Gaddafi chairing the UN...

[Skybird]

What was to be expected - if not something like this?

Gaddafi, who is chairing the UN currently, has just revealed what he thinks of the UN and what kind of respect for it's charta he has.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58M3YC20090923

Clad in a copper-colored robe with an emblem of Africa pinned over his chest, the Libyan leader dropped his paperback copy of the charter on the podium several times before tossing it over his shoulder.

According to a German report in Die Welt he ripped out the pages from the Charta-booklet and crumpled them.

The UN certainly is just a theatre stage, and is abused and manipulated by every nation and power faction there is.

However:

if they let Lybia and it's mentally derranged fool in the tent get away with this, the UN becomes complice in deconstructing the poor remains of it's miserbale respectability that optimists eventually still can read into it if they had enough drinks and are feeling good due to the sunny weather.

EU members holding talks with this criminal and shaking hands with him and giving him all the honours, should be made object of EU sanctions. Any poltical entity expressing respect for this murderous nuthead and his regime, is betraying the claimed moral auhtority of western values, laws, freedoms - and the heritage and responsibility coming with them.

The UN is just a zoo. My earlier respect and trust for it has constantly detoriated over the past 5 or 6 years. Today I tend to see it as completely worthless and not being more than just a bad joke that is told as an alibi at the dining table after one has set fire to all other rooms in the building in the hope of bruning it down. the five powers in the SC do like that. The Islamic conspiracy that has underminded the Human Rights Council is doing so. Now Lybia is doing so. the politically hyper-correct starry-eyed idealists are doing so. the bureaucrats and lobbyists are doing so.

Two thirds of of the nations present at the UN have nothing in common with the values the UN charta is based upon, and are hostile to these very values, and send delegates and officials of governments that rule by corruption, tyranny and violence. They have a say in judging and morally rating the crimes they commit themselves. That would turn every court into a totally insane constellation of absurdities. But not so at the UN...?

I hate every single Euro of our taxes going there.

It's all theatre-acting there. Call everybody a fool taking that serious anymore.

One of Gaddafi'S sons seem to be a far more reaosnable, sensible man. He is the one who talked his insane father into letting the US come to Lybia and transport all known key components of Lybia's nuclear arms program out of the country. Also, Lybia has better women'S rights records and education structures than almost any other Arab/Islamic nation. I wonder what would happen if his son could take over power - and Gaddafi has died before: one way or the other.

[GoldenRivet]

yeah.

disband the UN and to hell with them. thats what i say.

and whoever had the idea of erecting that tent for the murderer should burn in hell.

[SteamWake]

How about we foreclose on the building and tell them they need to find somewhere else to meet.

Getting a little tired of paying for these boobs.

[Jimbuna]

Tell them all future meetings will now be held in a gigantic tent in the middle of some Godforsaken desert.

I doubt the rest of the world would notice or even be interested.

[Shearwater]

One of Gaddafi'S sons seem to be a far more reaosnable, sensible man.

One, but certainly not his son Hannibal who has been arrested two months ago for beating up their staff while staying at a Swiss hotel. They had him arrested.
The reaction of father Gaddafi was a UN proposal to abolish Switzerland.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1210936/Now-Colonel-Gaddafi-wants-abolish-Switzerland-Dictator-files-bizarre-motion-U-N.html
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi is set to ask the United Nations to 'abolish' Switzerland and share the land among its neighbouring countries.The eccentric dictator has filed a motion with the U.N. saying the Alpine state should be wiped off the map and split among France, Italy, and Germany.

[Schroeder]

EU members holding talks with this criminal and shaking hands with him and giving him all the honours, should be made object of EU sanctions. Any poltical entity expressing respect for this murderous nuthead and his regime, is betraying the claimed moral auhtority of western values, laws, freedoms - and the heritage and responsibility coming with them.

Unfortunately the same can be said about the leaders of Saudi Arabia. If they had no oil they would be regarded as evil criminals who are suppressing opposition and don't care for rights of women (have you heard of the 10 year old girl who ran away from her 80 (!!!) year old "husband" recently?).
But since they have oil we are all pleased to meet with them. I could puke!

BTT
I know why we are so nice to the Saudi Arabians but I really have no clue why we have started to take the Libyan maniac serious all of a sudden. it's just all a big joke just like the EU will become if they continue to strive to integrate more and more countries.:dead:

[Oberon]

Dinnerjacket is up at some point today, isn't he?

That'll be a barrel of laughs

[Skybird]

One, but certainly not his son Hannibal who has been arrested two months ago for beating up their staff while staying at a Swiss hotel. They had him arrested.
The reaction of father Gaddafi was a UN proposal to abolish Switzerland.
Yes, one of his sons, but certainly not the thug you portrayed.

The son i mean indeed is responsible for Lybia having abandoned it'S nuclear program, and he went high personal risks there. I saw him on german TV short while ago. He said that he has sympathy for the Israeli struggle, and although he thinks they do and did bad things, he readily admitted that the Arabs gave them all reason to be on their toes, and that Arabs did not play nicely with them, too. He also said, in another program on nuclear proliferation, that he admires the way the Israelis with the limited resources and space available to them have managed to form a stable democratic nation with such a highly developeved infrastructure and education level, and that he sees Israel as his personal example to follow in trying to do the same with Lybia.

Until then I never have heared of this man, and in fact have still not memorised his name. But you can imagine my surprise to hear stuff like this from somebody inside Gadaffi's family! What a difference a humanistic education in Switzerland and Britain can do, if only it falls on fertile ground. If Gadaffi ever is to leave office or die, this son is the guy to hope for taking over power (although it will be difficult for him, and piut his life at risk, I assume, he may be too aesthetic to survive tough powerpolitics by his brotherly rivals).

[FIREWALL]

The UN has served it's purpose and now should go the way of the dodo.

It was a revamped version of The Leage of Nations.


The only reason I can think of why it was planted here was because at that time it was Prestiege and a safe place to put it.


Where would be a neutral place to put it ?

I don't think there is such a place anymore but the Moon. :haha:

[Skybird]

Neutrality could be had by mutual agreement for any defined period of time, at any place. that is not the problem of the UN, but the aesthetic assumption that all nations and cultures are equal, equal in a conditonal way and equal in value and respectability.

It is not popular to say that, but i do not give much for being popular. Neither people nor nations are all equal. People differ in conditions of birth and social contexts and different educational chances and genetic dispositions and/or genetic handicaps, and nations differ in historic conditions by which they had formed up, different cultural variables having different positive or negative impacts, different accessabilities to resources and economic strategic assets like geographic position.

And also are not all people and persons equal in value and importance for the whole. they are not all as morally "good" or criminally bad than any other.

What is much more important is to have a lawcode that serves the best ointerest of the whole, and to which each and all and everybody is subjiugated. Nobody should have the option to buy special status and special rights for him, nobody should be able to avoid or to hollow out the law, no matter his/her/its forestory and status and wealth an educaton or lack of. the law valid for all should and must include the spectrum of criminal and respetcably behavior possible to be shown by any individual person or nation, no matter it's status, potentials, history, record and power, so that the law can form evaluations and sentences for any possible case of dispute.

The equality of man - only makes sense in the meaning of equality bewfore the law, with the law unavailabole for manipulation by the more powerful ones. Every understanding of equality that goes beyond this, is seriously flawed and confused, ignores pratcial realties of human and nation's existence, and is overly ambitious, dreamful idealism misunderstanding the nature of things.

The UN does not understand this, and so every Peter and every Paul, every person and every nation is claimed to be not more and not less important than any other. All qualitative differences that as a matter of fact do exist, are ignored, what is better becomes lowered, what is lower gets declared and higher. No longer does the whole define the standards of up and down, better or worse, noble and miserable, good and bad, but every Peter and every Paul becomes the centre of the universe around which all others have to revolve.

Absurd. Idealistic values get betrayed in the name of these very idealistic values, and the thug terrorising the weaker becomes the chairman of a human rights commission. Absurd.

The conceptional nature of the UN is hopelessly flawed and FUBAR already at the very basis on which it's claims and thinking is depending. It borders escapism, but at minimum it is rejection of reality at least.

[Tribesman]

Gaddafi, who is chairing the UN currently
Daffy doesn't chair the UN.

[Respenus]

While I agree with you all that people like Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad shouldn't be, in principle of respecting what is written down in the Universal Proclamation of Human Rights and the UN Charter, allowed to speak or appear, to hold any function until they are in compliance of international law. The same could be said about the USA and their donations to the UN, which are far overdue, yet when we do such an analysis, we make the mistake of taking international law for what is written.

States have and always will be pragmatic, interested only in their survival and the survival and welfare of the political elites running them. It has always been so and will stay this way in the future, unless we, the people, the individuals who make up this "universal society" take up cause and say "No more!" and take things into our own hand. An action which would unfortunately in most cases turn into the same mess as we are in today.

The thing with the UN, which has been a constant throughout its history, is that it is, luckily, a forum where world problems can be discussed, yet not necessarily resolved, even though the UN charter speaks of this. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe was founded on the same, although much more lax principles, as it does not know binding resolutions. As long as career politicians exist and there are states representing citizens, we will need something like the UN and other organisations, either we like it or not, either they are corrupt or not. We can strive to change them, either ourselves or through our leaders which must, yet not always do, follow the wishes of the people. Yes it is a hard thing to swallow, and I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the whole international system and politics in general. The ELU, as Skybird has gracefully named it (You don't mind I use it, do you Sky?), serves its purposes, as does the UN.

Now, as far as the idea of equality is concerned. I have always believed all human are equal. No matter social status, religion, nationality, any other conviction. Equal in the fact that they have certain rights, which are not always protected, and that they should all be given the same chance in life and helped by their community along the way if the hit a snag or two. I understand the question of culture and am against forcing something down people's throats which they will not like and even fights against (forcing Western style of ruler-ship throughout the world, separated from the question of human rights, although they usually walk hand in hand).

Yet it is our actions we take that define us later on, which tells others, the Whole, as Skybird put it, what kind of people we are generally. Yet the whole is never rational. It will never look at people and see them in grey, it will see them in black and white. Within here lies the problem of forgoing the premise of everyone being equal. I agree with Sky that everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, yet this supposes that we get rid of both all the corruption, something which I would like to see; and that the Whole becomes rational in the sense that it sees everyone as an individual. An individual, with his own mindset and his own ideas and his own culture. Yet this in itself contradicts the wishes of the Whole, as it looks at differences in a hostile manner, not an accepting one. The moment you don't fit in the Whole, you are rejected, once again, we require the premise of equality in order to maintain order and protection of the week against the strong.

These are complex issues, ones which we as a society have tried to solve for a long time and are not even close to imagining a solution, yet alone realising it. We may only take small steps. Yet this does not mean that world leaders with no respect for international law can be let to reign freely in the UN. As far as this is concerned, we are all in agreement.

[DeerHunter UK]

I don't care how colourful his robes are, I don't trust anyone named after a cartoon duck!

[stabiz]

If I had a job in the UN, I suspect i would be a very bored man. Gaddafi would be a very welcome half time freak show.

[Skybird]

No, full time freak show plus first, second and third overtime. They say his speech time went by with him just sitting in the room, shaking hands. the head of that assembly let him. That is maybe becasue that guy belongs to the Lybian delegation, too. Gaddafi then exceeded his original speech time by several factors, presenting plenty of ideas that qualify him for emergency entry into a mental asylum. Amongst other things he demanded 7.7 Trillion in compensation (the article I read it in is German, so I mean German Trillions) for the age of colonization.

King of kings, eh? :lol:

[August]

When I said 10 years ago that the United Nations had outlived it's usefulness people disagreed with me, so there you go... :yep:

[Tribesman]

That is maybe becasue that guy belongs to the Lybian delegation, too.
No, its because even though there is an informal agreement that no leader of a country should speak for more than 15 minutes there is no process the chair can apply to make them shut up if they exceed that time.

[Rip]

The UN has served it's purpose and now should go the way of the dodo.

It was a revamped version of The Leage of Nations.


The only reason I can think of why it was planted here was because at that time it was Prestiege and a safe place to put it.


Where would be a neutral place to put it ?

I don't think there is such a place anymore but the Moon. :haha:

First place that came to my mind was Diego Garcia. They could all bring their own tents and security would be easy and not nearly as costly.

:sunny: