - Nairobi, Kenya (e-mail)
United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) - New York, USA (e-mail)
United Nations Postal Administration (UNPA) - Vienna, Austria (e-mail)
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - Gaza, Gaza Strip and Amman, Jordan (e-mail)
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
United Nations Resident Coordinators Network (RCNet) - New York, USA (e-mail)
UN System Network on Rural Development and Food Security - Rome, Italy [FAO/IFAD] (e-mail)
United Nations System Staff College (UNSSC) - Turin, Italy (e-mail)
United Nations University (UNU) - Tokyo, Japan (e-mail)
United Nations Volunteers (UNV) - Bonn, Germany (e-mail)
Universal Postal Union (UPU) - Bern, Switzerland (e-mail)
University for Peace (UPEACE) - San Jose, Costa Rica (e-mail)
Top of page
WomenWatch - New York, USA (e-mail)
World Bank Group - Washington, USA (e-mail)
World Food Programme (WFP) - Rome, Italy (e-mail)
World Health Organization (WHO) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
World Tourism Organization - Madrid, Spain (e-mail)
World Trade Organization (WTO) - Geneva, Switzerland (e-mail)
World Volunteer Web - Bonn, Germany [UNV] (e-mail)
Yeah the UN does nothing at all

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:24

ok here's a list of UN organisations: http://www.unsystem.org/

Yeah the UN does nothing at all

The UN does plenty of things, namely rape, murder, rub elbows with despots and terrorists, pilfer the worlds' treasuries to enrich themselves, etc.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:25

Read, for example, Nicaragua Betrayed, which is loaded with documentation and evidence proving the U.S., Venezuela, Cuba, Panama, etc., openly collaborated and helped bring the Sandinistas to power. As for Angola, that's nothing new. Re-read your high school history book.

How does that make Cuba a prolific drug traffic nation? Even if they did it in the past, as part of a sheme to screw someone else, how does that make them "prolific drug trafficker nation? My parents went to cuba on holidays, its a pretty place, too much communists around, but no weed out there.

As for Angola, which was colonized by my country, i must tell you that indeed Cuba and the USSR supported MPLA, as the US supported UNITA. It was yet another proxy war, in which very few nations, including my own, are innocent.

Hinduje

05-01-2005, 23:27

It is in the very Charter of the UN that it has no armed forces of its own, thus no heavy-lift capability. Am I surprised that the UN has absolutely no means of getting its aid to the people who need it, other than by piggybacking on foreign and private militaries? Not at all. Were it to be otherwise, one could speculate about the possibility of a global tyranny.

Global tyranny? The UN is made of so many nations, there would be large objection to any kind of unnessicary offence. However, without any armed forces, the UN can't forcefully take down, say, Saddam. They can't take action, only complain through diplomacy. And besides, you don't need guns to make a helicopter strong.

So let's either abolish the UN, or give it its own military. Then they can actually ENFORCE their resolutions. Dictators and criminals aren't afraid of diplomats.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:28

Bullshit, eh? Remember when he sent tens of thousands of troops to Angola? In the 1970s, Cuba openly supported anti-government movements in Mexico, El Salvador, Guetamala, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. Anyway, Cuba is on the State Department's roster of terrorist nations.

Yea, about Angola, your president Reagan called Jonas Savimbi, the pig that prolonged Civil war in Angola for fucking 10 more years a "freedom fighter". Then, the US proceeded in arming UNITA. Such a freedom fighter he was, that he didnt accepted a defeat in democratic elections.

And the US as little credibility accusing anyone of anything.

The UN does plenty of things, namely rape, murder, rub elbows with despots and terrorists, pilfer the worlds' treasuries to enrich themselves, etc.

The USA does plenty of things, namely rape, murder, rub elbows with despots and terrorists, pilfer the worlds' treasuries to enrich themselves, etc

Pythagosaurus

05-01-2005, 23:32

I wouldn't mind if the UN went. Of course, I would insist that it be replaced with something better. For example, when the US upgraded the Articles of Confederation to its current constitution, matters improved immensely. For some reason, the framers of the UN didn't take this reasoning seriously. For example, the UN's armed forces are piddly compared to many of its member nations. Every member of the UN has its own currency. Members of the UN don't trade freely with each other. Really, the UN has no effect at all. Why was it framed this way? It's because nobody would belong to a multi-national organization that would actually contribute to the cause of world peace.

Anybody disagree?

Seosavists

05-01-2005, 23:33

The UN does plenty of things, namely rape, murder, rub elbows with despots and terrorists, pilfer the worlds' treasuries to enrich themselves, etc.
Bull shit. wow you'd think the US would have vetoed raping and murdering people. The USA has a veto that means the UN can't do anything the US doesn't want them to do.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:34

Yea, about Angola, your president Reagan called Jonas Savimbi, the pig that prolonged Civil war in Angola for fucking 10 more years a "freedom fighter". Then, the US proceeded in arming UNITA. Such a freedom fighter he was, that he didnt accepted a defeat in democratic elections.

And the US as little credibility accusing anyone of anything.

I doubt the elections were free and fair. Free and fair elections with communists are impossible. Ask Chief Butheluzi (sp?), Bishop Muzorewa, Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, Jan Kozac, etc. And at least Savimbi didn't lop off peoples' heads, cut off whtie women's breasts (while they were still alive), cut people in half lengthways in timber mills (while they were still alive), etc.

The USA does plenty of things, namely rape, murder, rub elbows with despots and terrorists, pilfer the worlds' treasuries to enrich themselves, etc

What nation doesn't?

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:35

Bull shit. wow you'd think the US would have vetoed raping and murdering people. The USA has a veto that means the UN can't do anything the US doesn't want them to do.

Ever heard of Katanga or Somalia?

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 23:36

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 23:42

Here you show a basic misunderstanding of the UN charter

How am I misunderstanding? I said the UN has one vote per country (with the exception of vetos, permanent members of the security council etc) and it doesn't care about the form of government of member countries. I think those are critical flaws.

Superpower07

05-01-2005, 23:43

Give it its own military
Absolutely NOT!

Forgive the previous outburst, but as history has shown us, giving any body a centralized army has led to tyranny. This has been shown with:

*The British army during the mid-late 1700s (suppression, occupation of colonial lands as they protested Parliament's acts)
*Almost every military dictatorship in history (Pinochet, Mao, etc)

And I could give a couple sci-fi examples of this too :D

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:43

I doubt the elections were free and fair. Free and fair elections with communists are impossible. Ask Chief Butheluzi (sp?), Bishop Muzorewa, Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, Jan Kozac, etc. And at least Savimbi didn't lop off peoples' heads, cut off whtie women's breasts (while they were still alive), cut people in half lengthways in timber mills (while they were still alive), etc.

What nation doesn't?

The elections were considered free and fair by international observers. And what elections with communists? UNITA was (and still is right wing). Despite MPLA starting off as communist, they renounced their marxist past and accepted democracy in 89. And yes, both UNITA and MPLA are responsible for atrocities of war. And Savimbi was the head of UNITA. Any redemption he might have gained by accepting democracy, he lost when he choose more war for power.

And all nations have sins. But how is it that the saying goes? Do not throw stones if you have glass ceilings or something, right?

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:45

The elections were considered free and fair by international observers. And what elections with communists? UNITA was (and still is right wing). Despite MPLA starting off as communist, they renounced their marxist past and accepted democracy in 89. And yes, both UNITA and MPLA are responsible for atrocities of war. And Savimbi was the head of UNITA. Any redemption he might have gained by accepting democracy, he lost when he choose more war for power.

And all nations have sins. But how is it that the saying goes? Do not throw stones if you have glass ceilings or something, right?

What kind of atrocities did UNITA commit? I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just wondering.

Roach-Busters

05-01-2005, 23:46

The elections were considered free and fair by international observers.

So were the 1980 Rhodesian elections, the 1994 South African elections, and 1984 Nicaraguan elections. They were not free or fair at all, though.

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 23:48

Absolutely NOT!

Let me join you in saying HELL NO! to a UN military.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what the UN is supposed to do. It is supposed to be a diplomatic forum, not a world government.

In its role of diplomatic forum, it has been pretty useless, mostly because it fails to acknowledge any difference between (for example) Micronesia and India; while in its attempts at playing world government (having a grossly inflated budget, courts, ministries, and troops under its own flag are all part of that) it has been abysmal.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:51

I just want to make one thing clear, my criticism of the UN's disaster relief effort comes from the fact that the UN has funding close to ten billion per year, a large chunk of which is dedicated to disater relief and distater preparedness, and all they can provide is what looks like ten million dollars' worth of aid.

The UN is not just the sum of its member countries. It collects money and then spends it with minimal oversight (and apparently minimal effect). The relief efforts led by individual countries are run and funded independently from the UN; the UN has the level of dedicated funding to do something equally substantial or greater; and yet the UN contribution is vanishingly small.

What could the UN do, specifically?

Well, for starters, say that such a disaster warrants allocating a mere 5% of its annual budget, which comes to $500 million. This should be sufficient to purchase, move and distribute about a million tons of bulk supplies using chartered planes and ships, which is enough for basic sustenance of ten million people for two months. The UN has actually provided what is by the most optimistic estimates a hundred tons, with plans to move a couple thousand tons. That's off by a factor of a thousand.

Now moving food staples may not be what is most needed, but one would expect an operation on the same order of magnitude... a couple thousand reverse-osmosis water purifiers, a few hundred tons of medicines, that kind of thing. We have not seen anything like that.

The UN as a truck load of agencies that take lots of money, still, the UN spends of its own budget 2700 billions in humanitarian assistance, and its not enough for past disasters, it leaves very little room for manoever for new disasters, such as the tsunami (Dont forget that the UN also runs peacekeeping operations and lots of agencies that take lots of money).

How am I misunderstanding? I said the UN has one vote per country (with the exception of vetos, permanent members of the security council etc) and it doesn't care about the form of government of member countries. I think those are critical flaws.

Yes, it doesnt care about those flaws. As any democratic country must accept that some of its citizens have flaws, and are outright idiots, and still has to accept them. What do you propose? Silence the (regretfully) majority of humanity just because our goverments dont like theirs?

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 23:52

The Cassini Belt

05-01-2005, 23:54

the UN spends of its own budget 2700 billions in humanitarian assistance

If that is so, where is the corresponding movement of goods, people, etc?

It would have to be something massive, call it at least five million tons per year. I don't see it. The only reasonable conclusion is that most of the money is wasted. Somehow that is not surprising.

Portu Cale

05-01-2005, 23:57

What kind of atrocities did UNITA commit? I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just wondering.

http://www.angola.org/news/mission/april99/war.html
http://www.actsa.org/Angola/apm/apm0701.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/angola/2003/0108apo.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990824.sc6715.html

Shelling of civilians, rape, torture, terrorism, you name it. At the end of their armed insurgency, they were kinda desperate. Then this Sargeant killed Savimbi, and all was ended. But that is another story.

Portu Cale

06-01-2005, 00:01

I find it particularly telling that people have started contrasting the UN with the US.

First, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that the UN is trying to be a world government. Second, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that while the US does not want to be a world government (or world police, or whatever) it is actually doing a vastly better job of it than the UN is.

The constract appears when the UN is criticized by many Americans, when the US goverment has made much, much more bad things by the UN.
And it doesnt seem the world agrees that the US is doing a "better" job than the UN. Hell, of my personal experience, i may tell you this: In Portugal, the USA is more despised than Spain.
Spain has been the natural enemy of my country for over 800 years.

Anti Jihadist Jihad

06-01-2005, 00:04

man, someones going to try to chew me up for this one...

How much did the US give in aid to begin with? 13 million or something pathetic like that.

Embarrassing

Yes. The US should have spent a little more that 13 million, but the billions of US dollars are being spent in other areas that are chewing up the cash flow as it is. The US cant afford to spend too much money on this situation. Plus many people of the countries in SE Asia are unfriendly to the US and would be ungrateful no matter how much aid is given. It seem like every time the US helps a country out the US gets stabbed in the back (Iraqi insergents, Afghanistani terrorists that we helped them defeat the soviets, etc)

:eek: :mp5:

Portu Cale

06-01-2005, 00:05

If that is so, where is the corresponding movement of goods, people, etc?

It would have to be something massive, call it at least five million tons per year. I don't see it. The only reasonable conclusion is that most of the money is wasted. Somehow that is not surprising.

lol. Dude.. newsflash: Things like lifting landmines cost a shit load of money and they dont envolve moving around stuff.

The UN is present in Darfur, Chad, Afghanistan, and truck loads of other countries around the world, helping refugees, displaced people, etc. There is alot more pain in the world than what you see on tv.

Anti Jihadist Jihad

06-01-2005, 00:08

The constract appears when the UN is criticized by many Americans, when the US goverment has made much, much more bad things by the UN.
And it doesnt seem the world agrees that the US is doing a "better" job than the UN. Hell, of my personal experience, i may tell you this: In Portugal, the USA is more despised than Spain.
Spain has been the natural enemy of my country for over 800 years.

You should also put that quote on the "Why does everone hate america" thread

Portu Cale

06-01-2005, 00:12

You should also put that quote on the "Why does everone hate america" thread

We don't hate America. Just their foreign policy.

Roach-Busters

06-01-2005, 00:14

http://www.angola.org/news/mission/april99/war.html
http://www.actsa.org/Angola/apm/apm0701.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/angola/2003/0108apo.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990824.sc6715.html

Shelling of civilians, rape, torture, terrorism, you name it. At the end of their armed insurgency, they were kinda desperate. Then this Sargeant killed Savimbi, and all was ended. But that is another story.

Thanks! :)

Anti Jihadist Jihad

06-01-2005, 00:15

We don't hate America. Just their foreign policy.

There is a thread for that tho. You can talk about the US's foreign policy and why the portugeese (as a country) hate them

were off subject-lets get back to "UN has to go"

Industrial Experiment

06-01-2005, 00:19

The UN does not need to go, the UNSC needs to be reformed greatly.

Compuq

06-01-2005, 00:37

Yeah, they've done a lot... er, sorry I meant killed a lot. The Communist government of China has killed 40 million people (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm). Their "doing a lot for the people" started when they were fighting against the KMT at the same time as the KMT was fighting against the Japanese. That was really helpful. Since then they've engineered a couple of massive famines and putting people in labor camps. All for the people of course.

Granted, China has done well lately, but that is all due to the hard work of the Chinese people and not in the least due to the ruling regime.

I did'nt say they are perfect. You can't look at the bad without the good.
Under the communist government order was restored( Granted, it was very heavy handed) Life expectancy increased greatly, eduation became manditory.
Resently, because their goverment realized Mao's errors and made the neccessary changes( mainly done to stay in power) The people of china and the goverment have worked together to bring their nation forward(example of government help. China now has the second largest highway network in the world)

I would rather see china have a democratic government, but more important then democracy would be to have one that is not corrupt and respects basic human rights. unfortunatly the current ruling party is corrupt and does not respect human rights.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 00:39

What do you propose? Silence the (regretfully) majority of humanity just because our goverments dont like theirs?

They don't have governments, they have rulers. What I propose is to refuse to give these rulers any legitimacy, and to treat them like the common criminals they are.

Portu Cale

06-01-2005, 00:50

They don't have governments, they have rulers. What I propose is to refuse to give these rulers any legitimacy, and to treat them like the common criminals they are.

Legitimacy is given to a goverment by its people. History shows that when those goverments fail to provide enough benefits for its people, they are removed by revolution. Now, i would like, as you, to see every country in the world a democracy, but that is not in our hands. It is in the hands of the people, for good or worse.

And besides, "outlawing" a country never changed any countries goverment, generally it gives them strenght, for that way, they can justify their incompetence not due to their actions, but due to actions of others. Speaking of Castro, for example, the Cubans dont realize that it is their goverment that makes them poor, because Castro keeps telling them "the Americans have an embargo against us, you are poor because of them", even if this isnt true.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 01:26

Things like lifting landmines cost a shit load of money and they dont envolve moving around stuff.

Yes they do, actually, either equipment or people.

Okay, demining costs between $0.5 and $3 per square meter. What area has the UN cleared, say, last year? How much did it cost? Where did the money come from?

The US has spend about $600 million on demining in the past decade, and cleared a substantial percentage - up to 20% - of the total mined area in the world:

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rpt/walkearth/2002/14881.htm

This was split between US funding of UN demining operations (to which we are the biggest contributor), demining by US military teams, and private contracts.

The UN is present in Darfur, Chad, Afghanistan, and truck loads of other countries around the world, helping refugees, displaced people, etc. There is alot more pain in the world than what you see on tv.

You're making all kinds of assumptions about where I am now and what I've seen on TV or firsthand.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 01:34

Legitimacy is given to a goverment by its people.

Yes.

History shows that when those goverments fail to provide enough benefits for its people, they are removed by revolution.

Not really - it shows nothing of the sort.

And besides, "outlawing" a country never changed any countries goverment, generally it gives them strenght, for that way, they can justify their incompetence not due to their actions, but due to actions of others.

Perhaps. I am not suggesting "outlawing a country", merely refusing to deal with or negotiate with its rulers in any capacity.

The Black Forrest

06-01-2005, 01:41

Hmmm Shrubites bitching about the UN again. :rolleyes:

Roach-Busters

06-01-2005, 01:42

Hmmm Shrubites bitching about the UN again. :rolleyes:

I'm no Shrubite. And we have good reason to hate the UN.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 01:47

Plus many people of the countries in SE Asia are unfriendly to the US and would be ungrateful no matter how much aid is given.

Unfortunately you are right... there was a photo of one of the local aid workers in Indonesia wearing an Osama t-shirt.

Also a minor correction, the US contribution is not $13 million, that was the contribution on the first day only. Currently the US contribution is $350 million from the government and $200 million in private donations, *plus* the Navy resources that go with moving two carrier groups (another $100 million or so).

Belperia

06-01-2005, 01:54

Yeah the UN has had it's day. As long as nations have the power to veto the decisions of the consensus that they don't personally approve of then there's really no point calling it "United Nations". It's becoming a bloated, corrupt, inept, and inefficient beaurocracy that is the laughing stock of the political world regardless of your polital swing.

The New Echelon

06-01-2005, 02:01

The United Nations has difficulties because it was dependant on the willful cooperation of its members. With no armies or even a substantial budget, it's hands are tied for so many things. Yet it manages well for what it's designed to do. Administrative & organisational tasks mainly. Vital, as in the case of this recent disaster, where it it was the only body able to coordinate all nations. Without it it would have been a bumbling mess of a relief effort.

Although I'm in favour of redoing it. Give it teeth. Military & financial force. Then it could enforce the peace rather than just organising it.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 02:23

The United Nations has difficulties because it was dependant on the willful cooperation of its members.

You mean willing, not willful... or do you? ;)

With no armies or even a substantial budget, it's hands are tied for so many things. Yet it manages well for what it's designed to do.

It was designed to do nothing. Or more accurately, so that its member states may talk instead of doing anything. If something needs doing - as in Darfur - the UN fails miserably.

Vital, as in the case of this recent disaster, where it it was the only body able to coordinate all nations.

BWAHAHAHAHA.

Although I'm in favour of redoing it. Give it teeth. Military & financial force. Then it could enforce the peace rather than just organising it.

Typical. It doesn't work, let's just make it bigger.

The *reasons* why the UN doesn't work are a) because it has no accountability to anyone and b) because tiny, insiginificant nations have an equal vote with huge ones and c) because non-representative governments have a vote.

Military force? You want to put military force in the hands of a body which is dominated by the likes of Mobutu and Idi Amin? (today that would be Khomeini, Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Asad, ... guys like them have a voting majority) Brilliant idea.

Financial? Give them more money so they can embezzle and waste more? They managed to steal $20 billion out of $60... sure, let's give them ten times as much.

In short, you're out of your freaking mind.

Xenophobialand

06-01-2005, 02:50

Typical. It doesn't work, let's just make it bigger.

The *reasons* why the UN doesn't work are a) because it has no accountability to anyone and b) because tiny, insiginificant nations have an equal vote with huge ones and c) because non-representative governments have a vote.

Military force? You want to put military force in the hands of a body which is dominated by the likes of Mobutu and Idi Amin? (today that would be Khomeini, Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Asad, ... guys like them have a voting majority) Brilliant idea.

Financial? Give them more money so they can embezzle and waste more? They managed to steal $20 billion out of $60... sure, let's give them ten times as much.

In short, you're out of your freaking mind.

If it doesn't work, then it's because we engineered it that way. Take the much-despised (and rightfully-so) Oil-For-Food Program. Who wrote that policy? It wasn't the UN, it was the first Bush administration. At the time, they were worried less about humanitarian abuses than they were corruption that would allow Saddam to sneak in WMD's into the country. As we can see from the post-war cleanup, the UN succeeded in that mission masterfully. Now you want to criticize it because they failed in a mission they were never tasked to accomplish? Rather, you might find problems in the people who wrote the policy. . .oh wait, that would be Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

In my eyes, his idea makes perfect sense. If you let them off their choke chain, they might have stopped both the entry of WMD's, and the corruption that allowed Saddam to build palaces using UN money (something, by the way, that has been fairly common knowledge since about 1997 from articles in Newsweek, but only gained our ire when we needed something to change focus from our failure to find said WMD's).

Clan1337

06-01-2005, 03:04

I did'nt say they are perfect. You can't look at the bad without the good.
Under the communist government order was restored( Granted, it was very heavy handed) Life expectancy increased greatly, eduation became manditory.
Resently, because their goverment realized Mao's errors and made the neccessary changes( mainly done to stay in power) The people of china and the goverment have worked together to bring their nation forward(example of government help. China now has the second largest highway network in the world)

I would rather see china have a democratic government, but more important then democracy would be to have one that is not corrupt and respects basic human rights. unfortunatly the current ruling party is corrupt and does not respect human rights.

Yeah they're doing a lot better now... but we'll see how much better. Ya gotta remember they killed somewhere between 40 and 100 million people in the cultural revolution (the exact number may never be known).

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 04:10

At the time, they were worried less about humanitarian abuses than they were corruption that would allow Saddam to sneak in WMD's into the country. As we can see from the post-war cleanup, the UN succeeded in that mission masterfully.

There is no separation between the "humanitarian" side and the "WMD" side of the issue. The idea was that Iraq could only purchase items that were for civilian use. We do not know if that was true or not since the documents of what was bought are *still* being kept secret by the UN. However, we now know that about 1/3 of the trade ended up as cash in Saddam's pocket, to buy whatever he wanted outside UN control. Another significant percentage ended up being used for bribes within the UN and to hundreds of other friends of Saddam. That is a failure of WMD control and also a failure in humanitarian terms since that money was not used for much needed food or medicine. (although the biggest humanitarian disaster was due directly to Saddam, who controlled the distribution of supplies and witheld them from his perceived enemies such as the Kurds and Shia).

Why didn't he use the cash to buy WMDs? Good question. Most likely because he believed he already had WMDs. Certainly every intelligence agency and every defector was *convinced* he did. I think some of the people in the WMD program basically told him whatever he wanted to hear. We do not know for a certainty that some WMDs were not in fact shipped over to Syria or elsewhere. Another part of the reason might be because he needed to spend the money to reward supporters which may have been perceived as absolutely necessary for staying in power.

In any case, the program was designed so that oil revenue should go to specific items for the civilian population under UN control, and in that it failed since a huge fraction of the money was outside UN control.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 04:13

we needed something to change focus from our failure to find said WMD's.

Frankly I don't give a rat's ass about WMDs. We got rid of Saddam which is all I wanted in the first place. Here's to many more deposed dictators.

Bunnyducks

06-01-2005, 04:42

...
In any case, the program was designed so that oil revenue should go to specific items for the civilian population under UN control, and in that it failed since a huge fraction of the money was outside UN control.

I trust you when you claim you know how the program was designed and ran... however:

The accusations have triggered a round of finger-pointing. Richard Lugar, the head of a Senate panel conducting one of three congressional probes into the scandal, said on April 7th that, to pull off the scam, Saddam would have needed members of the Security Council to be “complicit in his activities”. The French ambassador to America, Jean-David Levitte, noted in response that America sat on the sanctions committee that approved all contracts. John Negroponte, America’s ambassador to the UN, admitted that while sitting on that committee, America had been more worried about keeping military goods out of Iraq than about corruption.

So, it seems all - or some - SC nations were accountable for this. Yes, UN needs to be reformed... Neither the USA, or whoever inherited the eastern block can play it how they will and blame the others no more...

But is this why you want to get rid of it? It can't be used as a tool no more, instead it has become a conscience (if poor) of some kind....

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 09:57

So, it seems all - or some - SC nations were accountable for this. Yes, UN needs to be reformed...

Of course SC nations were responsible, and the USA was probably right in the middle of it. I suppose the USA probably thought that it was ok to overlook the corruption in order to be able to dictate which goods got approved and which didn't, so that at least Saddam wouldn't get any weapons. Seeing how we didn't get any of the kickbacks, you figure we got something else, right? That's the way politics works. But of course that is moot since Saddam also got a lot of money on the side, and I don't think we knew about that.

But is this why you want to get rid of it? It can't be used as a tool no more, instead it has become a conscience (if poor) of some kind....

Looks to me that the UN is still a tool, mostly in the hands of those who want to handicap the USA.

Conscience? That is kind of interesting. Actually, the USA is the conscience of the UN, not the other way around... now investigating the oil-for-food scandals, pushing on Darfur, etc.

I think that there is a place for an organization which would be a "conscience"... but such an organization should be a lot more transparent in its dealing than the UN, and it should not have a budget of $13 billion just so they're not tempted to steal it. And of course the members of such an organization need to have a reasonable claim to having a clean conscience themselves (which most UN member countries do not).

Mekonia

06-01-2005, 11:32

Shut up you international idiot. The UN has enormous faults yes but I would rather live in a world that has the UN then live in one with out. Yes there is corruption as far as the eye can see but there is a need for an international organisation similar to the UN. Unless you want a world government.
Again I don't like you, are you George Bush?

Water Cove

06-01-2005, 17:51

If you say the UN is corrupt, you're saying the world is corrupt. The UN is teethless, hamstrung, has its hands tied, is fed by a carrot on a stick. Why? Because of the members. If the UN does nothing, that means the members don't want to use it for anything. The UN is simple, non-sentient, needs input before there is any hopes of output. If no one tells them "Darfur needs help" they will not ask for aid in Darfur. Participation is how you stand or fall in the UN. Obviously, the US does not participate any more than other nations because the UN is quite inactive.

That means the world is making mistakes, not the UN. The UN might not be corrupt, but France might be. Whiny neo-cons might point out that corruption, but the US does not. If the US did, then the UN would have to act. The UN is as corrupt as its members and representatives are. Those come from all over the world. So perhaps, maybe, possibly this world is full of lazy, corrupt, cruel and selfish politicians using the UN as yet another stage for their dark activities?

But look at the countries themselves for once. US is a two-party dictatorship. South Africa fights its problems superstitiously. Russia builds nukes. France had to choose between a racist and dummy premier. Russia oppresses neighbours. China takes birth control to the extreme. Russia is so cold. Australia used to kidnap and discriminate aboriginals.

There's lots of political scandals on this planet. Why focus on the only political unit without a country? If anything, they are immume to most kinds of scandals because of their special status. Without the UN, how would we communicate by the masses on an international level? I think some people should look at their own countries before putting down other entities.

Portu Cale

06-01-2005, 19:08

Yes they do, actually, either equipment or people.

Okay, demining costs between $0.5 and $3 per square meter. What area has the UN cleared, say, last year? How much did it cost? Where did the money come from?

The US has spend about $600 million on demining in the past decade, and cleared a substantial percentage - up to 20% - of the total mined area in the world:

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rpt/walkearth/2002/14881.htm

This was split between US funding of UN demining operations (to which we are the biggest contributor), demining by US military teams, and private contracts.

You're making all kinds of assumptions about where I am now and what I've seen on TV or firsthand.

The areas were UN, or UN supported teams operate in de-mining can be found here:

http://www.mineaction.org/countries/_projects.cfm?from=misc/dynamic_overview.cfm%3fdid%3D4&name=Mine%20Clearance&catsearch=Mine%2FUXO%20Clearance

As you can see, the UN as a truck load of Demining programs everywhere. And those are severely underfunded: http://www.un.org/apps/news/ticker/tickerstory.asp?NewsID=12968

They have also demined a very vast area, and provided large awareness and support against mines:
http://www.icbl.org/lm/2004/findings

John Browning

06-01-2005, 20:18

While I would agree that there are other corrupt governments or organizations on the planet, if you could get rid of just one...

The US could do it alone.

We could veto every Security Council vote.

We could stop sending money to the UN.

We couldn't be thrown out, and the veto cannot be stopped. The UN would be effectively choked and paralyzed at the same time.

It wouldn't last too much longer after that.

Eurotrash Smokey

06-01-2005, 22:02

The UN sux, America couldn't/can't do a better job. America has to leave to world alone, the world has to leave america alone.

We all live on the same globe, plz try to get along.

Spiritualrevolution

06-01-2005, 22:08

(some of!) the Americans on this site are so unbelievably deluded. Sure the UN is far from perfect,
-far from representative
-far from democratic
-has way too little real, meaningful power
wow sounds like the EU!!

but surely u can see that the US could not do a better job, we'd all be MacDonalds junkies living in poverty - while the elite sythen off the profits from oil which they had no right to in first place. Let alone invasions...might as well get used to it...united states of the world Bush style. GREAT :rolleyes:

Eurotrash Smokey

06-01-2005, 22:16

Europe is democratic
Europe hasn't have a lot of power because America wants to be the biggest kid on the block.
Europe isn't better then the US, US isn't better the Europe.

Europeans should stop whyning about Bush being re-elected. I would have rather seen Kerry win, but when you see that Bush is fairly elected you must admit he must have done something good. Can't see what ofc, but i don't see Americans interfering when any european nation is holding elections. We shouldn't do it either.

UN is pointless ? Then why did you asked permission to go to war ? Not that it mattered 'cause you would have gone anywayz. Almost no european country supported you and you couldn't care less about it. Now when American and British soldiers are dying in Iraq ( i feel sorry for them, it's not their fault ), you suddenly want the internation community ( read Europe ) to send troops.

Sry this bird won't fly.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 23:05

Why? Because of the members. ... The UN is as corrupt as its members and representatives are. Those come from all over the world. So perhaps, maybe, possibly this world is full of lazy, corrupt, cruel and selfish politicians using the UN as yet another stage for their dark activities?

Precisely. A lot of countries are members that really shouldn't be, under their present (so-called) governments.

The UN has a certain well entrenched bureaucracy of its own, over and above the national representatives. Those guys are the worst.

If the UN does nothing, that means the members don't want to use it for anything.

Or they disagree, and the UN is structured to block any action in cases of disagreement.

But look at the countries themselves for once.

I completely disagree with your characterisation of most countries. For one, it is a very strange dictatorship in which you can say just about anything without fear.

There's lots of political scandals on this planet. Why focus on the only political unit without a country? If anything, they are immume to most kinds of scandals because of their special status.

Because it has tried to build itself into a super-national entity with a lot of the functions that a government has. They are not immune to scandals, they are (mostly) immune to oversight or accountability. That's a good reason to focus on them. The same applies to the EU bureaucracy, of course.

The Cassini Belt

06-01-2005, 23:11

We couldn't be thrown out, and the veto cannot be stopped. The UN would be effectively choked and paralyzed at the same time.

It wouldn't last too much longer after that.

Yes, that would work, but the problem is doing it in a way that doesn't make us look like the bad guys. Right now there is a bill in the House that would cut off all UN funding if the UN does not publicly release *all* documents related to oil-for-food... and nobody can argue with that, now can they?

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 04:19

the UN's amazing tsunami relief efforts, from someone who is actually there...

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/turd-world-and-high-priest-vulture.html

This Embassy has been running 24/7 since the December 26 earthquake and tsunami. Along with my colleagues, I've spent the past several days dealing non-stop with various aspects of the relief effort in this tsunami-affected country. That work, unfortunately, has brought ever-increasing contact with the growing UN presence in this capital; in fact, we've found that to avoid running into the UN, we must go out to where the quake and tsunami actually hit. As we come up on two weeks since the disaster struck, the UN is still not to be seen where it counts -- except when holding well-staged press events. Ah, yes, but the luxury hotels are full of UN assessment teams and visiting big shots from New York, Geneva, and Vienna. The city sees a steady procession of UN Mercedes sedans and top-of-the-line SUV's -- a fully decked out Toyota Landcruiser is the UN vehicle of choice; it doesn't seem that concerns about "global warming" and preserving your tax dollars run too deep among the UNocrats.

Sitting VERY late for two consecutive nights in interminable meetings with UN reps, hearing them go on about "taking the lead coordination role," pledges, and the impending arrival of this or that UN big shot or assessment/coordination team, for the millionth time I realized that if not for Australia and America almost nobody in the tsunami-affected areas would have survived more than a few days. If we had waited for the UNocrats to get their act coordinated, the already massive death toll would have become astronomical. But, fortunately, thanks to "retrograde racist war-mongers " such as John Howard and George W. Bush, as we sat in air conditioned meeting rooms with these UNocrats, young Australians and Americans were at that moment "coordinating" without the UN and saving the lives of tens-of-thousands of people.

Anarcsyndica

07-01-2005, 13:38

the UN's amazing tsunami relief efforts, from someone who is actually there...

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/turd-world-and-high-priest-vulture.html

You know, these sorts of links would be a great deal more interesting (not to mention credible) if the source from which they came werent blatantly over-the-top biased blogs. :rolleyes:

Guardinia

07-01-2005, 13:57

You know, these sorts of links would be a great deal more interesting (not to mention credible) if the source from which they came werent blatantly over-the-top biased blogs. :rolleyes:

Exactly!
I don't see these sources as very much more credible than the famous Iraqi Minister of Information.
He was also "someone who was there", remember?

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 14:51

You know, these sorts of links would be a great deal more interesting (not to mention credible) if the source from which they came werent blatantly over-the-top biased blogs. :rolleyes:

You know, you would be a great deal more credible if you had a clue ;)

In general, blogs establish a reputation by being consistently right and by having the scoop ahead of other sources.

Let's take some of the recent stuff at the Diplomad. They wrote that UN honcho Margareta Wahlstrom was about to arrive and give a press conference in Jakarta in a post on Jan 4, 13:15. She did. However the earliest mention of that I could find anywhere in the press is in a Bloomberg wire story of Jan 6, 06:23. I'd say they have inside access just based on that.

Regarding their "over-the-top bias"... it's not as though they hide it, you know:

A Blog by career US Foreign Service officers. They are Republican (most of the time) in an institution (State Department) in which being a Republican can be bad for your career -- even with a Republican President! Join the State Department Republican Underground.

Of course, that seems more like the plain truth than like bias to me.

JuNii

07-01-2005, 14:53

LOL

Not gonna believe accounts written by someone who is actually there...

Yet you'll believe a newscaster sitting in an office half the world away reading accounts written by someone else using a third person's notes.

Man... that's crazy.

and the Iraqi's Minister of Defense had to say those things to keep the people from panicking.

Anarcsyndica

07-01-2005, 15:07

[QUOTE=The Cassini Belt]
-snip-QUOTE]

Perhaps you wouldn't sound like such a buffoon if you made more of an effort to understand words before tossing them out. Bias does not = lies, and I have never said that it does. Bias implies misrepresentation and distortion of facts, halftruths etc. The people behind that blog may well "have access" but their obviously subjective and partisan position on matters like the UN demolishes their credibility. That entry is just far too opinionated to be of any impartial interest.

Anarcsyndica

07-01-2005, 15:13

LOL

Not gonna believe accounts written by someone who is actually there...

Man... that's crazy.

So i take you believe without question in anything typed on a website or blog, but dismiss anything you hear from established news sources?

Now THAT's crazy. :rolleyes:

Yet you'll believe a newscaster sitting in an office half the world away reading accounts written by someone else using a third person's notes.

And from where did the topic of newscasters enter the discussion pray tell?

JuNii

07-01-2005, 15:33

So i take you believe without question in anything typed on a website or blog, but dismiss anything you hear from established news sources?

Now THAT's crazy. :rolleyes:

And from where did the topic of newscasters enter the discussion pray tell?Until proven that they are not telling the truth. Yes. It's called the benefit of the doubt. and I didn't say I don't believe in established news sources.

As for newscasters entering the conversation. You know, these sorts of links would be a great deal more interesting (not to mention credible) if the source from which they came werent blatantly over-the-top biased blogs. you call such blogs as being not credible. If you think they are not Credible, then by default you don't believe them... now had you said Infallible, that would be different.

so if such eyewitnesses to you are not credible, then that would leave you trusting your information only on those whos profession depends on Impartiality. Newscasters and Journalists. Now as (in your eyes,) the only source of credible news, you hold these in higher reguard than those whos profession does not depend on being Impartial. even tho "news" that the Newscasters report on is written by others. And thus can be prone for mistakes. (Bush Military Papers?) also Newspapers had their share of reporters "makeing up" stories. Yet you hold them in higher reguards than someone who is there even tho you don't know the person doing the Blog.

Anarcsyndica

07-01-2005, 15:46

-snip-

-sigh-

I never once mentioned newscasters, journalists etc. in that post. I simply do not have much faith in the credibility of such OPENLY BIASED, RIDICULOUSLY OPINIONATED blogs who make no pretense of approaching the subject matter with an even hand. You make a great deal of assumptions about my general approach to media sources from those two lines. Having known many journalists, I trust their integrity about as far as I can throw it, generally speaking. That does not however mean that I lend any credence to someone who slaps together a hateful entry on a blog simply because he/she might have tossed in some anecdotal "inside information".

Nekone

07-01-2005, 15:59

-sigh-

I never once mentioned newscasters, journalists etc. in that post. I simply do not have much faith in the credibility of such OPENLY BIASED, RIDICULOUSLY OPINIONATED blogs who make no pretense of approaching the subject matter with an even hand. You make a great deal of assumptions about my general approach to media sources from those two lines. Having known many journalists, I trust their integrity about as far as I can throw it, generally speaking. That does not however mean that I lend any credence to someone who slaps together a hateful entry on a blog simply because he/she might have tossed in some anecdotal "inside information".I think you misunderstood me. I NEVER said you did not trust Newscasters nor Journalist. Nor did I mean to question their Credibility... but what I do question is the way you are tossing the entire blog out without sifting out the information. Sift through the snide comments and you'll see that the UN presence there is more PR or assurances than actual Help. Granted there are little facts there but they are there. Like everything else, you have to look for them.

JuNii

07-01-2005, 16:06

Sorry for the confusion. My pc just crashed and I hopped onto a coworker's one. Forgot to log him out. Nekone's post is mine.

Anarcsyndica

07-01-2005, 16:23

Sorry for the confusion. My pc just crashed and I hopped onto a coworker's one. Forgot to log him out. Nekone's post is mine.

Aha.
Well, the assumption that annoyed me a tad was this:
Newscasters and Journalists. Now as (in your eyes,) the only source of credible news, you hold these in higher reguard than those whos profession does not depend on being Impartial.

To wrap this up, the main point of this for me was simply that I'm tired of people constructing arguments exclusively from links to blog entries, and expecting them to be taken "seriously". Angried up my blood a bit.

Eurotrash Smokey

07-01-2005, 16:25

Thank god america comes up and saves the day once more :rolleyes:

JuNii

07-01-2005, 16:26

Aha.
Well, the assumption that annoyed me a tad was this:

To wrap this up, the main point of this for me was simply that I'm tired of people constructing arguments exclusively from links to blog entries, and expecting them to be taken "seriously". Angried up my blood a bit.yah, could've worded that better... sorry.

JuNii

07-01-2005, 16:27

Thank god america comes up and saves the day once more :rolleyes:hey, do not discount the contributions made by other Nations.

Eurotrash Smokey

07-01-2005, 16:28

No, some ppl here want to point as if only america is making a difference. So not true.

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 16:48

I never once mentioned newscasters, journalists etc. in that post. I simply do not have much faith in the credibility of such OPENLY BIASED, RIDICULOUSLY OPINIONATED blogs who make no pretense of approaching the subject matter with an even hand.

Um, Anarch, they're not trying to "approach the subject"... they're not analysts or reporters, they're witnesses. Big difference. And as for opinionated... I don't see that, all I see is direct observations. Which you may not believe, or which you may think are deliberately slanted a certain way... that's fair enough, but I'll read them and make up my own mind, if that's ok with you? I think they're certainly interesting.

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 16:53

o wrap this up, the main point of this for me was simply that I'm tired of people constructing arguments exclusively from links to blog entries, and expecting them to be taken "seriously". Angried up my blood a bit.

What precisely is wrong with blog entries?

Is it the anonymity? Some are not anonymous, but some (like this one) have to be, obviously. How is that different from a newspaper article quoting "officials who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity"? (which is very common)

Do you think they're pretending to be someone who they're not? I'm always aware of the possibility, but in this case I judge it to be extremely unlikely.

Do you think they're lying with an agenda? If yes, how is that different from certain well-known journalists I could name?

What is it?

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 16:57

Thank god america comes up and saves the day once more :rolleyes:

"America, we're here to save the mother****ing day, yeah"

Actually it's US and Australia, with India, Singapore and Japan pitching in some.

Eurotrash Smokey

07-01-2005, 17:01

And once again europe has done/is doing nothing ?

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 17:05

This bullshit makes me so freaking mad:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=649418
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in Jakarta for the aid conference, expressed gratitude for its work and insisted on the primacy of the United Nations in organising relief work.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-981792,curpg-2.cms
Powell was quoted as saying: "What we needed to do was to make sure we were coordinating our efforts. We called it ‘core' as a way of getting started, recognising that it will be subsumed into the efforts of the UN".

And we are going along with this. Why, oh why?

"insisted on the primacy of the UN" - right, that's all they care about
"subsumed into the efforts of the UN" - the nonexistent efforts of the UN

Grrr.

Well, if you've been reading Diplomad you at least you know what the keyword "coordinate" really stands for. Bonus: how many times is "coordinate" used in Powell's speech and in the Reuters article?

The Cassini Belt

07-01-2005, 17:10

And once again europe has done/is doing nothing?

Well, you said it. Actually the Dutch and Swedes are doing good work. The EU? LOL.

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/more-unreality-but-dutch-get-it.html

Ok, enough with the UN; you get the picture. Now to the EU. The EU could copy the Australian-American model of acting quickly and effectively to save lives, or they could copy the UN model of meeting at a leisurely pace to plan for the possibility of setting up a coordination center that will consider making a plan for the possibility of an operations center to consider beginning to request support for the tsunami's victims. Ah, my wise friends, guess which model of "action" the EU chose? No need to emulate those "cowboys" from Australia and the USA with their airplanes and loading crews working round-the-clock; oh, no, much too tacky, sweaty and dirty. No need to feed into the system those goofy Aussiyankeebushowardian New World Anglo-Saxons already have created. No, they'll follow the much more elegant Kofi Annan model. A couple of EU planners have shown up to begin making arrangements for an assessment team to arrive, etc., etc., you know the rest. Meanwhile, people die.

But all is not lost. The Dutch, who on occasion show the great common sense for which they were once justifiably famous, have signed up with the Aussiyankeebushowardian Core Group. Thanks to a European Diplomad (Yes, The Diplomadic insurgency has gone international!) we have in our possession a short situation report circulated by the Dutch at the most recent EU meeting here in this corner of the Far Abroad. This January 2 report is written by local Dutch diplomats who traveled to Aceh and saw the reality on the ground. We will cite the two principal paragraphs, and leave them unedited in their original rather charming Dutch-English,

The US military has arrived and is clearly establishing its presence everywhere in Banda Aceh. They completely have taken over the military hospital, which was a mess until yesterday but is now completely up and running. They brought big stocks of medicines, materials for the operation room, teams of doctors, water and food. Most of the patients who were lying in the hospital untreated for a week have undergone medical treatment by the US teams by this afternoon. US military have unloaded lots of heavy vehicles and organize the logistics with Indonesian military near the airport. A big camp is being set up at a major square in the town. Huge generators are ready to provide electricity. US helicopters fly to places which haven't been reached for the whole week and drop food. The impression it makes on the people is also highly positive; finally something happens in the city of Banda Aceh and finally it seems some people are in control and are doing something. No talking but action. European countries are until now invisible on the ground.

NationStates Jolt Archive

UN has got to go