Fuck the corrupt United Nations
- Thread starter pk
- Start date
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
..."work"?? such as??
From where I am sitting there isn't much the UN has done that has "worked" but I'm open to persuasion...
-Encouraging international supervision of the preservation of places of significant historical interest via UNESCO.
-Creation of international war crimes tribunals and the ICJ for resolution of international disputes (but then you have the case of Western Sahara...)
-Adoption of the UDHR that has been copied many times both internationally (ECHR) and domestically.
-Supervision//commentary on election processes
Just a few. When people attack the UN, most often they are attacking the irresponsibility or maliciousness of the members of the UN.
For as long as we have national sovereignty (interestingly, guaranteed by the UN Charter) we will never have the international consensus that could make the UN truly effective, I guess.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
When the UN acts/doesn't act - the resultant fuck ups are usually in the interest of the worlds most powerful nations, and those who suffer are those who the UN are so eager to convince people they are protecting and helping.
It's a win-win for the corrupt fuckers both at the top and at ground level though.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Sorry but that's irrelevant to the point you were trying to make
You criticised the UN for the action it took against Iraq and Kosovo, yet in the same breath you criticise the UN for not taking the same action against Israel or Sudan. Can't you see that the effects of acting or not acting will be similar? So it would be ok for crippling economic sanctions against Israel or Sudan, and the effect that will have on their respective populations, but when sanctions are levied against Iraq, and all the adverse effects that had on the population, that is something to oppose???
Sounds to me like you're no better than what you accuse the UN of...
I'm saying that. But why do you have to restrict votes to certain countries? In a democracy, it is one man one vote.
Just why cannot the UN be one nation one vote?
And just what is a 'permanent' member? A permanent nation? A nation that won't resign or disappear? Why is jamaica any less permanent than britain? Why should the likes of britain and france have more say on what happens in our world? Why should mexico get no say?
Abolish the UN InSecurity Council.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
likesfish
You can't park here sir
one nation one vote is bollocks Lesotho ends up having the same vote as Germany thats bonkers tiny nation vs large one 
at the present the US has a complete opt out on the not unreasonable grounds
half the UN representatives represent countries whose leaders are unelected thugs
expecting a super power to take notice of the UN because it has moral authority (excuse what moral authority when Libya and Saudi sit on the human rights committee)
at the present the US has a complete opt out on the not unreasonable grounds
half the UN representatives represent countries whose leaders are unelected thugs
expecting a super power to take notice of the UN because it has moral authority (excuse what moral authority when Libya and Saudi sit on the human rights committee
)
purves grundy
ambient clown remix
It's always a problem, but without a 'world police force' to enforce international law much of its power - esp human rights law - is premised on a certain amount of goodwill of participating countries. Burma for example, has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The country is ruled by a junta who have thousands of child soldiers, but far better for them to be in a convention process which lends a legitimacy for the criticism of this practice than outside, where they can say they have no obligation whatsoever. The more they talk the talk the more they gotta walk the walk. Better in than out.half the UN representatives represent countries whose leaders are unelected thugs
expecting a super power to take notice of the UN because it has moral authority (excuse what moral authority when Libya and Saudi sit on the human rights committee
And the same can be said of other UN institutions like the Human Rights Council (the HR Committee is the body overseeing the Convention on Civil and Political Rights, bloody confusing.) The HRC is supposed to help member states meet their human rights obligations, provide them with the assistance they need to realise what they have to do in law. No country respects all human rights, and some are complete fuckers yet, as you point out, are on the Council. What to do? Write it off as another failure and ignore it? The result would be a shroud of darkness in which the worst offenders could do whatever they want with impunity.
Better, imo, for NGOs and civil society organisations - many of whom cluster around the various UN human rights mechanisms and are more expert in them than the participating countries - to continue to hold states accountable for what they do and report as much as they can to media back home. The politics of embarrassment is crucial in these institutions. Belarus was kept out of the Council by state pressure, and states that 'care' about HRs must be pressured into more consistent acts like this, and to devote more resources to it.
purves grundy
ambient clown remix
I thought that too - strange bedfellows eh?
PK: "Fails to take action against Israel.": As it should be. The UN is not the arbiter of International Law although Security Council Resolutions CAN be used to manipulate it. The problem with your view though, is that the Resolutions Israel pooh poohs? Those General Assembly NON - BINDING OPINIONS? They are authored by nations not only existing in a state of declared war with Israel for more than half a century, these same nations refused to recognise the Resolution Partitioning Israel, nor any other that would suggest recognition of the nation.
Ergo, what nation on Earth would allow themselves to follow anything non -binding authored by nations engaging it in violence and who do not even believe said nation exists? The idea is ridiculous.
On the subject at hand: The UN is a total waste in almost every sense of the word. If not deploying "Peacekeepers" who bootleg commodities, or patrons of child prostitutes (as I may have previously touched on), or profiteering in the worst way, they are spending all that wonderful freetime and per diem on assisting murderers compromise borders and mutilate corpses. Great organisation.
Spion: "Only interested in Israeli issues and the UN, like failure of Israel to accept the Right of Return for 'Palestinian Refugees'.":Guess you have not read #194, nor Israel's responses to it, nor Ben Gurion's almost immediate offer to immeditely absorb 100,000 of the 450,000 (sorry, no such thing as 750 to 950,000 Arabs fleeing anything, wnywhere but I am sure you will try).
Or maybe you are not aware that Israel and its offer, including the UN Mediated financial compensation package, just like the 100,000? Arabs refused it out of hand with the claim that if even some accepted it would then equal recognition of a non-Muslim nation within the Waqf.
Not all individuals were that stupid. Some did allow themselves to sign the pre-requisite "contract," that directly came out of that same Resolution, the one with 2 points; I) Anyone returning must sign a vow of obesiance. II) Anyone returning must vow to never (again if applicable) weapons against the nation. They did so individually and were villafied to no end so I think your concerns a bt misplaced.
As for Resolutions concerning Lebanon, could you be a bit more specific? You mean like the one calling for the disarming of Hezbollah, #1559, the one that until today has never even been begun to be carried out? Disarming of the same group that initiated a war with Israel in 2006?
Or maybe you want to discuss UNIFIL because that jut happens to be one of my favorite subjects? How about the Ghanian Contingent? I would love to take it there.
As for "Withdrawing from territories gained in the 67 War...": On Golan, read Resolution #242. Although you will love 1:1, read 1:2 and see if you are still smiling. Syria exist, presently and since 1948, in a perpetual state of declared war with Israel.
Then read 2:A, 2:B, and of course 2:C. While you might think B is on point, remember that as opposed to the 450,000 Arab Refugees that resulted from the 48 War, there are close to 1,000,000 Jewish Refugees from the same war, having more than 1 billion US in lost assets that allows those Jewish Refugees from Syria (most left, like most of my family) to benefit from the same clause.
Then read 3, then 4 and see if you still feel the same about Golan.
"Sheba'a?" Not included in 242, sorry although you might have argued it 2 decades ago . The official UN position now, and it is correct (even THEY get it right some times) is that the land is in contention between 3 nations, one of which being Israel, the other two being Syria and Lebanon.
Of the 3, Israel has the least strongest claim but then Israel has never claimed it as integral possesion, but the direct result of Syrian aggression. It retains it in the absence of Syrian willingness to negotiate the issue under UN Mediation and the fact that it holds specific tactical and strategic value on a border area ripe with violence directed towards Israel, mostly due to Syria and its proxies.
"WB?": Sorry, but that is already in the process of being ceded almost in entirety, with the remaining less than 6% to be offset by exchange of Israeli Proper land.Almost 15% is already under PA jurisdiction and the rest depends on how quick they can get heir act together following the Gazan debacle.
"Gaza?": Already ceded in 2005 and a perfect example of just why these issues must be dealt with kid gloves.
Finally, good old "East Jerusalem.": We could talk of illegal Jordanian Occupation that violated #181, we could talk of the moral justification of having our holiest religious site literally turned into both a pigsty and a public lavatory...or the fact that no Jew was allowed to even enter the sector during Jordanian occupation and now anyone sans Security Profile may enter freely...
Instead, let us talk of Article 8 of the 49 Armistice, which was totally ignored by both the offender, Jordan and the UN itself. Article 8 is one of about 37 (literally) rationalisations for the annexation of the district.
My fave though is that all religions now control almost totally, their own religious sites . No other govt. of any secular nation anywhere in the world allows this. No one erects pigsties on al Haram nor bathrooms in Selphucre.
The idea that Israel, having been denied the access actually, almost since 630 CE, should now once again place it entirely in Arab hands when both people could have enjoyed a truly International City had the Arabs not rejected the Partition. Instead they made war, got the losing end of the stick, and want to cry foul.
Arab rejection of #181 nullified any obligation Israel had since it , the entire city, was supposed to be Internationally administered. Arabs now claim , moderates anyway, that East Jerusalem is theirs. Unilateral decisons by losers do not go over too well in reality.
Ergo, what nation on Earth would allow themselves to follow anything non -binding authored by nations engaging it in violence and who do not even believe said nation exists? The idea is ridiculous.
On the subject at hand: The UN is a total waste in almost every sense of the word. If not deploying "Peacekeepers" who bootleg commodities, or patrons of child prostitutes (as I may have previously touched on), or profiteering in the worst way, they are spending all that wonderful freetime and per diem on assisting murderers compromise borders and mutilate corpses. Great organisation.
Spion: "Only interested in Israeli issues and the UN, like failure of Israel to accept the Right of Return for 'Palestinian Refugees'.":Guess you have not read #194, nor Israel's responses to it, nor Ben Gurion's almost immediate offer to immeditely absorb 100,000 of the 450,000 (sorry, no such thing as 750 to 950,000 Arabs fleeing anything, wnywhere but I am sure you will try).
Or maybe you are not aware that Israel and its offer, including the UN Mediated financial compensation package, just like the 100,000? Arabs refused it out of hand with the claim that if even some accepted it would then equal recognition of a non-Muslim nation within the Waqf.
Not all individuals were that stupid. Some did allow themselves to sign the pre-requisite "contract," that directly came out of that same Resolution, the one with 2 points; I) Anyone returning must sign a vow of obesiance. II) Anyone returning must vow to never (again if applicable) weapons against the nation. They did so individually and were villafied to no end so I think your concerns a bt misplaced.
As for Resolutions concerning Lebanon, could you be a bit more specific? You mean like the one calling for the disarming of Hezbollah, #1559, the one that until today has never even been begun to be carried out? Disarming of the same group that initiated a war with Israel in 2006?
Or maybe you want to discuss UNIFIL because that jut happens to be one of my favorite subjects? How about the Ghanian Contingent? I would love to take it there.
As for "Withdrawing from territories gained in the 67 War...": On Golan, read Resolution #242. Although you will love 1:1, read 1:2 and see if you are still smiling. Syria exist, presently and since 1948, in a perpetual state of declared war with Israel.
Then read 2:A, 2:B, and of course 2:C. While you might think B is on point, remember that as opposed to the 450,000 Arab Refugees that resulted from the 48 War, there are close to 1,000,000 Jewish Refugees from the same war, having more than 1 billion US in lost assets that allows those Jewish Refugees from Syria (most left, like most of my family) to benefit from the same clause.
Then read 3, then 4 and see if you still feel the same about Golan.
"Sheba'a?" Not included in 242, sorry although you might have argued it 2 decades ago . The official UN position now, and it is correct (even THEY get it right some times) is that the land is in contention between 3 nations, one of which being Israel, the other two being Syria and Lebanon.
Of the 3, Israel has the least strongest claim but then Israel has never claimed it as integral possesion, but the direct result of Syrian aggression. It retains it in the absence of Syrian willingness to negotiate the issue under UN Mediation and the fact that it holds specific tactical and strategic value on a border area ripe with violence directed towards Israel, mostly due to Syria and its proxies.
"WB?": Sorry, but that is already in the process of being ceded almost in entirety, with the remaining less than 6% to be offset by exchange of Israeli Proper land.Almost 15% is already under PA jurisdiction and the rest depends on how quick they can get heir act together following the Gazan debacle.
"Gaza?": Already ceded in 2005 and a perfect example of just why these issues must be dealt with kid gloves.
Finally, good old "East Jerusalem.": We could talk of illegal Jordanian Occupation that violated #181, we could talk of the moral justification of having our holiest religious site literally turned into both a pigsty and a public lavatory...or the fact that no Jew was allowed to even enter the sector during Jordanian occupation and now anyone sans Security Profile may enter freely...
Instead, let us talk of Article 8 of the 49 Armistice, which was totally ignored by both the offender, Jordan and the UN itself. Article 8 is one of about 37 (literally) rationalisations for the annexation of the district.
My fave though is that all religions now control almost totally, their own religious sites . No other govt. of any secular nation anywhere in the world allows this. No one erects pigsties on al Haram nor bathrooms in Selphucre.
The idea that Israel, having been denied the access actually, almost since 630 CE, should now once again place it entirely in Arab hands when both people could have enjoyed a truly International City had the Arabs not rejected the Partition. Instead they made war, got the losing end of the stick, and want to cry foul.
Arab rejection of #181 nullified any obligation Israel had since it , the entire city, was supposed to be Internationally administered. Arabs now claim , moderates anyway, that East Jerusalem is theirs. Unilateral decisons by losers do not go over too well in reality.
Similar threads
