NationStates Jolt Archive

That was sarcasm for those of you that are challenged in that way. Anyhow, it turns out that the UN does more than take bribes from sanctioned countries. They send peacekeepers to Africa to rape and pillage (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp). Well maybe not so much pillaging, there isn't much there after all. But this really sucks. Let's just all write a letter to our Congressman, demanding that the United States withdraw from this corrupt organization.


Fifty U.N. peacekeepers and U.N. civilian officers face an estimated 150 allegations of sexual exploitation and rape in the Congo alone. Last Friday, ABC's "20/20" program aired a devastating expose by investigative reporter Brian Ross highlighting some of the worst alleged crimes.

The accused include Didier Bourguet, a U.N. senior official from France charged with running an Internet pedophile ring in the Congo. According to ABC News and others, pictures taken from his personal computer contained thousands of photos of him with hundreds of girls. Police say Bourguet had turned his bedroom, plastered with mirrors and rigged with remote-control cameras, into a stealth porn studio. He was caught in a sting operation while allegedly preparing to rape a 12-year-old girl.

In one of the photos confiscated from Bourguet, a tear can be seen rolling down the cheek of a victim.

Hundreds of babies, fathered by U.N. personnel, have been born to Congolese girls and women -- including the 15-year-old deaf mute daughter of Aimee Tsesi, who told Ross she was turned away at the gates of the U.N. camp when she went for assistance. "The U.N. is not able to give me food or money for my grandson," she told ABC News. "But if the U.N. hadn't brought this soldier here, my daughter would not have become pregnant. And I would not be going through this suffering."

...

We've had a thread about this before. I am amazed that it hasn't come up as the UN's Abu Grave (however you spell it)

That was sarcasm for those of you that are challenged in that way. Anyhow, it turns out that the UN does more than take bribes from sanctioned countries. They send peacekeepers to Africa to rape and pillage (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp). Well maybe not so much pillaging, there isn't much there after all. But this really sucks. Let's just all write a letter to our Congressman, demanding that the United States withdraw from this corrupt organization.

Hip hip HOORAY- oh, you haven't left yet? I guess I'll have to wait until you're gone...(which unfortunately for us, will never come to pass. We'll just have to put up with your perpetual mewling as per usual).

Hip hip HOORAY- oh, you haven't left yet? I guess I'll have to wait until you're gone...(which unfortunately for us, will never come to pass. We'll just have to put up with your perpetual mewling as per usual).
Thanks Bob. What was your point?

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4136428

NO, let's not criticize the UN. After all, we're only supposed to rant about the US - over and over and over again.

The UN can do no wrong - even when it's raping young girls and putting millions into the pockets of its officials and their relatives.

Hey people, let's not forget some of the UN's great achievements. Like how they condemned Israel for building a fence that prevented honest, hard working palestinian suicide bombers from slaughtering busloads of Israeli civilians.

With a UN like this, who needs enemies.

The UN is fucked, they need stricter rules, and a better uphold on them. They didnt do shit about Iraq while it broke around 14 of their rules.

We've had a thread about this before. I am amazed that it hasn't come up as the UN's Abu Grave (however you spell it)
I suspect that it would embarass the UN and not the US. The left-leaning media wouldn't want to do that.

Hey people, let's not forget some of the UN's great achievements. Like how they condemned Israel for building a fence that prevented honest, hard working palestinian suicide bombers from slaughtering busloads of Israeli civilians.

You dont know the half of it, the Israelis built that fence with good intensions but they made it sloppy, it went in other nations land. Giving the Israelis more land that wasnt theirs.

Yeah, withdraw from the UN, that can only be beneficial for the world!

Hang on, are under the delusion that the UN is an actual country with an actual government?

UN peacekkepers are soldiers loaned from member's armed forces. The UN does in no way train these forces. If you want to be pissed at someone for rape and pillage, I'd suggest you look what nationality these peacekeepers were and complain to them.

And saying that the UN did nothing for this thing or that just means that an international consensus was never reached or was vetoed.

The UN is toothless because the members want it to be. Let's not forget that.

And what did the United Nations ever do for us?

This is the UN's Abu Ghurayb prison scandle only they know they fscked up and are willing to admit it. If you want us to write a letter to our congresspeople to withdraw from the UN for doing this, then write them also to withdraw from the US for doing Abu Ghurayb.....it makes just as much sense.

Judge an orginization by its actions not the actions of some of the idiot people in it. If we did that we would have to remove 3/4th of the world governments for incompetence

The irony of suggesting that the UN is getting off scott free because everyone would rather criticise the US would be amusing if the issue were not so serious. Why can this happen, because there is little risk involved. For the most part peacekeepers are safe from prosecution by the country the are deployed too, and safe from punitive actions originating in the UN. The only hope is that if they are caught their own countries will investigate and prosecute them. Guess which nation is one the those who has fought tooth and nail to keep it this way?

Criticising the UN's ability to control their peaceforces, is by implication, criticising those who maintain this state of affairs, which is by implication criticising the US, even if those do the criticising dont realise it... :rolleyes:

Seriously, stop the bitching. We all know the UN has many corrupt programs. For those of you that don't know - the UN program on population control forces sterilization and birht control in mnay third world contries.

But are you going to do anything besides sit there and complain? Israel has broken 70 UN resolutions and you complain about Palestine. The US has vetoed any resolution that would affect its interests and you complain about France and Russia doing the same thing.

Get over it.

The United Nations has actually done a fair amount of pretty decent things in its history. It started with the International Declaration of Human Rights (just in case you forgot that as well) which created the basis for what we have in the Hague right now: the world court. Without this court, international criminals (like Slobadon Milosovic) would have no court to be accountable in. The UN also created the IAEA which, despite being under-funded and under-manned has made a fair amount of progress in trying to halt nuclear proliferation. The United Nations also runs one of the most expansive aid programs in the world, sending financial and material aid to almost every region that needs it. The UN has created the international criminal court to try those that commit crimes against humanity. This started with the Nuremburg trials, showing the world that it actually worked and thats why it still exists today. The UN has also created the international judiciary court which hears complaints between member nations and settles disputes without wars. The UN has created the World Health Fund which has the same goals as the CDC - they seek to remove or control disease and plague in the world. The UN has also created the International Monetary Fund which gives financial aid to developing coutnries to help build infastructure. The UN security council acts a balance of powers for the ICC, adding to the idea of world justice. The UN has overseen the development of the Kyoto Protocol. The UN has overseen the signing of arms treaties such as SALT I and II, START I and II, the NNPT, the ABM, the PTBT, and the CTBT. The UN has also held the conferences which led to the Geneve Protocol, and the CWC.

The UN does all of these things to try and make the world a safer place to live. It has managed to oversee nuclear development for nearly 60 years. Has paced world health and disease control for almost 50 years. Has aided nations in need for 60 years, and has run every program it can for the duration of its funding. The United Nations has been able to bring about international cooperation on an unprecendetned level. It has created a body where nations can discourse with each other as well as shar common ideas and goals.

Now you can do two things: recognize the fact that the UN has actually done quite a bit of good and the fact that yes, there are some corrupt programs as there are in every government. I don't expect and organization to be flawless and neither should you.

The second thing you can do is ignore logic and facts and run around screaming that the UN is the most evil thing in the world and we must end it.

I'd much rather you got over it, but hey, its your convoluted brain.

yes... the UN sent peacekeepers with the intent that they go rape women. You are so smart! They didn't have a single good intention at all. Wow your brain must be too big for your skull! :rolleyes:

And what did the United Nations ever do for us?

Depends who "us" is. If you bothered reading your history, the UN managed to keep Korea free while not getting us into a nuclear exchange with the USSR during the Korean War (which was a UN action under the aegis of American military command). Had America simply attacked without international authority to do so, most of the country would now glow in the dark.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a pretty damn big benefit of being in the UN to me. . .

Seriously, stop the bitching. We all know the UN has many corrupt programs. For those of you that don't know - the UN program on population control forces sterilization and birht control in mnay third world contries.

But are you going to do anything besides sit there and complain? Israel has broken 70 UN resolutions and you complain about Palestine. The US has vetoed any resolution that would affect its interests and you complain about France and Russia doing the same thing.

Get over it.

The United Nations has actually done a fair amount of pretty decent things in its history. It started with the International Declaration of Human Rights (just in case you forgot that as well) which created the basis for what we have in the Hague right now: the world court. Without this court, international criminals (like Slobadon Milosovic) would have no court to be accountable in. The UN also created the IAEA which, despite being under-funded and under-manned has made a fair amount of progress in trying to halt nuclear proliferation. The United Nations also runs one of the most expansive aid programs in the world, sending financial and material aid to almost every region that needs it. The UN has created the international criminal court to try those that commit crimes against humanity. This started with the Nuremburg trials, showing the world that it actually worked and thats why it still exists today. The UN has also created the international judiciary court which hears complaints between member nations and settles disputes without wars. The UN has created the World Health Fund which has the same goals as the CDC - they seek to remove or control disease and plague in the world. The UN has also created the International Monetary Fund which gives financial aid to developing coutnries to help build infastructure. The UN security council acts a balance of powers for the ICC, adding to the idea of world justice. The UN has overseen the development of the Kyoto Protocol. The UN has overseen the signing of arms treaties such as SALT I and II, START I and II, the NNPT, the ABM, the PTBT, and the CTBT. The UN has also held the conferences which led to the Geneve Protocol, and the CWC.

The UN does all of these things to try and make the world a safer place to live. It has managed to oversee nuclear development for nearly 60 years. Has paced world health and disease control for almost 50 years. Has aided nations in need for 60 years, and has run every program it can for the duration of its funding. The United Nations has been able to bring about international cooperation on an unprecendetned level. It has created a body where nations can discourse with each other as well as shar common ideas and goals.

Now you can do two things: recognize the fact that the UN has actually done quite a bit of good and the fact that yes, there are some corrupt programs as there are in every government. I don't expect and organization to be flawless and neither should you.

The second thing you can do is ignore logic and facts and run around screaming that the UN is the most evil thing in the world and we must end it.

I'd much rather you got over it, but hey, its your convoluted brain.

Very good post!

Oh the hypocrisy is almost overwhelming from those right-wingers

Yes lets get rid of the UN because corruption is known to exist within the organization. What about the US? Ever hear of any corruption goign on there? Of course not because the US can do no wrong. :rolleyes:

Yep, the UN's responsable for all the world evils, lets not mention the good things it does, lets just say the bad things it had no contol over.... After all the US goverment isn't corrupt, everyone knows every US offical and soildier will have never done anything wrong in there lives...

yep, lets withdraw from this evil organastion, fighting for World Peace, yeah lets run off and invade iran and North Korea...and then when the UN say we shouldn't, lets condemm them!

And, of course, if we get our asses kicked, we'll blame it on them for not stopping us...

Depends who "us" is. If you bothered reading your history, the UN managed to keep Korea free while not getting us into a nuclear exchange with the USSR during the Korean War (which was a UN action under the aegis of American military command). Had America simply attacked without international authority to do so, most of the country would now glow in the dark.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a pretty damn big benefit of being in the UN to me. . .

The UN intervention in Korea WAS the United States' idea - they wanted to legitimize the use of force in Korea - and wrote the resolution themselves - and waited until the Soviet Ambassador had left the room to call for a vote.

We probably would have gone in any case. As it is, I don't think that the fact that Resolution 90 passed did anything to prevent WW III.

If the US had not asked for the resolution, no one would have proposed doing anything to defend South Korea. They would have just gone and had lunch.

And if the US hadn't put forth the strategic capability to get forces to Korea, no one would have gone.

I think that the UN, aside from being a tool for the US in certain circumstances, is a wish box for other nations. If the Security Council (read as the Permanent members who get to lord it over everyone else) thinks it's OK, and the US is willing to send forces, you get your wish. Otherwise, you lose. Your people can be massacred, starved, raped, and run off their homeland, and nothing will be done.

BTW, the whole IAEA thing has been a long running joke. The NNPT was also supposed to result in the full disarmament of the nuclear powers (nope), and prevent other nations from gaining nuclear weapons (slowed, but now that Dr. Khan has put the plans, materials, and other items on the market, now everyone can have one).

The US and USSR, not the UN, were the main drivers of the SALT and START talks. Not the UN.

BTW, bangup job the IAEA and UN has done on North Korea - if the US has to wait for the UN and IAEA to do something about nuclear proliferation in North Korea, I guess we'll be holding some marshmallows in the air over Seoul for toasting.

Seriously, stop the bitching. We all know the UN has many corrupt programs. For those of you that don't know - the UN program on population control forces sterilization and birht control in mnay third world contries.

But are you going to do anything besides sit there and complain? Israel has broken 70 UN resolutions and you complain about Palestine. The US has vetoed any resolution that would affect its interests and you complain about France and Russia doing the same thing.


Yeah, and none of those resolutions against Israel and the US were politically motivated. The UN is a bastion of moral purity. :rolleyes:

noone's using sarcasm on this thread at all. nope! lol

Yeah, and none of those resolutions against Israel and the US were politically motivated. The UN is a bastion of moral purity. :rolleyes:
The US usually vetos the more obvious ones.

noone's using sarcasm on this thread at all. nope! lol
A sarcasm detector, now thats a real useful invention[/Comic book guy]

noone's using sarcasm on this thread at all. nope! lol

You don't have to use sarcasm when talking about the United Nations.

It's assumed - only Kofi Annan believes the crap that comes out of his mouth.

You don't have to use sarcasm when talking about the United Nations.

It's assumed - only Kofi Annan believes the crap that comes out of his mouth.


then why did you? and what does sarcasm have to do with Kofi Annan? Also, do you think the UN has ever done anythign of value? Recently?

then why did you? and what does sarcasm have to do with Kofi Annan? Also, do you think the UN has ever done anythign of value? Recently?

I believe that from the start, the UN was really just the Permanent Members of the Security Council - and little more. Get them to agree on doing something, and it might get done. The Charter was written in such a way that the UN could never interfere in the internal affairs (or self-determination) of any nation (read as: permanent Security Council Members).

So from the start, it was a crippled, weak, impotent organization that would only have teeth if the Soviets stayed out of the room for the vote.

Now, everyone knows what happens if you leave the room during a vote. So nothing much happens. Nothing.

The US, in effect, is the only nation in the United Nations with the real ability to project credible, sustainable power worldwide. But US voters are not willing pawns of the UN (no, it's the other way 'round).

So to me, it's a big, sad, tragic joke. The promise of "world peace" in a package about as meaningful as the speech by the third runner-up for the Miss America contest.

As for any humanitarian acts - well, the US is paying for a lot of that - it's the largest donor. If we didn't have the UN, it would probably be another NGO getting the money.

No, the UN, especially without the US to provide the force, isn't credible. I can see why nations flouted UN resolutions and agreements.

I never have, nor never will see the authority of the UN over the United States Constitution. As far as anything being worthy of our time...perhaps an international court, which only holds people accountable of certain (univerally agreed upon) laws e.g murder, theft or fraud. Although how are the other nations to practically hold people accountable, without a military 'police' to help them?

I would much rather have a pact between nations, that allows low tariffs or non-existing tariffs to exist...as long as they uphold certain objective laws. Once they go outside of those rules, they maybe tariffed in any manner seen fit by the other countries.

I believe that from the start, the UN was really just the Permanent Members of the Security Council - and little more. Get them to agree on doing something, and it might get done. The Charter was written in such a way that the UN could never interfere in the internal affairs (or self-determination) of any nation (read as: permanent Security Council Members).

So from the start, it was a crippled, weak, impotent organization that would only have teeth if the Soviets stayed out of the room for the vote.

Now, everyone knows what happens if you leave the room during a vote. So nothing much happens. Nothing.

The US, in effect, is the only nation in the United Nations with the real ability to project credible, sustainable power worldwide. But US voters are not willing pawns of the UN (no, it's the other way 'round).

So to me, it's a big, sad, tragic joke. The promise of "world peace" in a package about as meaningful as the speech by the third runner-up for the Miss America contest.

As for any humanitarian acts - well, the US is paying for a lot of that - it's the largest donor. If we didn't have the UN, it would probably be another NGO getting the money.

No, the UN, especially without the US to provide the force, isn't credible. I can see why nations flouted UN resolutions and agreements.

THat was a very long winded way of saying, "Yes, The UN has done good things."

Anyway The US cannot do everythign by itself if thats what you are tryign to say. Most people understand that workign with people is better than unilateral action. If you want to maintain/work towards peace, you have to work with others. Too bad the current administration only wants death and destruction.

THat was a very long winded way of saying, "Yes, The UN has done good things."

Anyway The US cannot do everythign by itself if thats what you are tryign to say. Most people understand that workign with people is better than unilateral action. If you want to maintain/work towards peace, you have to work with others. Too bad the current administration only wants death and destruction.

No, it's my way of saying that if the US hadn't pushed for the UN, and if it hadn't backed the UN at certain times, the UN would NEVER have done anything at all. As it is, when you counterbalance that with the shameless way that the US uses the UN for its own purposes, you end up with nothing that the UN did that was worthwhile.

From a military standpoint, the US can certainly act unilaterally. There is no nation on earth that could stop a US military attack.

If we wanted only death and destruction, we would have used nuclear weapons on Afghanistan and Iraq instead of invading.

I see a long, long trail of negotiations - failing mostly because North Korea is negotiating in bad faith - reneging completely on deals after they receive aid. Six-way talks. IAEA talks. IAEA inspections. None of which have stopped or even slowed North Korea in their acquisition of the bomb.

And they want it - and want to negotiate only with the US - and only want one thing:

A guarantee that the US will never, under any circumstances, attack North Korea.

Well, the unspoken circumstance is, "if North Korea attacks the South to conquer it once and for all".

If the US signed such a document, that would be a violation of UN Resolution 90. The US, if it wants to abide by the UN, has to let the UN call North Korea's bluff.

Unfortunately, it's a bad idea to play poker with a schizophrenic suicide bomber. But, we caught a lot of flak for moving on Iraq first - so we're following Condi's lead and letting the UN do nothing.

This will simmer, of course, until North Korea does just what it says it will do - use the bomb to even its chances with the US on the Korean Peninsula.

The UN is still doing nothing. A lot of hand wringing, and a lot of useless talk from Kofi.

Tell you what, when the North Koreans detonate a nuclear device (first, if you ask me), I'll take you to the ruins of Taegu, my hometown, when the radiation dies down, and then I'll show you first hand what a fuck up the UN is.

I never have, nor never will see the authority of the UN over the United States Constitution. As far as anything being worthy of our time...perhaps an international court, which only holds people accountable of certain (univerally agreed upon) laws e.g murder, theft or fraud. Although how are the other nations to practically hold people accountable, without a military 'police' to help them?

I would much rather have a pact between nations, that allows low tariffs or non-existing tariffs to exist...as long as they uphold certain objective laws. Once they go outside of those rules, they maybe tariffed in any manner seen fit by the other countries.
Then talk to your congressman because the Us is opposed to an internationnal tribunal and is putting up tarriff left and right. Even illegal ones under agreements they signed and demand the other side to respect.

As a side note, I would ask of those who defend the UN to stop bashing the US. Surely we can find ways to defend it other than saying "you people are the same!" Two wrong does not make a right and all that.

The UN intervention in Korea WAS the United States' idea - they wanted to legitimize the use of force in Korea - and wrote the resolution themselves - and waited until the Soviet Ambassador had left the room to call for a vote.
One of the reasons the UN doesn't get anything substantial done. The security council just veots anything that doesn't fit their little view of interests.

We probably would have gone in any case. As it is, I don't think that the fact that Resolution 90 passed did anything to prevent WW III.
nothing will prevent a WWIII if it ever happens. Though I think most nations are too smart to have another world war.

If the US had not asked for the resolution, no one would have proposed doing anything to defend South Korea. They would have just gone and had lunch.
Probably true. But then again, if the US voted to do anything in Darfour, we probably could have stopped the genocide twenty years ago.

And if the US hadn't put forth the strategic capability to get forces to Korea, no one would have gone.
That's a generalization. Europe probably could have gone, and I think a few nations did commit forces. The US just happened to have the most troops available to send.

I think that the UN, aside from being a tool for the US in certain circumstances, is a wish box for other nations. If the Security Council (read as the Permanent members who get to lord it over everyone else) thinks it's OK, and the US is willing to send forces, you get your wish. Otherwise, you lose. Your people can be massacred, starved, raped, and run off their homeland, and nothing will be done.
Yeah, pretty much.

BTW, the whole IAEA thing has been a long running joke. The NNPT was also supposed to result in the full disarmament of the nuclear powers (nope), and prevent other nations from gaining nuclear weapons (slowed, but now that Dr. Khan has put the plans, materials, and other items on the market, now everyone can have one).
No not really. It has done a failry good job with the staff and funds provided. Of course with more funding and a larger staff it would be a whole hell of a lot mor effective. And the NNPT was meant to stop the selling of nuclear materials, not disarm all nuclear powers.

The US and USSR, not the UN, were the main drivers of the SALT and START talks. Not the UN.
And how do you think the two nations were able to dialouge in the first place? Right. The UN.

BTW, bangup job the IAEA and UN has done on North Korea - if the US has to wait for the UN and IAEA to do something about nuclear proliferation in North Korea, I guess we'll be holding some marshmallows in the air over Seoul for toasting. The US has alsready shown it doesn't want to do anything about NK. We're more interested in fighting the muslim heretics of the mid-east than actually going after rouge nuclear states.

Then talk to your congressman because the Us is opposed to an internationnal tribunal and is putting up tarriff left and right. Even illegal ones under agreements they signed and demand the other side to respect.

As a side note, I would ask of those who defend the UN to stop bashing the US. Surely we can find ways to defend it other than saying "you people are the same!" Two wrong does not make a right and all that.


I think it is more of a pointing out the hypocrisy of peopel who say "The UN is corrupt so lets get rid of it", when you don't find them saying "The US is corrupt so lets get rid of it". I think there is something they are not admitting to when talkign about why they dislike the current administration or just the US in general, because if it was because of corruption then they should be denouncing the Bush Administration or the US with as much fervancy. Which they don't. I just want the right-wingers to stop pouring out so much hate for anything non-conservative.

And how do you think the two nations were able to dialouge in the first place? Right. The UN.

The direct Washington-to-Moscow line...

The direct Washington-to-Moscow line...

IIRC, it had nothing to do with the UN, and more to do with Henry Kissinger getting things started under a policy of Realpolitik. Which the Soviets understood.

Then talk to your congressman because the Us is opposed to an internationnal tribunal and is putting up tarriff left and right. Even illegal ones under agreements they signed and demand the other side to respect.

A congressman listening to me...lol. I don't like the current US policy on trade, but I'm not delusional to believe they'll listen to a lean-libertarian. As far as the international tribunal, it would have to be a certain way for me to even consider it. But I could understand why some congressmen wouldn't be up to it...

I think it is more of a pointing out the hypocrisy of peopel who say "The UN is corrupt so lets get rid of it", when you don't find them saying "The US is corrupt so lets get rid of it". I think there is something they are not admitting to when talkign about why they dislike the current administration or just the US in general, because if it was because of corruption then they should be denouncing the Bush Administration or the US with as much fervancy. Which they don't. I just want the right-wingers to stop pouring out so much hate for anything non-conservative.

True but I just read the thread and there was five messages saying basically the same thing. I felt it important to mention it so it doesn't degenerate to US bashing as we all know there's plenty of it around.

Although I did enjoy seeing 5 posts one after the other pointing out the hypocrisy of those who started this thread. :p

True but I just read the thread and there was five messages saying basically the same thing. I felt it important to mention it so it doesn't degenerate to US bashing as we all know there's plenty of it around.

Although I did enjoy seeing 5 posts one after the other pointing out the hypocrisy of those who started this thread. :p

Agreed

I think it is more of a pointing out the hypocrisy of peopel who say "The UN is corrupt so lets get rid of it", when you don't find them saying "The US is corrupt so lets get rid of it". I think there is something they are not admitting to when talkign about why they dislike the current administration or just the US in general, because if it was because of corruption then they should be denouncing the Bush Administration or the US with as much fervancy. Which they don't. I just want the right-wingers to stop pouring out so much hate for anything non-conservative.
There's nothing hypocritical in pointing out the flaws of the UN. It's corrupt. Every day, I open the paper and read about something else done in the name of the UN that just makes me pale. Today, it was this story. Yesterday, it was the antics of Kofi's son.

Nothing I have read recently about the US is anywhere near as scandalous as what has been happening at the UN. Abu-Grabe was Kindergarten compared to what the UN troops do. And the UN IS responsible. Those soldiers are out there representing the UN, as well as their home nations. So don't kid yourself that the UN is innocent.

True but I just read the thread and there was five messages saying basically the same thing. I felt it important to mention it so it doesn't degenerate to US bashing as we all know there's plenty of it around.

Although I did enjoy seeing 5 posts one after the other pointing out the hypocrisy of those who started this thread. :p

I'm not saying "get rid of the UN".
I'm saying that it is worthless. The only reason for a Security Council member to stay in is so they won't get caught by a vote after they leave (like the Soviets did at the start of the Korean War).

Otherwise, the UN is worthless and weak.

There's nothing hypocritical in pointing out the flaws of the UN. It's corrupt. Every day, I open the paper and read about something else done in the name of the UN that just makes me pale. Today, it was this story. Yesterday, it was the antics of Kofi's son.

Nothing I have read recently about the US is anywhere near as scandalous as what has been happening at the UN. Abu-Grabe was Kindergarten compared to what the UN troops do. And the UN IS responsible. Those soldiers are out there representing the UN, as well as their home nations. So don't kid yourself that the UN is innocent.

I like your view on this. Although I wonder if we aren't as corrupt ie our government...WONDER is the key word.

There's nothing hypocritical in pointing out the flaws of the UN. It's corrupt. Every day, I open the paper and read about something else done in the name of the UN that just makes me pale. Today, it was this story. Yesterday, it was the antics of Kofi's son.

Nothing I have read recently about the US is anywhere near as scandalous as what has been happening at the UN. Abu-Grabe was Kindergarten compared to what the UN troops do. And the UN IS responsible. Those soldiers are out there representing the UN, as well as their home nations. So don't kid yourself that the UN is innocent.

I never said the UN is innocent. You can obviously read so try looking at what I wrote again because it seems my response to your statement would just be repeating itself.

The US soldiers are also representatives of the US and show the US in just a bad a light, when they kill detainees. I guess murder is kindergarten when compared to rape in your eyes but I See things differently.

Now don't try to kid yrouself that the US is innocent and is some sort of world savior with no political agendas in where it decided to bomb next.

So either own up to it, and denounce the US for things that some of it's parts do, or you are just another hypocrite for denouncing the entire UN for what some of it's parts do. SImple as that. end of story. I wont say it again because I think I have been very clear.

Good day.

The UN is satans way of controling politics in the world.

You know, the best thing I can say about the United Nations is to talk about its members.

Let's leave out the US for a moment, as we've been all over that. Let's agree that if the US (most of the time) wants to do something, the Security Council lets it happen (well, not the last time in Iraq, but certainly the first time).

If the US is such a big bully, and such a bad thing for world peace, why doesn't everyone else leave the UN and form their own UN-2 without the US?

Then they can grab their balls and defeat the US, and the threat of the world superpower will be over. World peace under a new world government will reign.

And just why won't this happen? Because if every other nation wasn't in the game strictly for themselves, it would have happened already. Everyone is too self-centered and without a set of testicles - they only want to sit back and wring their hands.

Yes, it's not the US that is the enemy of world peace. They're just a small part of the whole. It's everyone else who stands by and allows it to happen - especially people in affluent Western nations who could afford to raise and support such a force.

We've had a thread about this before. I am amazed that it hasn't come up as the UN's Abu Grave (however you spell it)
What, hold the UN accountable for the actions of those in it's employ? Naw, that would make too much sense.

The US soldiers are also representatives of the US and show the US in just a bad a light, when they kill detainees. I guess murder is kindergarten when compared to rape in your eyes but I See things differently.

Now here's the question. Is it worse to rape and torture innocents or to torture and submit to random frathouse bullshit those who are nowhere near innocent?

Now here's the question. Is it worse to rape and torture innocents or to torture and submit to random frathouse bullshit those who are nowhere near innocent?

I would rather be tortured/raped and left alive than tortured and killed. How about you?

And I bet you truely do believe that everyone in Abu Gareb is guilty of high crimes and deserve torture and death. What about people who are against foreigners invading their country and wish to fight such a thing? Are they wrong for doing so? Is it wrong to fight for your country and what you believe in?

Innocent people are being caught up in this too, whether you want to believe it or not. I wish more of you conservatives could see more than just black and white. Not everything is either just this way or that way. There are many nuances to all things and deserve consideration. Knee jerk reactionary hate and violence is absolutely pathetic. Subscribing to it makes you look like you took a couple steps down the evolutionary ladder.

I would rather be tortured/raped and left alive than tortured and killed. How about you?

And I bet you truely do believe that everyone in Abu Gareb is guilty of high crimes and deserve torture and death. What about people who are against foreigners invading their country and wish to fight such a thing? Are they wrong for doing so? Is it wrong to fight for your country and what you believe in?

Innocent people are being caught up in this too, whether you want to believe it or not. I wish more of you conservatives could see more than just black and white. Not everything is either just this way or that way. There are many nuances to all things and deserve consideration. Knee jerk reactionary hate and violence is absolutely pathetic. Subscribing to it makes you look like you took a couple steps down the evolutionary ladder.
I have some very substantial doubts that a significant number of prisoners were mistreated. Some were probably uncomfortable. So what? The vast majority of prisoners from Ashcanistan and from Iraq were captured while fighting us. It's bad policy to torture, anyway. The information gained is tainted with the suspicion that the tortured would say anything to have the torture stopped.

Now, the other thing wrong with this whole line of discussion is that it equates what the US has done for 25 million Iraqis -- that's liberate -- with the widespread corruption present in the UN. Here's some good news from the last two weeks. This is some awful stuff we're doing to these guys.


• Society. Two weeks after the election, the results are in. The mostly Shiite United Iraqi Alliance received about 48% of the vote and 140 of 275 seats in the National Assembly, followed by the Kurdistan Alliance with 26% and 75 seats, and interim prime minister Iyad Allawi's Iraqi List with 14% and 40 seats. The Iraqi Electoral Commission estimates turnout at 58% of eligible voters, which is better than the typical U.S. election.

• Economy. The Iraqi dinar continues to appreciate against the U.S. dollar, which now buys 1,250 dinars, instead of the pre-election 1,460.

• Reconstruction. The European Union is offering more assistance: The European Commission has proposed an additional package of €200 million [$256 million] to assist with the reconstruction of Iraq. . . .

• Humanitarian aid. USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has been active in cooperation with Iraqi authorities to provide humanitarian assistance to people of Fallujah. To support the returnees in reintegrating into the community, each returning family will receive a heater, fuel rations, and an immediate payment of 150,000 Iraqi dinars ([US]100), provided by the Iraqi government. The Ministry of Oil reports that kerosene and liquid propane gas distributions are going well, but there is some concern that demand might exceed supply if the number of returnees jumps significantly.

• Coalition troops.One of the most effective ways of supporting grass-roots efforts in Iraq is the Commander's Emergency Response Program. Each command sector of operations throughout Iraq can provide funds for locally run projects:

The projects must not exceed $500,000 and must demonstrate an important public need. To date, 44 projects have been completed with 58 more in progress or in the process of being submitted. More than $17 million has been spent or allocated by CERP for these important, community enhancements. In fact, the program has been so successful that Iraqi Interim Government officials have agreed to fund and administer 17 projects previously slated for funding by CERP. These projects, totaling $5.9 million, include drainage improvements, irrigation, school renovations, and the construction of a fine arts institute.

• SECURITY: In many ways, the greatest security success of the past few weeks was ensuring that the terrorists did not derail the election. The precautions on the day were quite stringent, and therefore not sustainable in long term, but the terrorist offensive was also undoubtedly blunted by the security crackdown which saw the arrest of 202 suspected insurgents, including some foreign fighters. Four insurgents were also killed in shootouts on the election day.

Most incidents that took place were confined to Baghdad and parts of the Sunni triangle. In Najaf, no violence was reported at any of the 240 polling stations within the city. Neither were any incidents reported in nearby city of Kufa.

Stories like this one are emerging, too: "Inhabitants of an Iraqi village killed five insurgents who attacked them for taking part in the country's historic election. . . . The insurgents launched the raid after earlier warning the inhabitants of Al-Mudhiryah, south of Baghdad, against taking part in Sunday's vote, said a police captain who requested anonymity." The village is mixed Sunni-Shiite one.

No one is expecting that the insurgency will suddenly disappear, but there is hope for continued improvement. This report from Baghdad notes "a cautious sense of security" returning to the city where one quarter of Iraq's population lives:

The UN will be replaced or atleast its rent will be way up in New York soon enough.

The UN will be replaced or atleast its rent will be way up in New York soon enough.
Their place is probably rent-controlled. Wouldn't that be a laugh?