The World’s Worst Organization

[waste gate]

This arcticle is addressed to a U.S. audience, but it matters not, for the truth is in the pudding.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=24114

[The Avon Lady]

Haha! I guessed correctly before clicking on the link. :p

[joea]

This is getting boring.

[Camaero]

The UN is a big waste of money.:down:

[Takeda Shingen]

[Bob Newhart-style stammer]Wait, wait......Hold on.......Wait......You......you guys don't like the United Nations?.....Re......Really?........Huh.[/Bob Newhart-style stammer]

[waste gate]

This is getting boring.


[Bob Newhart-style stammer]Wait, wait......Hold on.......Wait......You......you guys don't like the United Nations?.....Re......Really?........Huh.[/Bob Newhart-style stammer]

Given that both statements are true.

Let me ask why so many folks on this board, and in the world for that matter, look to the UN whenever a 'crisis' or a 'humanitarian' evil occurs?

If everyone knows the UN is of little or no value, and a 'world community' does not exist on a realistic level, why does 'everyone', I use everyone loosely, persist in demanding a coalition whenever action is contemplated or implemented?

[mapuc]

Talking about the devil(UN) I have just seen the second chapter of Left Behind -the Tribulations force.

Yesterday I saw the first part.

Markus

[Takeda Shingen]

Let me ask why so many folks on this board, and in the world for that matter, look to the UN whenever a 'crisis' or a 'humanitarian' evil occurs?

If everyone knows the UN is of little or no value, and a 'world community' does not exist on a realistic level, why does 'everyone', I use everyone loosely, persist in demanding a coalition whenever action is contemplated or implemented?

And so? Yet another attack on the United Nations via the SubSim General Topics forum will accomplish precisely what? Does Kofi Annan read SubSim? Does John Bolton? Do the heads of state of the European Union? Does the vaunted George W. Bush do so?

The point made by Joe and I is that we are all very much aware of your opinion of the United Nations. Here, you will change nothing. Resolutions will go on. Essentially, any link or statement is reduced to the effect of typing 'I hate onions' ad nauseum. You will never rid the world of onions here.

If you passion runs so deep, my suggestion is to turn off your computer and find grass roots organizations of like mind. It is through this that you can work towards the ends that you seek. Otherwise, you condemn yourself to continued unhappiness.

[waste gate]

Let me ask why so many folks on this board, and in the world for that matter, look to the UN whenever a 'crisis' or a 'humanitarian' evil occurs?

If everyone knows the UN is of little or no value, and a 'world community' does not exist on a realistic level, why does 'everyone', I use everyone loosely, persist in demanding a coalition whenever action is contemplated or implemented?

And so? Yet another attack on the United Nations via the SubSim General Topics forum will accomplish precisely what? Does Kofi Annan read SubSim? Does John Bolton? Do the heads of state of the European Union? Does the vaunted George W. Bush do so?

The point made by Joe and I is that we are all very much aware of your opinion of the United Nations. Here, you will change nothing. Resolutions will go on. Essentially, any link or statement is reduced to the effect of typing 'I hate onions' ad nauseum. You will never rid the world of onions here.

If you passion runs so deep, my suggestion is to turn off your computer and find grass roots organizations of like mind. It is through this that you can work towards the ends that you seek. Otherwise, you condemn yourself to continued unhappiness.


You didn't answer the question I asked, If everyone knows the UN is of little or no value, and a 'world community' does not exist on a realistic level, why does 'everyone', I use everyone loosely, persist in demanding a coalition whenever action is contemplated or implemented? but I guess by your reply you'd like me to go away and stop asking such rediculous questions.

[Camaero]

You ask why people call for the UN to do what it was made for?:doh:

[Takeda Shingen]

but I guess by your reply you'd like me to go away and stop asking such rediculous questions.

You'd guess wrong. In effect, you are asking a question about campaign finance reform in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. Perhaps the question is ridiculous, perhaps it is not, but who will hear it? If no one hears it, does it truly then matter?

I am not interested in the United Nations. I stop there, for to go further would detail my thoughts on the matter, and I am never going to do that on this, or any internet forum. I am not in the practice of futile action.

[waste gate]

I am not interested in the United Nations.

Sure you are, otherwise you wouldn't be responding to this thread.

Not asking about finance reform. Only clarifiing where the money comes from, who uses it, and how foolish it is to look toward the UN for any really useful action.


I am not in the practice of futile action.


You responded here. So you can throw that statement out the window.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sure you are, otherwise you wouldn't be responding to this thread.

You can't bait me.

Not asking about finance reform. Only clarifiing where the money comes from, who uses it, and how foolish it is to look toward the UN for any really useful action.

rhe-tor-i-cal adj
1. of, having the nature of, or according to rhetoric [his rhetorical skill]
2. using showy or impressive rhetoric is speech or writing

You can write of what you will. World event discussion is of no use here.


I am not in the practice of futile action.


You responded here. So you can throw that statement out the window.

So sure, are we?

[Sailor Steve]

And so? Yet another attack on the United Nations via the SubSim General Topics forum will accomplish precisely what? Does Kofi Annan read SubSim? Does John Bolton? Do the heads of state of the European Union? Does the vaunted George W. Bush do so?
By that argument we shouldn't have this board at all. No one but us reads it. We can't, as a group of gamers, change the UN, the Middle East, the toll roads in Britain, the Grey Squirrel infestation in same or whether Pluto is a planet or not.

Maybe we just like to express our opinions, perhaps without other people telling us those opinions are worthless.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, you may, naturally, discuss what you like. However, one should refrain from chastising his fellow members for not taking the discussion seriously, especially in light of the frivolous nature of the forum. Of course, it is befitting of the frivolity of sushi, personal pictures, photography and assorted hobbies.

Do not take things too personally. My thoughts are as irrelevant as yours. Not once did I claim otherwise.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Since it is the right of a member to argue the gravity of any particular topic, is it not my right to argue towards it's lack thereof?

[STEED]

Maybe we just like to express our opinions.

Find I shall kick off, TV here in the U.K. is rubbish and I really mean it. :)

As for the U.N. most of you know my views on them. ;)

[waste gate]

especially in light of the frivolous nature of the forum.

Make it better. What would be more to your liking? How can we as a group make the forum more legitimate.

Seems to me that the discussion is what makes it worth having. Not where it happens or who reads the forum. I see by your profile that you are a teacher. Is that not what you advocate in your classroom?

Back on point. What does the UN contribute to

the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples


From the UN Charter.

[waste gate]

AFTERTHOUGHT: Since it is the right of a member to argue the gravity of any particular topic, is it not my right to argue towards it's lack thereof?

Of course it is!! All I ask is that you contribute some meaningful alternative.

[Takeda Shingen]

Seems to me that the discussion is what makes it worth having. Not where it happens or who reads the forum. I see by your profile that you are a teacher. Is that not what you advocate in your classroom?

This is not my classroom. You are not my student. Regardless, I am flattered that you have taken an interest in my profile.

None-the-less, we return to your discussion, as I have hijacked this topic for far longer than I had anticipated in the beginning. For that, you have my apologies.

EDITED FOR SYNTAX

EDIT 2:
Of course it is!! All I ask is that you contribute some meaningful alternative.

You cannot bait me with insults either.

EDIT 3: I certainly butchered that post. Back to you.

[waste gate]

EDIT 2: You cannot bait me with insults either.

Missed the insult.


the discussion is what makes it worth having. Not where it happens or who reads the forum.


Do you believe something different?

[Yahoshua]

(Eats popcorn) "MORE DRAMA PLEASE!!"

[waste gate]

(Eats popcorn) "MORE DRAMA PLEASE!!"

You eat more popcorn than anyone else I know.

It just consipates me.

[The Avon Lady]

(Eats popcorn) "MORE DRAMA PLEASE!!"
You eat more popcorn than anyone else I know.

It just consipates me.
These 2 posts alone made the tread worthwhile.:rotfl:

[joea]

*sigh*

Let me ask again, what's the alternative to the UN, which was never meant ot solve the world's problems, nor be a sort of world government. Just a fourm for nations to work together, like the OAS or the OSCE but on a global scale. That's it.

Where's Scandium? Certainly still recovering from his accident and taking a break from this amusing nonsense.

[The Avon Lady]

Let me ask again, what's the alternative to the UN
Alliances of nations with common sets of values - NATO, for example. The UN is just a rehash of the League of Nations, which also was divided and fell apart in its time.

which was never meant ot solve the world's problems, nor be a sort of world government.
It is BECAUSE it is being positioned as being both of those that it should be abandoned.

As to your claim of "never", I don't know. Churchill's references to the UN in his speeches certainly make it sound like that's what the UN was supposed to be:

"I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organisation must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force. In such a matter we can only go step by step, but we must begin now. I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organisation. These squadrons would be trained and prepared in their own countries, but would move around in rotation from one country to another. They would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges. They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organisation. This might be started on a modest scale and would grow as confidence grew. I wished to see this done after the First World War, and I devoutly trust it may be done forthwith."
- Winston Churchill, Sinews of Peace Speech (http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=429), March 5, 1946
Just a fourm for nations to work together, like the OAS or the OSCE but on a global scale. That's it.
Much cheaper to rent a conference room at a mutually accepted Hilton Hotel.

[CB..]

this is rather like askng if the internet is a waste of money time and energy..both serve as a meeting place for many different people from many different cultures..on paper this is supposed to be a good thing?

politicaly speaking the U.N. fullfils the same role and provides the only genuine buffer zone between nations currently available...good bad or indifferent
change it improve it adapt it....fine ..but i'd be highly suspicious of any nation that desired to remove it from the chess board entirely...no?

He! he! just realised that the concept that the U.N. is the worlds worst organisation is very appropiate..the world isn't terribly well organised ..can't imagine why the U.N. wouldn't reflect this ..yup it IS the world's worst organistation...it's allso the world's ONLY organisation..LOL
to get even sillier about it.. for babylon 5 fans..
the U.N. is babylon 1 and a half..cepting it's not on a space station and all the "aliens" are human

[joea]

Well what do we mean by the UN anyway? There are many organisations under its umbrella, the WTO (World Trade Organisation) WHO (World Health Organisation) WMO (World Meteological Organisation) etc, would the UN abolishers get rid of those organisations as well? Some predate the UN or the League of Nations for that matter like the ITU, International Telegraph Union. We would have to invent something else. CB was 100% correct in his statement.

Avon Lady, what is the evidence the UN is trying to become a world government, of course the idea is laughable given the utter lack of any enforcment mechanism and the of course the VETO. This sort of talk sounds like 9/11 conspiracy talk to me.

[The Avon Lady]

Avon Lady, what is the evidence the UN is trying to become a world government, of course the idea is laughable given the utter lack of any enforcment mechanism and the of course the VETO. This sort of talk sounds like 9/11 conspiracy talk to me.
The relevant words of your are "trying to become." Beside the UN, keep the ICJ in mind, too, and its attempt to override judicial sovereignity.

If you want, simply google for +"united nations" +"global society" (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2B%22united+nations%22+%2B%22global+%2Bsociety% 22) and you will see that the concept has numerous advocates, including some in the UN itself.

Billionaire global manipulator George Soros also wants a "global society" but doesn't think the UN can pull it off.

Welcome to the 21st century Tower of Babel!

[The Avon Lady]

Regarding "what to do" about the UN, I found this article:

UN Bashing is Hardly Enough (http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05388.cfm).

However, I disagree with the author's conclusion that the UN might be fixable.

Recommended site bookmark: Eye on the UN (http://www.eyeontheun.org/). There's enough there to explain why the plug should be pulled on the UN's dead body.

Joea, are you involved in any way in Geneva with the UN?

[CB..]

i think the irony of this is that in order for the U.N. to fullfill the desires of the various governments and act agressively according to their current needs it would in fact have to be a world govenment..bit of a contradiction in terms....if the act of governments debating world issues with other governments is irrelevant ...then so is this conversation....?
if so..then why do we bother to communicate at all..if governments keep it seems expecting the U.N. to act as their military storm troopers then this is very convient..or summat? if that sounds daft it is because the world is daft...quite obviuosly

[Konovalov]

I'm of the same viewpoint as Joea word for word. :up:

[Skybird]

The vast majority of factions represented at the UN are tyrannies or dictatorships, hollowed-out pseudo-"democracies" that often violate the wills of the majority of their own people or try to manipulate them, corrupt or/and criminal regimes, breakers of international laws, willing servants of big business, warmongers, violators of humanistic values, and they all are having one characteristic in common: all of them, without exception, think of their own interests first.

So, what good is it that could be expected from that assembly of human flaws, weaknesses and failures?

And it is the well-wishing and good intentions of some that again and again makes it being supported by public opinion. Like well-meaning nurses on the battlefield help to prolongue the war.

To have a good match, you not only need a game with good and fair ruoles. You also need a set of fair players. You don't have them. Instead, you have cheaters, that took the rules and rewrote them to their own liking. Don't be surprised then that the match is FUBAR.

The idea and founding of the UN illustrates what good wishes and ideals human mind is capable to imagine. It's actual manifestation illustrates how far wish and reality is apart. We are beings not only of light, but also of darkness.

And like the EU, the UN is drowing in bureaucratic regulations that help to blow it to ridiculous sizes and demands and distorted self-perceptions of what it is, and wehre it wants to have a say in. While it already is abused by francophone, pro-American, pro-russian and Islamic agenda-pushings and the according lobbies, this bureaucratic cancer helps it to wish to accumulate more and more influence, and see this as a natural thing and as a just demand, ignoring all flaws and errors that speak against that. A bureaucratic mono-culture is the best form of governmental control of a people. A strong bureaucracy is the perfect instrument of control, and dictatorship. For no one can be pointed finger at. No one is responsible. No bad guy is on top. reasonable people follow the laws, don't they?

I personally also see a danger that the UN turns into a tool for enforcing more and more Islamic influence in the world. In fact, I see this process alraedy going on at high speed. When saying that, I am not distracted by the security council constellation, and Iran.

One could talk about the further existence of certain sub-organisations of the UN. But the political body that it is - to hell with it. It's rotten meat, it stinks and is already poisened. Just touching it could infect you with desease. Reason of a still healthy mind advises to stay away.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm of the same viewpoint as Skybird word for word. :up:

[Konovalov]

I'm of the same viewpoint as Skybird word for word. :up:

:D Tou-che Avon Lady. Tou-che.

[joea]

Regarding "what to do" about the UN, I found this article:

UN Bashing is Hardly Enough (http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05388.cfm).

However, I disagree with the author's conclusion that the UN might be fixable.

Recommended site bookmark: Eye on the UN (http://www.eyeontheun.org/). There's enough there to explain why the plug should be pulled on the UN's dead body.

Joea, are you involved in any way in Geneva with the UN?

Nope, though I know people who do, and for all the corruption (yes I agree it may have to be scrapped and I know of first hand problems) there were some outstanding individuals. Two were former Canadian PM Lester Pearson, and Sergio di Mello. My Institute (where I got a diplôme in international history) is here http://hei.unige.ch/, part of the University of Geneva works with all sorts of IO and NGOs, the Red Cross, and others that area NECESSARY part of international diplomacy, both multilateral and bilateral.

As I have nothing to hide I work here www.dcaf.ch (http://www.dcaf.ch/), a Swiss foundation with employees from 30 different countries that in involved in security sector reform and works mostly with NATO and the PfP, the OSCE and in the former Soviet bloc and the Balkans. We do work in Africa and a little in the Middle East and have made some contacts in Asia.

Back to the UN, whatever some people may think or hope for, and let me say I am against the idea of any kind of world "government" as it would never work, the UN was kind of meant to work like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Alliance) . In other words, just a tool whereby the "big five" after WWII were meant to agree to run the world themselves and it was designed from the outset to be unable to be useless against one of the big 5. Even that idea didn't work given the situation of the postwar world and actions mistakes by leaders like FDR, Stalin etc. If some misguided people want to change that, well let them, all the black helicopters won't make it something it is not. Nor should it. Let me reiterate that specialized organs like the WTO (not working either in spite of the fact it is promoting free trade and elimination of tariff barriers which warm the hearts of true laissez-faire capitalists everywhere, thank goodness I am not one of them) will continue to be useful. So will regional organizations and military alliances. Some issues like health, refugees, trade and climate will need organizations with global representation. Regardless of whether it remains under UN administration or not.

As I was writing this post in Word, I read Skybirds response. Well let me add, no way the UN will ever impose its will as it was never meant to be able to impose its will on the big 5! If some really want it to well too bad then get rid of it...as I said diplomacy and diplomats will hardly disappear. ;) I'll be willing to bet a new organization will eventually replace it.

[CB..]

So, what good is it that could be expected from that assembly of human flaws, weaknesses and failures?


well as soon as genetically manufacture a race of humans not inflicted with human flaws weaknesses and failures can we have a U.N. then pretty please...course it would be so much easier then....so just because it is difficult then we should not attempt to do it....ah i see:)

one wonders what these weak failed flawed human beings might do if they had no "others" to check their more extreme tendencies

the principle is sound...the practice is more difficult....if we shy away from the difficultys because the results don't immediately solve all our immediate political needs then those difficultys won't vanish along with the organisation...simple stuff..

[joea]

the principle is sound...the practice is more difficult....if we shy away from the difficultys because the results don't immediately solve all our immediate political needs then those difficultys won't vanish along with the organisation...simple stuff..[/B]

:yep: :yep: :up:

[Konovalov]

the principle is sound...the practice is more difficult....if we shy away from the difficultys because the results don't immediately solve all our immediate political needs then those difficultys won't vanish along with the organisation...simple stuff..[/b]

:yep: :yep: :up:

Make that a double. Well said and straight to the point. :yep:

[joea]

Of course no one read or responded to my post, just like most of Skybird's posts. :cry:

[fredbass]

This thread should have been continued from the other thread about the U.N. :damn:

oh well. :88)

And I never believe someone when they say they agree with somebody else, word for word. :know:

[TteFAboB]

I'll do it.

Who said your wanted organizations would have to be shut down? Nor the Avon Lady nor Skybird nor the original article proposed to shut down the organizations you hold dear. What prevents you from detaching them and getting them running independantly? If they are oh-so different and better from the main political body, then isn't it a counter sense to keep the latter financing and supporting the former?

If you advocate that we should keep the UN because everything else must remain under the UN's umbrella then you have just made your own self-made evidence of global government intention or accidental result: centralizaton. Of power, money and control (influence).

[joea]

TteFAboB, they were just examples. It would be the international community that decides what to keep and throw away or create. Look at NATO and even the troubled EU (troubled because it went beyond economic cooperation to political union IMO) why are they still around while the Warsaw Pact and COMECON (anyone know what that was ;) ) are not? Maybe the fact the first two were voluntary and the latter were....not.

I was just answering Avon's question as to whether I work for the UN, otherwise yes I see what you and they are saying. The best international orgasn are those composed of LIKE-minded nations, excepting certain issues like health and enviroment where all nations must work together. Again I suppose "civil society" (NGOs or private initiatives like Bill Gates' anti-AIDS campaign) ought to work alongside the state or state-run institutions.

So it seems many here don't think we ought to have a political IO, and the dreams od the LoN and UNO were vain... probably the world is too divided and different even for a loose voluntary organisation? Something to think about.

I do enjoy these debates and arguments sometimes, "...I love the smell of it"

[The Avon Lady]

Gates of Vienna Blog: It’s Time to Deep-Six the UN (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/its-time-to-deep-six-un.html).