The U.N.: Threat or Menace?
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 17:52
VIEWED: 3813
PAGE 3 of 6
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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).
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME