I'm fed up with the UN - Page 11




 
--
Boots
 
December 7th, 2004  
Lil Hulk 1988
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
Quote:
And most people dont realise that here or reconise the lifes given by UN soldiers.
Agreed. Perhaps for people who consider this a joke is insulting the multi-national effort to provide order within an unstable, warring countries.
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.
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.
December 7th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
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.
December 7th, 2004  
catalinargonzalez
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
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.

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......
--
Boots
December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
[quote="aussiejohn"]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.
December 7th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
Quote:
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.
The UN have been in Congo since 1956, and many Irish lifes were slarterd there, and the UN also do work in Rwanda
December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
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.
December 7th, 2004  
Kane
 
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.
December 7th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
Feck it yer all right. Lets do away with the UN, let someone else do the work since the UN are useless!!

December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
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.
December 7th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
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.