I'm fed up with the UN

03USMC said:
Kane said:
And most people dont realise that here or reconise the lifes given by UN soldiers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Perhaps for people who consider this a joke is insulting the multi-national effort to provide order within an unstable, warring countries.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

And you haven't even started with the South American countries that the UN should have helped......

It is a worthless, corrupt organization at the moment and needs to have its house cleaned. I wonder how much Kofi gained from the kickbacks his son was receiving. :evil:
 
And the US has its hands clean in South America?

Not sure the style of UN bashing by some of you guys is the way to go. It’s sort of like trying to kill an ant with a sledge hammer. The organisation certainly needs a shake up but there are many individuals on the ground that do some great work for the UN around the world, some risking their lives, but much goes unnoticed.

It would be interesting to hear some opinions from some hard working UN workers/soldiers.

You guys may find this interesting. I read this in today’s Melbourne Age (Tuesday, 7 December 2004).

http://www.theage.com.au


AN UNDEMOCRATIC UN LACKS CREDIBILITY

(a letter by Professor Allan Borowski, school of social work and social policy, Latrobe University, Melbourne.)

“The credibility and moral authority that the UN so desperately needs to be an effective instrument for resolving international conflicts and advancing human rights will continue to elude the world organisation despite the recommendations of the Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (The Age, 4th December).

This is because the majority of its membership is comprised of nations governed by regimes that flout many of the principles upon which the UN was founded. This structural flaw in the UN is very clearly reflected in the lamentable record of the UN Human Rights Commission.

The creation of a comprehensive body of human rights law to which all nations can subscribe is unquestionably one of the great achievements of the UN. However, the commission is largely used as a forum by the representatives of dictatorial regimes to deflect criticism of their human rights abuses.

While the UN’s efforts to foster democratisation among some of its members are to be commended, this world organisation would have much greater credibility and clout if democratisation of member nations was a minimum requirement for participation in the UN system.

If, as the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledges, democracy lies at the core of good national governance, then it also lies at the core of good international governance.”

Seems like mission impossible at the moment but worth having a look at for the long term.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
I once started a topic here for how to build a better World Government. Nobody wants there to be one it seems -- so essentially the World wants a UN that is powerless outside of humanitarian crap. Its a pretty good point -- I don't think the world wants the UN or any other International governing body to ever be given any real power.
Click to expand...


you've hit it dead on the nail. No country in their right mind WOULD EVER (mark my words) WOULD EVER want to give up sovereignty to an international mechanism that could be potentially flawed (as the UN and the League of Nations have proven to be). It would be disastrous for a country, not to mention how many corrupt governments are out there that could potentially misuse the mechanism to take advantage of a rival country under the guise of international cooperation...... :evil:
 
aussiejohn said:
And the US has its hands clean in South America?

ote]

I don't really know what you mean by that. Does the US send aid and material to Latin America? Yes.And probably will always do so.

I believe the point that Hulk was making is that the UN has had opportunities to step in in Latin America for the right reasons and has failed to do so.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

The UN have been in Congo since 1956, and many Irish lifes were slarterd there, and the UN also do work in Rwanda
 
They went to Rwanda after the fact. After the atrocties (the UN security councils word) or Genocide (The rest of the worlds word) . And yes they will wring their hands and act contrite but accomplish nothing other than getting more peace keepers killed.
 
The serious problem with the UN security Council is that there is slow decision making and they waste time during a crisis, although I'm not critisizing their efforts.
 
Feck it yer all right. Lets do away with the UN, let someone else do the work since the UN are useless!!

:lol:
 
They do good work as far as aid missions. But they are not a peace keeping force. If they stick to figuring out relief projects fine. But as a world security body they are a wash.
 
Liberia was a wash until the UN steped.

Dont tell me they didnt do a good peace keeping job in the space of little weeks there.
 
There have been major criticism about the UN militarily and there have been suggestions of creating an independent Security Force funded by the UN, but that will cause major concerns about who will be running it.
 
Another question would be how to fund it. Will it be strictly UN or will they continue to lease, for lack of a better word, troops.
I also wonder if the current powers that be in the Un would actually commit them.
 
03USMC said:
aussiejohn said:
And the US has its hands clean in South America?

ote]

I don't really know what you mean by that. Does the US send aid and material to Latin America? Yes.And probably will always do so.

I believe the point that Hulk was making is that the UN has had opportunities to step in in Latin America for the right reasons and has failed to do so.
Click to expand...

From an historical perspective. eg involvement in Chile was a rather nasty episode. I agree, the US has been generous with aid and material. You have no argument with me that the UN has been at times slow and ineffective but I believe some of the comments on this topic about doing away with the UN are ridiculous.

ALSO

Kofi Annan has his supporters.(the following is from The Age)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed him saying that criticism of him was unfair and that he was doing "a fine job".

He went on to say "I believe he is doing a fine job as United Nations Secretary-General often in very difficult circumstances", Mr Blair said.

The top Democrat on the House of International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, said yesterday that calls for Mr Annan's resignation were "way, way over the line".

The US is conducting several investigations into the oil-for-food program, prompting critics to suggest Republicans are using the scandal to deflect attention from problems in Iraq.

The UN is conducting its own investigation, headed by former central banker Paul Volcker, but that inquiry has been criticized because it is funded by the UN.

In Washington yesterday, 77 lawmakers co-sponsored a bill that would see US funding of the UN cut by $40 million. This is to blackmail the UN into co-operating with the oil-for-food program investigation.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah your right there and Guatamala and other Central /South American countries. I think however since the Cuban money has dried up that those type of endeavors are about over. Unless of course Mr. Chavez decides to fund civil wars.
 
O3, you are very quick. I added some more to my post. I would like your comments (and anybody else's) regarding the oil-for-food program investigations.
 
My first thought is this. The UN funding the investigation is like the fox guarding the hen house.

As far as Lantos backing him. Well Democrats see the UN as a scared cow and have refused to acknowledge any questions as to their viabilty as a Security Organization that can cure the worlds ill's.

I imagine that the accusations of trying to deflect attention from Iraq are also coming from the Lantos camp.

As for the 40 million I will say this. If it is being pulled from funds to fund peace keeping missions. That is to "lease" troops transport troops etc. I don't have a problem with it. If it is being pulled from food, medical etc then it is ill advised. However after the constent anti American, illegal war comments this was probably coming anyway.

All in all I think the UN got caught with their hand in the cookie jar we just have to wait to see how far it extended.
 
Yes in my opinion I think the UN is not taking proper responsibility for conflicts and peacekeeping. I think they are just making it worse. For example look at the Chechnyans or however u spell it and then the Israeli conflict. The UN takes one side only and fights alongside one group instead of standing in between the two to resolve conflict.
 
The exploitation of the Oil for Food program heavily involved UN corruption and shatters the mystique that the world can trust the UN. Lots of nations were involved and it's one giant catastrophe for all parties involved -- both those exploited and those who profitted.

I think we all agree that the UN, in its current form, is almost 100% incapable of filling the role of military intervention -- aka World Policeman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top