Young Winston
Banned
Big_Z said:
The UN and US need each other. They have to work together more than ever before. Arguing over who needs who more is just a waste of time.
I'm fed up with the UN
The UN and US need each other. They have to work together more than ever before. Arguing over who needs who more is just a waste of time.
UN r usefull. But SHOULD SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE USEFUL!
Today we see there r still many war lies on the Africa regions. Except for Food, Education aid, I don't see UN really employing a stubborn troops to stop racial discriminations or war.
And one more thing, I don't know this should be the responsibility of UN or not. When Japanese were trying to be hero and sencor the truth in the history text book, I don't see UN really speak out their voice to condemm their act. But in my opinion, since that UN is made to build a better world and alwayz wanted peace. Involve in the Japanese censorship topic is a so a peace-defending act isn't it?
Today we see there r still many war lies on the Africa regions. Except for Food, Education aid, I don't see UN really employing a stubborn troops to stop racial discriminations or war.
And one more thing, I don't know this should be the responsibility of UN or not. When Japanese were trying to be hero and sencor the truth in the history text book, I don't see UN really speak out their voice to condemm their act. But in my opinion, since that UN is made to build a better world and alwayz wanted peace. Involve in the Japanese censorship topic is a so a peace-defending act isn't it?
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
Ezechiel said:
More like the UN would be dictating to the Japanese how to educate their children. Not that i'm condoning the act.
dougal
Active member
A United Nations anti-torture body has criticised Britain for the "unsatisfactory" conditions in its prisons, including a "substantial number of deaths in custody", urging it to act at once to improve them.
The U.N. Committee Against Torture, reviewing British compliance with an international treaty outlawing inhuman and degrading treatment, also expressed concern at parts of an anti-terrorism law which allows "potentially indefinite detention" of foreigners without trial.
It called on the British government to study "as a matter of urgency" alternatives to the sweeping powers to imprison any foreigner suspected of involvement in international terrorism given by the 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
The committee of 10 experts said there were reports of "unsatisfactory conditions" in British prisons, including "substantial numbers of deaths in custody, inter-prisoner violence, overcrowding ..."
It was the fourth time the Geneva-based committee had focused on Britain as part of its regular scrutiny of the 138 states to have ratified the 1984 treaty.
At the November session which ended on Friday, it also took up the cases of Greece and Argentina.
Athens was reprimanded for its lack of an "effective, independent system" to handle complaints that allegations of torture had not been investigated properly.
The committee also expressed concern that those who brought such complaints were not given adequate protection against the risk of retaliation and intimidation.
It also took Greece to task for "overcrowding and poor conditions" in its prisons and drew attention to the perceived "reluctance" of the Greek authorities to bring in laws against violence to women, notably in the home.
In Argentina, there were "numerous" allegations of torture and cruel treatment, which appeared to be used "habitually" by security and police forces, the committee said in its findings.
At the same time there were very few examples of anybody being condemned for such acts, it said.
"The disparity between the high number of denunciations for acts of torture and cruel treatment and the very few convictions for such acts ... contributes to a climate of impunity," it said.
The U.N. Committee Against Torture, reviewing British compliance with an international treaty outlawing inhuman and degrading treatment, also expressed concern at parts of an anti-terrorism law which allows "potentially indefinite detention" of foreigners without trial.
It called on the British government to study "as a matter of urgency" alternatives to the sweeping powers to imprison any foreigner suspected of involvement in international terrorism given by the 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
The committee of 10 experts said there were reports of "unsatisfactory conditions" in British prisons, including "substantial numbers of deaths in custody, inter-prisoner violence, overcrowding ..."
It was the fourth time the Geneva-based committee had focused on Britain as part of its regular scrutiny of the 138 states to have ratified the 1984 treaty.
At the November session which ended on Friday, it also took up the cases of Greece and Argentina.
Athens was reprimanded for its lack of an "effective, independent system" to handle complaints that allegations of torture had not been investigated properly.
The committee also expressed concern that those who brought such complaints were not given adequate protection against the risk of retaliation and intimidation.
It also took Greece to task for "overcrowding and poor conditions" in its prisons and drew attention to the perceived "reluctance" of the Greek authorities to bring in laws against violence to women, notably in the home.
In Argentina, there were "numerous" allegations of torture and cruel treatment, which appeared to be used "habitually" by security and police forces, the committee said in its findings.
At the same time there were very few examples of anybody being condemned for such acts, it said.
"The disparity between the high number of denunciations for acts of torture and cruel treatment and the very few convictions for such acts ... contributes to a climate of impunity," it said.
Duty Honor Country
Active member
NYC88mm said:
if you would read the text of some of the attempted resolutions dealing with Israel, then you would know that the UN does not favor the US.
aussiejohn said:
My position has never been to can the UN. I agree that we need the UN, but changed need to be made.
Right now the UN has a reputation as a wuss of an organization. Some members of the UN refuse to take military action even with military action was warranted long ago. The Balkans and Rwanda are perfect examples of this. How can you deal with evil people and governments without the threat of war? Some one (maybe Henry Kissinger or Colin Powell, it has been a while since I have seen the quote) said that diplomacy is a lot easier if you are willing to take military action. I believe that to be true. Sadam gave the UN the run around because the world let him do it. His only punishment was to have his AAA sites bombed by US and British planes. After the US invaded Iraq, Libya was quite willing to abandon its WMD program.
The scandalous oil for food program showed why the world wants to ignore the problem childs of the world. BUSINESS AND MONEY. France, Germany and Russia have ties to the scandal. Those countries also did not want to go to war with Iraq. Put 2 and 2 together. Things got to change.
There is no easy fix. But for the time being, the UN wants to continue doing the same thing.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
SGT Doody
Young Winston
Banned
Doody, I agree with you that the oil for food program is a dirty business and the UN must feel it is at its lowest point in its history but I'll just quote some lines from an article I read today form the Melbourne Age by Tony Parkinson ( a Bush supporter I might add and usually very right wing in his views).
"The campaign to expose the oil for food scandal is being driven by Republicans in Washington, surly and resentful at what they see as a grudging and half-hearted commitment by the UN in the reconstruction of postwar Iraq.
But rather just than pinning the tail on the UN donkey, what must also be recognised is that the US itself was among the states assigned responsibility for overseeing the scheme. So the question to be asked is not just who was to blame, but who can claim to be blameless.
One explanation for the lack of rigour is that even if officials knew Saddam was rorting the system, it was always going to be problematic and time-consuming to pore over the fine print of thousands of contracts, unpacking tonnes of imports to establish that the contents matched precisely the bill of goods. Remember, the public stated priority was to get food and medicines to Iraqi families".
Yes, it is dirty and complicated business!
"The campaign to expose the oil for food scandal is being driven by Republicans in Washington, surly and resentful at what they see as a grudging and half-hearted commitment by the UN in the reconstruction of postwar Iraq.
But rather just than pinning the tail on the UN donkey, what must also be recognised is that the US itself was among the states assigned responsibility for overseeing the scheme. So the question to be asked is not just who was to blame, but who can claim to be blameless.
One explanation for the lack of rigour is that even if officials knew Saddam was rorting the system, it was always going to be problematic and time-consuming to pore over the fine print of thousands of contracts, unpacking tonnes of imports to establish that the contents matched precisely the bill of goods. Remember, the public stated priority was to get food and medicines to Iraqi families".
Yes, it is dirty and complicated business!
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
Ofcourse not dictating. But a certain nessasary pressure is neeeded to stop them telling the lie and cover their shame. Or else the history text books today would never be a useful thing at all, but a political tool used to brainwash people in order to archieve something.
What I hope UN do is, stop them doing this and require them do make a new history text book, not dictatorize the whole thing as what u say.
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
dougal said:
LOL Say what!?
The UN is a pile of wank
We should never have joined..and now they are trying to run our country and flood even more immigrants in
they also want to control our army...our economy and everything else
Tony Blair wants to surrender our country but is just about the only one who does...unlucky for us he's the **** that runs the country
:cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen:
We should never have joined..and now they are trying to run our country and flood even more immigrants in
they also want to control our army...our economy and everything else
Tony Blair wants to surrender our country but is just about the only one who does...unlucky for us he's the **** that runs the country
:cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen: :cen:
Young Winston
Banned
Hopefully the proposals being put forward to improve the functioning of the UN are seriously considered and all are implemented.
The UN is still the only "one stop shop" open 24 hours a day where countries can go to and TALK about a problem.
Who will organise the 30th January elections in Iraq if the UN isn't involved?
If there is a delay due to ongoing violence, the view of the UN on the viability of the elections is crucial because UN officials may be the only ones with the credibility to persuade the Shiite leadership that a delay would be for the good of the country (Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Monday, 6th December)
The UN is still the only "one stop shop" open 24 hours a day where countries can go to and TALK about a problem.
Who will organise the 30th January elections in Iraq if the UN isn't involved?
If there is a delay due to ongoing violence, the view of the UN on the viability of the elections is crucial because UN officials may be the only ones with the credibility to persuade the Shiite leadership that a delay would be for the good of the country (Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Monday, 6th December)
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Right now it's worse because Kofi Annan has turned the UN into a "go against everything America's doing" organization, rather than a "help people" organization. There are plenty of people who need real help and real support in various places around the world, INCLUDING Iraq.
Kofi Annan's track record isn't the best in the world anyways. Remember Rwanda? He was the chief UN person in charge of peacekeeping. And we all know how well that went.
I agree with Beardo, the UN is a wank. I believe in more meaningful alliances that are brought about because of real goals and real purposes.
Peacekeeping is generally a poorly and inefficiently run operation anyways. Leave a few hundred experts to do the job and they can do it faster, cheaper and more effectively than 50,000 guys who are binded by rule books that can put the bible to shame. In most cases the operations aren't against well organized groups. They're against disorganized, but very brutal thugs.
I'm sorry, but after the Belgian peacekeepers pulled out of Rwanda and left all the people who trusted them for their lives at the school to die, the 10 peace keepers who were killed as a result of poor orders earlier, died for nothing.
Kofi Annan's track record isn't the best in the world anyways. Remember Rwanda? He was the chief UN person in charge of peacekeeping. And we all know how well that went.
I agree with Beardo, the UN is a wank. I believe in more meaningful alliances that are brought about because of real goals and real purposes.
Peacekeeping is generally a poorly and inefficiently run operation anyways. Leave a few hundred experts to do the job and they can do it faster, cheaper and more effectively than 50,000 guys who are binded by rule books that can put the bible to shame. In most cases the operations aren't against well organized groups. They're against disorganized, but very brutal thugs.
I'm sorry, but after the Belgian peacekeepers pulled out of Rwanda and left all the people who trusted them for their lives at the school to die, the 10 peace keepers who were killed as a result of poor orders earlier, died for nothing.
03USMC
Active member
Kane said:
What Countries? They did not step in in Rwanda, The Sudan and now will probably ignore the Congo issue. They purposley did not mention Genocide concerning Rwanda because by charter they would have been bound to act.
In Africa ECOMIL is much more effective at Peacekeeping than UN multi-nationals. Problem is they are too closely tied to the UN and end up relying on them for support.