REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The U.N.: Threat or Menace?

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Sunday, September 24, 2006 19:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1924
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, August 25, 2006 10:02 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


A couple of books critical of the U.N. have shown up on the 'new books' shelves of the local libraries.

One is "The Global War on Guns", by Wayne LaPierre, executive VP of the NRA. He notes that most U.N. initiatives concerning the 'illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons' seem to be focused on individual sporting firearms owners, rather than stuff like heavy machine guns and rocket launchers used by paramilitaries. He also mentions the U.N.s almost complete inability to prevent, or even define, genocide, and the pervasive sexual exploitation of people being 'protected' by U.N. Peacekeepers.

The other is "The U.N. Exposed" by correspondent Eric Shawn, who covers the U.N. for Fox News. His book spends a good bit of time on the "Oil for Food" scandal, noting that France, Russia, and China blocked any meaningful oversight of the program, while actively contraverting it by selling weapons to Iraq (some of which were used to down American planes and destroy U.S. tanks. When this was brought to the attention of the U.N. Secretatiat, nothing was done.

I especially enjoyed the saga of Benon Sevan, the Oil for Food progran director, who claimed that the $160,000 cash he deposited wasn't from oil allocations, as shown in Iraqi files, but gifts from his aunt, who lived in Cyprus on a $1,200.00 a month pension. Unfortunately she was unable to confirm this, having fallen down an elevator shaft to her death right after the Volcker commission began investigating the program

In the interest of fairness, I'm wondering if anyone can suggest a book or two which portray the U.N. in a better light.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 10:10 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

The U.N.: Threat or Menace?


Can't it be both?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 12:45 PM

KANEMAN


The UN is funded by the US... I say kick'em out of NYC let'em fend for them selves. Well' it's true


I live in NYC. I get to watch these drunkin diploooo types make asses of them selves on the American dime...Fuck 'em

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 2:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'd say it's more of a threat- for its incompetence. It's only a menace to African women who get raped by UN 'Security' forces and the Iraqi children who died because of the Food for Oil scam.

The U.N. definatly needs to be removed from NYC. It's nothing but a huge tax burden on the city/state, and has been nothing but a thorn in the side of the USA.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:20 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The U.N.: Threat or Menace?

It's so hard to decide. Is it a more red shade of orange or a less red shade of orange in terms of danger?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:20 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
The UN is funded by the US... I say kick'em out of NYC let'em fend for them selves. Well' it's true


I live in NYC. I get to watch these drunkin diploooo types make asses of them selves on the American dime...Fuck 'em



I can't believe I'm saying this...I...I...I...I agree with Kaneman. *twitch*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:40 PM

DREAMTROVE


Bump.

I disagree. But I love the framing of the question.

But Auraptor is right. Its incompetence is the main problem. I know two people who worked for it. They both said it was the most incompetent institution imaginable. Both were moderate liberals at the time, one a Labor supporter who has since gone tory, and the other a once avid democrat now independent.

They're like an international FEMA. What they should be is a big table where everyone can talk. That's what they should be. Where they went wrong was when they decided they wanted to be world cop. It's a bad thing to have, and they do it badly.

In a well designed world, the UN would be where Osama Bin Laden could send a guy to negotiate with a guy sent by Ohlmert. It would be a tough negotiation, but eventually, they might actually start thinking about each other as human beings.

But when the UN marches into the war zone, it seems to make what would be peace if everyone played by the rules, but instead ends up as genocide of those who play by the rules which is committed by those who don't.

Or as Auraptor says, to rape and pillage.

But I disagree that it should be kicked out of New York, it just needs radical reform to be what it was intended to be: an international table for negotiation, nothing more. ie. It doesn't need to be kicked out of NYC. It needs to be kicked out of everywhere else in the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 25, 2006 4:40 PM

DREAMTROVE


Bump.

I disagree. But I love the framing of the question.

But Auraptor is right. Its incompetence is the main problem. I know two people who worked for it. They both said it was the most incompetent institution imaginable. Both were moderate liberals at the time, one a Labor supporter who has since gone tory, and the other a once avid democrat now independent.

They're like an international FEMA. What they should be is a big table where everyone can talk. That's what they should be. Where they went wrong was when they decided they wanted to be world cop. It's a bad thing to have, and they do it badly.

In a well designed world, the UN would be where Osama Bin Laden could send a guy to negotiate with a guy sent by Ohlmert. It would be a tough negotiation, but eventually, they might actually start thinking about each other as human beings.

But when the UN marches into the war zone, it seems to make what would be peace if everyone played by the rules, but instead ends up as genocide of those who play by the rules which is committed by those who don't.

Or as Auraptor says, to rape and pillage.

But I disagree that it should be kicked out of New York, it just needs radical reform to be what it was intended to be: an international table for negotiation, nothing more. ie. It doesn't need to be kicked out of NYC. It needs to be kicked out of everywhere else in the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:19 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
The UN is funded by the US... I say kick'em out of NYC let'em fend for them selves. Well' it's true


I live in NYC. I get to watch these drunkin diploooo types make asses of them selves on the American dime...Fuck 'em



I can't believe I'm saying this...I...I...I...I agree with Kaneman. *twitch*




Good to see your coming around fredgiblet!! That *twitching* will stop eventually...Well it's true....*Twitch*

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:24 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
A couple of books critical of the U.N. have shown up on the 'new books' shelves of the local libraries.

One is "The Global War on Guns", by Wayne LaPierre, executive VP of the NRA. He notes that most U.N. initiatives concerning the 'illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons' seem to be focused on individual sporting firearms owners, rather than stuff like heavy machine guns and rocket launchers used by paramilitaries. He also mentions the U.N.s almost complete inability to prevent, or even define, genocide, and the pervasive sexual exploitation of people being 'protected' by U.N. Peacekeepers.

The other is "The U.N. Exposed" by correspondent Eric Shawn, who covers the U.N. for Fox News. His book spends a good bit of time on the "Oil for Food" scandal, noting that France, Russia, and China blocked any meaningful oversight of the program, while actively contraverting it by selling weapons to Iraq (some of which were used to down American planes and destroy U.S. tanks. When this was brought to the attention of the U.N. Secretatiat, nothing was done.

I especially enjoyed the saga of Benon Sevan, the Oil for Food progran director, who claimed that the $160,000 cash he deposited wasn't from oil allocations, as shown in Iraqi files, but gifts from his aunt, who lived in Cyprus on a $1,200.00 a month pension. Unfortunately she was unable to confirm this, having fallen down an elevator shaft to her death right after the Volcker commission began investigating the program

In the interest of fairness, I'm wondering if anyone can suggest a book or two which portray the U.N. in a better light.



"Keep the Shiny side up"




That book doesn't exist if it's non-fiction you fancy. However, if you like make-believe, there are many wonderful stories about the UN or "similar" orgs. Well it's true.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I was intrigued by your thread title: Threat or Menace? That's like SignyM: Leftist or Progressive? Precious little space between those choices huh?

In the interest of asking fair questions I must ask: Geezer, when DID you stop beating your wife?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was intrigued by your thread title: Threat or Menace? That's like SignyM: Leftist or Progressive? Precious little space between those choices huh?

In the interest of asking fair questions I must ask: Geezer, when DID you stop beating your wife?



What makes you think I've stopped? Besides, she asks so nicely!

The thread title reflects the two books mentioned in the original post. I was hoping someone could recommend another recent book on the U.N. that paints a more positive picture of the organization. Any suggestions?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No books but hey, a little Inet sleuthing can dig up info on their polio, TB, and fresh water programs. Also, their monitoring and certification of various elections around the globe where they seem to be quite useful. Their mine-clearing program.

Personally. I think the UN is so hobbled by competing interests that it's almost impossible for them to get anything done- good OR bad. But where they seem to have an edge is in health programs and in blessing political processes- almost like one of the many international standards organizations (ISO, IEEE etc) but for governments.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:23 PM

CITIZEN


The UN would fair a hell of a lot better if prominent member states actually played by it's rules in the same way they expect everyone else to.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:26 PM

SIMONWHO


Just to point out that the U.S. actually owes the UN about $1,246,000,000.

I expect they accept cash.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:31 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
The UN would fair a hell of a lot better if prominent member states actually played by it's rules in the same way they expect everyone else to.



Yep. France, Russia, and China undermining the Oil for Food program's review system and selling Iraq weapons in contravention of U.N. sanctions comes to mind. Or maybe Sudan's continuing genocide, or whatever is happening in Myanmar.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 2:44 PM

CITIZEN


Yep, add to that the US and the UK deciding to do what the hell they like it the UN doesn't mandate the action they want and basically what you've got is a collection of nations that say "do as we say, not as we do".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 5:34 PM

DREAMTROVE


Some times I feel like I'm talking to a vaccuum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 6:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Yep, add to that the US and the UK deciding to do what the hell they like it the UN doesn't mandate the action they want and basically what you've got is a collection of nations that say "do as we say, not as we do".




Actually, I was talking about violating U.N. sanctions, not taking independent action, as Clinton did when bombing Kosovo in 1999.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 28, 2006 11:58 PM

CITIZEN


And I was talking about member states telling everyone they have to adhere to what the UN says and then not doing so themselves .



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I noticed Geezer that you blew right by my examples of positive work. I suspect it's because your question was rhetorical; you really didn't want an positive answer, did you? And heck, I didn't even refer to smallpox eradication since that was completed a while back.

But let's reframe the question into: If you were to reform the UN, how would you do it?

DT, I think you have some thoughts on the topic. Could you be more specific?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I noticed Geezer that you blew right by my examples of positive work. I suspect it's because your question was rhetorical; you really didn't want an positive answer, did you? And heck, I didn't even refer to smallpox eradication since that was completed a while back.

But let's reframe the question into: If you were to reform the UN, how would you do it?



Not ignoring you, just got busy wih real life.

The WHO and various other UN chartered organizations are definately the brightest side to the UN. They do seem to do good work when their efforts are purely health-related and separated from the political/diplomatic side of the UN.

As for reforming the UN: right now it's pretty much the foxes guarding the henhouse, with a large proportion of member states hardcore dictatorships, oligarcies, theocracys, etc.

Here's my initial wishlist:

- I'd boot, or at least reduce to non-voting associate status, any nation which didn't make good-faith efforts to provide its population with "...respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples...respect for human rights and...fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

- I'd require independent audits of all major projects, such as oil-for-food, and provide penalties for non-compliance.

- I'd require transparency for all committee meetings.

- I'd move the Headquarters out of New York and to out in the sticks of some developing country, without major infrastructure, nice apartments, fancy restaurants, etc., so the UN ambassadors could see what they really should be dealing with.

- I'd do something about reducing the veto power wielded by the permanent Security Council members.

Of course, there's no chance in hell of any of this happening, but it's what I'd lake to see.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:57 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Geezer:

Actually, I was talking about violating U.N. sanctions, not taking independent action, as Clinton did when bombing Kosovo in 1999.



I have no idea what the argument is, I lost the thread, I just wanted to nitpick the idea of a UN action. A UN action is just the action of one country, usually the US, that someone has managed to finagle a UN resolution for. When Clinton attacked Iraq in 93-97, and when he ran guns to bosnia, or stole food from children in africa, he had a UN flag. So what. Any thug who's willing to bribe corrupt diplomats can get a UN resolution.

The reason Bush has so much trouble has nothing to do with the over the top extremist agenda he's pushing, it has everything to do with the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi and Bolton have the collective charisma of a Reaver. Which is no offense to their other abilities, but I think it's objectively true. They tick people off with their arrogance. They lack tact.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:07 PM

KANEMAN


Like I said earlier, take the UN out of NYC, have it "PAID" for by the member states. See what you get! And CiTz you are hot air. A UN resolution doesn't mean sh*t to a sovereign nation. Fuck, I am an American. Think I want limey's deciding whats good for me? How about Madagascar?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:25 PM

DREAMTROVE


Signym

1. The first thing the UN has to do is get its hands out of everyone's business. It shouldn't do any missions, anywhere. It should just be a place to negotiate.
2. To some extent, Bolton is right, the UN has to be restructured to represent actual power. I think he overstates the power of the US, he talks as if it's a majority of the world's power, it's really more like 10-20% of the world's power. But when the stakes do not

represent the true power there is an incentive for nations with more guns than votes to resort to military action. At the moment, the US is a nation with more guns than votes, and so is Israel.
3. Diplomats should be accountable to their govts. but also to their people. It does a nation no good if the leader of the nation is hopelessly corrupt, and the representative of that nation is a paid pawn of the leader. Some UN reps have been out simply to make a

buck, which is why you have things like oil for food, and many smaller scandals. What people usually miss about oil for food is that it never should have happened at all, it's a totally corrupt concept. If you're going to send food as a humanitarian mission, do so. But if you ask for a countries natural resources in exchange, it's stealing, and worse yet, they might say no. O-f-F used the cover of the supposed aid that would be given to blackmail a country, while the UN anabled clinton to put a total food blockade against Iraq, and a million or so died.
4. There needs to be representation for non-govt. populations. The fact that the UN is simply a collection of heads of state does no good when the heads of state are the ones doing the killing. This is why the UN was useless in Rwanda, and why it is now useless in Darfur. The people of Darfur have no representation and can't negotiate for their own position.
5. There should not be veto power, there should be weighting of votes, preferably by having a number of representatives per nation equal to that nation's power in the world, which would be measured by a combination of its population, natural resources, land, economy and military force. Then, those representatives should represent the population and interests as fairly as possible. Sure, there would be one UN head of the american delegation, but we might get a handful of votes. We might have a white southerner, and urban black, a latino, or something. What we do, it would have to ensure that any population would have a voice.

The UN has lost it's way. It started out to be the round table for global diplomacy, which is still deperately needed, but it got sidetracked in this idea of being world cop. It needs to become world meeting place again.
The major ways in which the UN are broken are not all readily apparant. Anyone might deduce the that the veto power allows those who hold it to commit endless evil, but the more subtle flaws are things like that a very large number of votes belong to third world countries which are very poor and hopelessly corrupt. Rather than give the third world a voice, it has the opposite effect, because this becomes a huge block that anyone can bribe to push through an extremist agenda.

And there should be no UN peace keeping force. They're a disaster nearly everywhere they go. If rebels in Darfur want to solicit support from the world, they should be able to come to the UN, and make a case, and try to negotiate with France or Germany to send troops. If UN members end up at cross purposes, they should meet in the UN to discuss their differences in a place where the true power is represented, so there is no need for shenanigans.

The short of it is this: Think table. The UN should be a table. Anything that it does, should be towards realizing that as its ideal. If it becomes a cop, or worse yet, a one world govt., then it has too much power, and power attracts corruption like honey attracts bears. If the UN ever reaches a point where it can tell member nations what to do, you can bet that within a year you will see "Secretary General Paul Wolfowitz."


I have no problem with WHO either. I think it should probably be spun off to avoid having the UNs intense level of corruption corrupt it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:32 PM

CITIZEN


Kaneman:

The UN is paid for by Member states you numb nuts. Now shh, adults are talking, time for you to go beddy bye boo boo land with your teddy tired eyes.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 9:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Family filter stops arsenic in its tracks UNESCO-IHE
Arsenic is a slow, undetectable killer found in large tracts of the world’s groundwater, but especially in parts of Asia. In Bangladesh alone, up to 44% of the population is exposed to arsenic-laced drinking water, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates. The problem crosses into neighbouring countries, India (West Bengal) and Nepal, affecting tens of millions who have to drink untreated groundwater.

It can take years of exposure to arsenic before clear symptoms may appear, such as pigmentation changes, ‘hyperkeratosis’ (patches of thickening skin), neurological side effects and signs of possible cancers in major organs (skin, liver, lungs, kidneys and bladder). By this time, the chronic disease arsenicosis has set in. Prevention is the only way to stop it, the experts lament.

Thankfully, European researchers and their international partners at UNESCO’s Institute for Water Education (IHE) in Holland have perfected a simple, efficient and – importantly – low-cost water filtration device which removes arsenic from contaminated drinking water. The filter uses iron oxide-coated sand which absorbs the arsenic from water at the “point of use” (i.e. well, tap).

One of the many unsung UN programs which I referred to in my post. I knew the UN was working on a solution for arsenic... they had done a lot of investigation in it's prevalance... but I hadn't realized how close they were to a solution.

Now there are a lot of people who grab some right-wing book off the shelves and "inform" themselves that way without bothering to look further. But if one bothers to look, a different picture emerges.



---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 10:14 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Just to point out that the U.S. actually owes the UN about $1,246,000,000.

I expect they accept cash.




You guys are so full of sh*t. The US pays 23% the UK 5.5%, Japan 19%, Canada 2%, Germany 9% of the UN funding. This does not even factor in voluntary funding in which the US pays more than the rest of the world combined. These are facts. Just ask Africa(AIDS). We won't even get into the WTO and other bullsh*t "International Orgs". Well, it's true(Google it). Carry on with your nonsense. Must be fun to have found a place were every one has their heads in their asses, and are to busy to notice that yours is also. Well, that is SO true. TaTa...Enjoy your Liberal circle jerk. Remember wash your hands when finished!!!!!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 10:17 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Kaneman:

The UN is paid for by Member states you numb nuts. Now shh, adults are talking, time for you to go beddy bye boo boo land with your teddy tired eyes.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.



Hey CiTz, You actually made me giggle. First time for everything I guess. Where did you steal that sense of humor. I suspect that potato is pissed. Well, it's true......

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 10:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
One of the many unsung UN programs which I referred to in my post. I knew the UN was working on a solution for arsenic... they had done a lot of investigation in it's prevalance... but I hadn't realized how close they were to a solution.

Now there are a lot of people who grab some right-wing book off the shelves and "inform" themselves that way without bothering to look further. But if one bothers to look, a different picture emerges.



And I agree this is a fine piece of work. The sort of thing you'd want an organization such as the UN to do.

I wish thay could be as effective against the Janjiweed militias in Sudan. But the UN can only send peacekeepers if the Sudanese government invites them in, which isn't happening. Not too unexpected since the government arms and supports the Janjiweed.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 11:45 AM

DREAMTROVE


Signym

I know two people who worked for the UN, in a pretty high capacity, and I know them well. I have many stories of the inner workings of the UN. Things like the african rape story happen for a reason. The UN is far far from what it was intended to be. It should not be playing world cop, if only because it does so worse than Bush/Clinton, who do it terribly. It's possibly a job which should not be done at all by anyone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:45 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
Just to point out that the U.S. actually owes the UN about $1,246,000,000.

I expect they accept cash.




You guys are so full of sh*t. The US pays 23% the UK 5.5%, Japan 19%, Canada 2%, Germany 9% of the UN funding. This does not even factor in voluntary funding in which the US pays more than the rest of the world combined. These are facts. Just ask Africa(AIDS). We won't even get into the WTO and other bullsh*t "International Orgs". Well, it's true(Google it). Carry on with your nonsense. Must be fun to have found a place were every one has their heads in their asses, and are to busy to notice that yours is also. Well, that is SO true. TaTa...Enjoy your Liberal circle jerk. Remember wash your hands when finished!!!!!



*BUMP* What's going on you testosterone tool lickers...SimonWhat?, Shitizen, Sleezer, DooRue, Chickisall, Underthedeskhippie, . I'm all troll?....Argue against my post...Can't? That's because....Well, it's true... Eat sh*t you arrogant asses.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 3:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just a couple of replies:

DT
which is why you have things like oil for food
Please note that it was a US-designed program. If you want to talk about corruption, please point your accusations in the right direction!

Geezer
But the UN can only send peacekeepers if the Sudanese government invites them in, which isn't happening.There is a recently passed UN resolution (I forget the number) which gives countries the opportunity to allow the UN in but doesn't require their consent. So now you will have to decide if you have a greater issue with the UN having too little power to do any good, or too much power over 'sovereign' nations. Can't have it both ways.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 3:33 PM

KANEMAN


Read my last post....Again...I am to busy on boards that matter...Well, it's true

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 7:43 PM

DREAMTROVE


Rue,

If I recall, it was joint designed, but this really misses the point. The UN is a disaster. Not saying the US as it is now is NOT a disaster. But the UN, all by itself, if the US would disappear tomorrow as an institution, the UN, as an institution, would still be a disaster.

Here's a little my uncle henry story.

A close personal friend of mine was one of the delegates to the UN mission in Bosnia. It was his job to be the english speaking arm of a team which carried out the logistics of implementing decisions which were made at a higher level.

His mission was to take an abandoned town, and fill it with muslims, extracting them from mixed communities where civil war was expected to break out. So they took 15,000 men women and children, and populated this town, which had been completely depopulated earlier in the war. The then set up tanks in a circle around the town.

Afterwards, my friend and his team were ordered off to elsewhere in the world to address some other issue. A year later, the UN decided to withdraw from the bosnian conflict, and pulled out its tanks. This left the town of 15,000 muslim civilians undefended. The Serb socialists marched on the town, and killed every man woman and child, which took them a day.

Which is just one anecdote. There are countless stories of UN botches world cop job. The UN should not be the world cop, it was never meant to be. It was meant to be a table at which people could discuss differences on neutral ground, a job which it is also failing miserably at. They completely failed to get the serbs and the muslims to talk.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 7, 2006 2:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


DT- I think I addressed all of your objections. One thing to note: THe UN has offices all over the world, and many of its best programs seem to be based elsewhere. So I'm just gonna repeat myself:
Quote:

No books but hey, a little Inet sleuthing can dig up info on their polio, TB, and fresh water programs. Also, their monitoring and certification of various elections around the globe where they seem to be quite useful. Their mine-clearing program.

Personally. I think the UN is so hobbled by competing interests that it's almost impossible for them to get anything done- good OR bad. But where they seem to have an edge is in health programs and in blessing political processes- almost like one of the many international standards organizations (ISO, IEEE etc) but for governments.

SO, to retierate- prolly not a "world military" organization.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 7, 2006 3:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
There is a recently passed UN resolution (I forget the number) which gives countries the opportunity to allow the UN in but doesn't require their consent. So now you will have to decide if you have a greater issue with the UN having too little power to do any good, or too much power over 'sovereign' nations. Can't have it both ways.



True. The UN also has a resolution stating they'll prevent genocide. So they're now in the situation of asking, "Excuse us. Can we come into your country and prevent you from killing all your population that aren't what you consider the right religion (race, tribe, political party, etc.)? No? Well, just thought we'd ask. Call if you change your mind."

This part of the UN doesn't work. Not only doesn't it work, but it prevents individual countries or groups of countries from taking action in obvious genocide situations, because they're bound to wait for the UN to do something.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 7, 2006 9:02 AM

DREAMTROVE


Signym

No one was nitpicking the WHO, which is fine. But pay attention to geezer's points, because he has some good ones.


Geezer,

good point. This is exactly the problem. It's not that the UN has bad intentions, I don't think anyone is saying it does, but it's not very effective, and often makes the problem worse.

We have the same problem here, btw, with our own congress. I noticed that over a quarter million civilians have been slaughtered mercilessly in Darfur since last year's resolution passed in the US senate condemning the genocide in darfur.

I think this method of foreign policy could be called: "Talk very big and carry no stick at all"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 7, 2006 9:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just haven't kept up with the news. The UN will try a while longer to get voluntary cooperation from Sudan. They are already preparing to go to the next step, which is to intervene without agreement.
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
There is a recently passed UN resolution (I forget the number) which gives countries the opportunity to allow the UN in but doesn't require their consent. So now you will have to decide if you have a greater issue with the UN having too little power to do any good, or too much power over 'sovereign' nations. Can't have it both ways.



True. The UN also has a resolution stating they'll prevent genocide. So they're now in the situation of asking, "Excuse us. Can we come into your country and prevent you from killing all your population that aren't what you consider the right religion (race, tribe, political party, etc.)? No? Well, just thought we'd ask. Call if you change your mind."

This part of the UN doesn't work. Not only doesn't it work, but it prevents individual countries or groups of countries from taking action in obvious genocide situations, because they're bound to wait for the UN to do something.

"Keep the Shiny side up"


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 7, 2006 9:44 AM

SOUPCATCHER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No books but hey, a little Inet sleuthing can dig up info on their polio, TB, and fresh water programs. Also, their monitoring and certification of various elections around the globe where they seem to be quite useful. Their mine-clearing program.


And their gender work. Stuff like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). The United States is one of a few countries not party to this convention (along with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga). At the least, we could become a party and not submit reports, like 32 countries. Other work on gender equality and and empowerment of women which can be found through Women Watch. And UNIFEM (the United Nations Development Fund for Women).


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 9, 2006 6:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just haven't kept up with the news. The UN will try a while longer to get voluntary cooperation from Sudan. They are already preparing to go to the next step, which is to intervene without agreement.



I follow AP, BBC, and the Washington Post, and all I've seen in the last week was a UN threat to hold the rulers of Sudan "personally responsible" and an offhand remark by the French Foreign Minister hinting, weakly, that deployment should be discussed.

Quote:

But French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy hinted that deploying anyway should be considered.

"Do we go there, in spite of them?" Douste-Blazy told a Paris news conference. "That's not on the table, nobody has asked the question like that. But it's a real question."



http://wtop.com/?nid=387&sid=597700

Meanwhile, the Sudan government is sending more troops to Darfur and bombings of civilian villages are reported by aid agencies.

If you got more than this on actual UN action, I'd be glad to see it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 9, 2006 6:39 AM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer,

Well put. This is precisely the problem. The actual response I expect to see from the UN is that they will turn tail and run the when the bullets fly their way, which will probably be soon, since the Sudan has threatened to kick them out. As I said, talk much and carry no stick at all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 4:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And their gender work. Stuff like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women). The United States is one of a few countries not party to this convention (along with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga).



What interested me was that we signed the convention in 1980, but never ratified it (I assume Congress was supposed to do this). Wonder why?

I was also amused by some of the countries which did sign and ratify the convention, promising:
-to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
-to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
-to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.


These dedicated countries include; Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, North Korea, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. A complete list can be found here: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm

Maybe the hypocracy level was just too much for even the US Congress to go along with.

Quote:

Other work on gender equality and and empowerment of women which can be found through Women Watch. And UNIFEM (the United Nations Development Fund for Women).



When the UN acts as a humanitarian agency, or acts as sort of a super-NGO to provide assistance, it does it pretty well, in part because of the cachet the UN name brings to the table.

When it trys to act as a meta-government; either passing laws that member States agree to support and then ignore at will, like the CEDAW, or in preventing genocide or other governmental crimes perpetrated by a member State, its record is dismal.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:42 AM

CITIZEN


Geezer:
The US and the UK didn't start getting concerned bout the situation in Darfur until Oil deposits were found.

Seems to me we've got one guy with their heart in the right place but nothing to back it up, and another with no heart but the abillity to do something, and we're arguing about which one is better.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 8:36 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Geezer:
The US and the UK didn't start getting concerned bout the situation in Darfur until Oil deposits were found.



But the US and UK aren't the UN. It's the UN which is supposed to prevent genocides. That's what everyone here told me when the US and UK liberated/invaded Iraq. We were supposed to let the UN handle the problem. Unfortunately, the UN can't even agree if killing 200,000 people and displacing 2 million more is genocide. They have to get permission from the government committing the genocide before they can enter Darfur and try to stop it. That's just crazy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 10:09 AM

CITIZEN


But but but...

The UN is composed of nations, the US and the UK are two of those nations, it's a bit cynical to say what you just said no? If the US and the UK aren't the UN what is? The sky? Pico the Ostrich?

The UN has it's heart in the right place, but it just can't seem to do anything any more, conversely those that have the power to act seem interested in anything but those of the UN.

Like I said now we're arguing over who's better.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 11:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
But but but...

The UN is composed of nations, the US and the UK are two of those nations, it's a bit cynical to say what you just said no? If the US and the UK aren't the UN what is? The sky? Pico the Ostrich?

The UN has it's heart in the right place, but it just can't seem to do anything any more, conversely those that have the power to act seem interested in anything but those of the UN.



The UN is indeed composed of nations. They are:
Afghanistan -- (19 Nov. 1946)
Albania -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Algeria -- (8 Oct. 1962)
Andorra -- (28 July 1993)
Angola -- (1 Dec. 1976)
Antigua and Barbuda -- (11 Nov. 1981)
Argentina -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Armenia -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Australia -- (1 Nov. 1945)
Austria-- (14 Dec. 1955)
Azerbaijan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Bahamas -- (18 Sep. 1973)
Bahrain -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Bangladesh -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Barbados -- (9 Dec. 1966)
Belarus -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Belgium -- (27 Dec. 1945)
Belize -- (25 Sep. 1981)
Benin -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Bhutan -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Bolivia -- (14 Nov. 1945)
Bosnia and Herzegovina -- (22 May 1992)
Botswana -- (17 Oct. 1966)
Brazil -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Brunei Darussalam -- (21 Sep. 1984)
Bulgaria -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Burkina Faso -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Burundi -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Cambodia -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Cameroon -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Canada -- (9 Nov. 1945)
Cape Verde -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Central African Republic -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Chad -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Chile -- (24 Oct. 1945)
China -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Colombia -- (5 Nov. 1945)
Comoros -- (12 Nov. 1975)
Congo (Republic of the) -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Costa Rica -- (2 Nov. 1945)
Côte d'Ivoire -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Croatia -- (22 May 1992)
Cuba -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Cyprus -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Czech Republic -- (19 Jan. 1993)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Democratic Republic of the Congo -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Denmark -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Djibouti -- (20 Sep. 1977)
Dominica -- (18 Dec. 1978)
Dominican Republic -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Ecuador -- (21 Dec. 1945)
Egypt -- (24 Oct. 1945)
El Salvador -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Equatorial Guinea -- (12 Nov. 1968)
Eritrea -- (28 May 1993)
Estonia -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Ethiopia -- (13 Nov. 1945)
Fiji -- (13 Oct. 1970)
Finland -- (14 Dec. 1955)
France-- (24 Oct. 1945)
Gabon -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Gambia -- (21 Sep. 1965)
Georgia -- (31 July 1992)
Germany -- (18 Sep. 1973)
Ghana -- (8 Mar. 1957)
Greece -- (25 Oct. 1945)
Grenada -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Guatemala -- (21 Nov. 1945)
Guinea -- (12 Dec. 1958)
Guinea-Bissau -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Guyana -- (20 Sep. 1966)
Haiti -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Honduras -- (17 Dec. 1945)
Hungary -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Iceland -- (19 Nov. 1946)
India -- (30 Oct. 1945)
Indonesia -- (28 Sep. 1950)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Iraq -- (21 Dec. 1945)
Ireland -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Israel -- (11 May 1949)
Italy -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Jamaica -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Japan -- (18 Dec. 1956)
Jordan -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Kazakhstan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Kenya -- (16 Dec. 1963)
Kiribati -- (14 Sept. 1999)
Kuwait -- (14 May 1963)
Kyrgyzstan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Lao People's Democratic Republic -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Latvia -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Lebanon -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Lesotho -- (17 Oct. 1966)
Liberia -- (2 Nov. 1945)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Liechtenstein-- (18 Sep. 1990)
Lithuania -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Luxembourg-- (24 Oct. 1945)
Madagascar -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Malawi -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Malaysia-- (17 Sep. 1957)
Maldives-- (21 Sep. 1965)
Mali -- (28 Sep. 1960)
Malta -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Marshall Islands -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Mauritania -- (27 Oct. 1961)
Mauritius -- (24 Apr. 1968)
Mexico -- (7 Nov. 1945)
Micronesia (Federated States of) -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Monaco -- (28 May 1993)
Mongolia -- (27 Oct. 1961)
Montenegro -- (28 June 2006)
Morocco -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Mozambique -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Myanmar -- (19 Apr. 1948)
Namibia -- (23 Apr. 1990)
Nauru -- (14 Sept. 1999)
Nepal -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Netherlands -- (10 Dec. 1945)
New Zealand -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Nicaragua -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Niger -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Nigeria -- (7 Oct. 1960)
Norway -- (27 Nov. 1945)
Oman -- (7 Oct. 1971)
Pakistan -- (30 Sep. 1947)
Palau -- (15 Dec. 1994)
Panama -- (13 Nov. 1945)
Papua New Guinea -- (10 Oct. 1975)
Paraguay -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Peru -- (31 Oct. 1945)
Philippines -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Poland -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Portugal -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Qatar -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Republic of Korea -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Republic of Moldova -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Romania -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Russian Federation -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Rwanda -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Saint Kitts and Nevis -- (23 Sep. 1983)
Saint Lucia -- (18 Sep. 1979)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines -- (16 Sep. 1980)
Samoa -- (15 Dec. 1976)
San Marino -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Sao Tome and Principe -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Saudi Arabia -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Senegal -- (28 Sep. 1960)
Serbia -- (1 Nov. 2000)
Seychelles -- (21 Sep. 1976)
Sierra Leone -- (27 Sep. 1961)
Singapore -- (21 Sep. 1965)
Slovakia -- (19 Jan. 1993)
Slovenia -- (22 May 1992)
Solomon Islands -- (19 Sep. 1978)
Somalia -- (20 Sep. 1960)
South Africa -- (7 Nov. 1945)
Spain -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Sri Lanka -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Sudan -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Suriname -- (4 Dec. 1975)
Swaziland -- (24 Sep. 1968)
Sweden -- (19 Nov. 1946)
Switzerland -- (10 Sep. 2002)
Syrian Arab Republic -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Tajikistan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Thailand -- (16 Dec. 1946)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- (8 Apr. 1993)
Timor-Leste -- (27 Sep. 2002)
Togo -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Tonga -- (14 Sep. 1999)
Trinidad and Tobago -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Tunisia -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Turkey -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Turkmenistan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Tuvalu -- (5 Sept. 2000)
Uganda -- (25 Oct. 1962)
Ukraine-- (24 Oct. 1945)
United Arab Emirates -- (9 Dec. 1971)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-- (24 Oct. 1945)
United Republic of Tanzania -- (14 Dec. 1961)
United States of America -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Uruguay -- (18 Dec. 1945)
Uzbekistan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Vanuatu -- (15 Sep. 1981)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) -- (15 Nov. 1945)
Viet Nam -- (20 Sep. 1977)
Yemen -- (30 Sep. 1947)
Zambia -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Zimbabwe -- (25 Aug. 1980)


The US and UK are just two of the 192 member States. Why do you think it falls on them to tell the other 190 what to do? Also, where do you get the idea I was suggesting such a thing? My issue isn't that the US and UK, or any particular country or group of countries, should replace the UN. It's that the UN, as it is currently constituted, can't do the peacekeeping job it claims as its own.

The UN needs to clean house.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:38 PM

CITIZEN


I don't, I believe it's the US and the UK, oh and you, that thinks it falls on the US and UK alone to tell everyone else what to do.

But if you think The US and Uzbekistan are equal on a world stage who am I to argue.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:37 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I don't, I believe it's the US and the UK, oh and you, that thinks it falls on the US and UK alone to tell everyone else what to do.

But if you think The US and Uzbekistan are equal on a world stage who am I to argue.



I'm not sure why you got on this US and UK riff with me. My issue is with the UN as a whole. I don't particularly care who gets them off the dime, I'd just like them to actually take some action that reduces the bodycount in Sudan, rather than just wringing their hands.

If the US or UK proposed action to stop the killing which didn't require Sudan's approval, I'd be fine with that, regardless of what you think their motives might be. I'm looking for the killing to stop, and (based on their statements) I very much doubt that either the US or UK would commit any troops, to keep the Islamic world from getting even more upset.

Remember also that such a proposal would have to get through the Security Council, which includes China, Sudan's #1 trading partner. And if China isn't quite equal to the US on the world stage, it's pretty close.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 10, 2006 6:03 PM

DREAMTROVE


Geezer,

Well said.

The problem, IMHO, is that not enough people, or not the right people are talking. The UN will never send enough troops, which is good, because the UN shouldn't be world cop, and if it could send enough guys, they would almost certainly screw the world up far more than they do right now.

China won't send boots to defend Sudan, so it's a safe bet that the structure of the UN is all that's giving China a strong say in the matter (they have veto power.) In the world stage, I agree, China is at least close to the US in power. I also agree that the US won't commit boots to central africa. It's proven that time and again. The us only seems interested in the ME and if a nation isn't part of the whole water-way connection, then it seems off limits.

As I said before, we do have the same problem here, I remember Sam Brownback getting up in the senate and ranting about darfur, and then he and a democrat, i think it was lautenberg, i'm not 100% certain, put for a resolution, and then the senate agreed to condemn the genocide, but not do anything about it.

I think that I suggested an idea earlier, the darfur rebels need a place where they can negotiate directly with members of the international community, in a place where no one else, such as china, has veto power. Then they can use their own oil as a bargaining chip. Darfurians could say "if you help us out, we can sell you out at discount rates" and maybe the US or Russia or Brazil or whereever would say "sure"

But at the moment, only Kartoum gets to speak for anyone in the Sudan, and it's anti-darfurian, and it only speaks in a venue where if china says "no" then it's a no-go.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, March 19, 2024 06:57 - 6092 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Tue, March 19, 2024 06:54 - 351 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:45 - 982 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Mon, March 18, 2024 23:44 - 496 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:27 - 3338 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:09 - 709 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:08 - 1982 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Mon, March 18, 2024 19:06 - 753 posts
MO AG Suing Large Nationwide Child Sex-slave Trafficker
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:24 - 2 posts
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:21 - 7 posts
RCP's No Toss-Up State Map (3-15-2024)
Mon, March 18, 2024 15:19 - 2 posts
Israeli War
Mon, March 18, 2024 01:27 - 31 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL