End of the U.N.

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: CPA
End of the UN - And this is a bad thing?

They do more than just talk about war. There are huge humanitarian issues at stake also.

Andy

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?

Like have a huge humanitarian effort.
Like gives an international voice to countries that otherwise would find it hard to be heard.
Like provides a diplomatic forum to discuss potential problems before they get near to this size.

Andy

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?

Like have a huge humanitarian effort.

Andy

Largely funded by about 3 countries. =)

 

[AT]

like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?

How about UNICEF, WHO, WFP etc.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Wino

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?

Like have a huge humanitarian effort.

Andy

Largely funded by about 3 countries. =)

Your point is? Where is all the wealth of the world? And the poverty? Its more than just 3 countries!

Andy

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

yeah like deny food to starving people too

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

yeah like deny food to starving people too

Well? If you are going to claim such things you must have a link up your sleeve. Get on with it. I think you'll have a hard time convincing most people that the UN is a force for world hunger.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Still waiting... (sure its coming though )

Andy

 

[Farmall]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Wino

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.

It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US

Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.

Andy

like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?

Like have a huge humanitarian effort.

Andy

Largely funded by about 3 countries. =)

Your point is? Where is all the wealth of the world? And the poverty? Its more than just 3 countries!

Andy

Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.

 

[Fencer128]

Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.

There's not then a moral obligation to being the wealthiest and helping the poorest? Without the UN every country would only throw their money where it would do themselves the most good. Screw the suffering would be the attitude.

That would be a sad day for the world (it probably wouldn't make it any safer either).

Andy

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.

There's not then a moral obligation to being the wealthiest and helping the poorest? Without the UN every country would only throw there money where it would do themselves the most good. Screw the suffering would be the attitude.

That would be a sad day for the world (it probably wouldn't make it any safer either).

Andy

And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.

I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.

 

[Farmall]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.

There's not then a moral obligation to being the wealthiest and helping the poorest? Without the UN every country would only throw there money where it would do themselves the most good. Screw the suffering would be the attitude.

That would be a sad day for the world (it probably wouldn't make it any safer either).

Andy

The US already gives way to much money to all these "poor" countries outside of any UN direction. I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.

 

[Fencer128]

And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.

I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.

So it is wrong for the UN to be involved with wealth ditribution? Why?

france, russia and germany have their own viewpoints on whether the war the US is so keen on is actually necessary to disarm Iraq at this time. They want to give the NEW UN inspections a few more months (more resources and 120 days or somehting to that effect I believe). They also believe that the inspectors themselves are the people to make the decision "we cannot make any progress here" - which would lead to military action. That is their viewpoint. It does not "kill" the UN's ability to enforce its own resolutions. In fact they are working within the UN framework. If the US doesn't like the way the UN works - it should make attempts to change it, not "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Andy

ps your actual point was "end of the UN". On a wider note than the security council there is no reason (even from the American point of view) as far as I can see - to completely shut down the UN because of lack persuasion of the security council. My reasons for this are very clear from my above posts.

 

[Fencer128]

The US already gives way to much money to all these "poor" countries outside of any UN direction.

My arguement is that IMHO without the UN countries would only distribute their wealth based on the effect it will have on them - regardless of suffering. I applaud the humanitarian work the US carries out.

I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.

So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.

Andy

 

[Farmall]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.

I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.

So it is wrong for the UN to be involved with wealth ditribution? Why?

france, russia and germany have their own viewpoints on whether the war the US is so keen on is actually necessary to disarm Iraq at this time. They want to give the NEW UN inspections a few more months (more resources and 120 days or somehting to that effect I believe). They also believe that the inspectors themselves are the people to make the decision "we cannot make any progress here" - which would lead to military action. That is their viewpoint. It does not "kill" the UN's ability to enforce its own resolutions. In fact they are working within the UN framework. If the US doesn't like the way the UN works - it should make attempts to change it, not "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Andy

ps your actual point was "end of the UN". On a wider note than the security council there is no reason (even from the American point of view as far as I can see - to completely shut down the UN because of lack persuasion of the security council. My reasons for this are very clear from my above posts.

Yeh another 120 days - that will solve the whole crisis, iraq won't have any more weapons cause they are really cooperating now, wow what a great idea - if 120 days will work so well, why not give saddam another 10 years to really get rid of them? He will promise to be good this time around.

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.

I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.

So it is wrong for the UN to be involved with wealth ditribution? Why?

Franky, I do object to the U.N. being involved with wealth distribution. A concerned individual should have every right to help out his fellow man and create *private* organizations to do so. Such private organizations tend to be very effective (and wholey voluntary). Being forced to do so by his government is wrong. Having a global organization he has no voting power over force his government to force him to take money out of his pocket to help 'humanitarian efforts' he may or may not *morally* agree with himself is wrong.

Not to mention, it dilutes the focus and original purpose of the U.N.

 

[Farmall]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

The US already gives way to much money to all these "poor" countries outside of any UN direction.

My arguement is that IMHO without the UN countries would only distribute their wealth based on the effect it will have on them - regardless of suffering. I applaud the humanitarian work the US carries out.

I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.

So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.

Andy

Actually I didn't say anything about the aid financing dictators, I believe what I said was that maybe the dictators should use some of their own wealth and help the poor in their own countries instead of relying on the US to bail them out.

 

[Fencer128]

Franky, I do object to the U.N. being involved with wealth distribution. A concerned individual should have every right to help out his fellow man and create *private* organizations to do so. Such private organizations tend to be very effective (and wholey voluntary). Being forced to do so by his government is wrong. Having a global organization he has no voting power over force his government to force him to take money out of his pocket to help 'humanitarian efforts' he may or may not *morally* agree with himself is wrong.

I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the charity of others enough to place the starving, suffering people of the world in it. The amount of money being spent (as you probably already know) is far in excess of the charitable donations given by indivduals. The sums of money required to make real differences are only attainable by governments. Governments act selfishly - that is why I believe we need a UN humanitarian mission.

I can't even believe this is a debatable point.

Andy

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Franky, I do object to the U.N. being involved with wealth distribution. A concerned individual should have every right to help out his fellow man and create *private* organizations to do so. Such private organizations tend to be very effective (and wholey voluntary). Being forced to do so by his government is wrong. Having a global organization he has no voting power over force his government to force him to take money out of his pocket to help 'humanitarian efforts' he may or may not *morally* agree with himself is wrong.

I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the charity of others enough to place the starving, suffering people of the world in it. The amount of money being spent (as you probably already know) is far in excess of the charitable donations given by indivduals. The sums of money required to make real differences are only attainable by governments. Governments act selfishly - that is why I believe we need a UN humanitarian mission.

I can't even believe this is a debatable point.

Andy

What our government takes from it citizens, forces them to do, and prevents them from doing should ALWAYS be debatable subjects. =)

 

[Fencer128]

I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.

So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.

Andy

Actually I didn't say anything about the aid financing dictators, I believe what I said was that maybe the dictators should use some of their own wealth and help the poor in their own countries instead of relying on the US to bail them out.

IMHO by saying that dictators (receiving UN aid obviously, as this was the point of the post) should build one less mansion a year and spend the money on their people - you infer that UN money is financing dictatorships, as it is going into the pockets of the dictator and not the people.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

What our government takes from it citizens, forces them to do, and prevents them from doing should ALWAYS be debatable subjects. =)

True - I should have used the word "objectionable". Sorry.

Andy

 

[Farmall]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.

So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.

Andy

Actually I didn't say anything about the aid financing dictators, I believe what I said was that maybe the dictators should use some of their own wealth and help the poor in their own countries instead of relying on the US to bail them out.

IMHO by saying that dictators (receiving UN aid obviously, as this was the point of the post) should build one less mansion a year and spend the money on their people - you infer that UN money is financing dictatorships, as it is going into the pockets of the dictator and not the people.

Andy

good point I should have been a bit more clear, my point stands that there are a whole lot of countries who without US/UN funds could help themselves a lot more by working on ways of helping their people rather than reigning over them.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Still waiting... (sure its coming though )

Andy

sorry don't have time to look for it now but i remember reading something about genetically engineered food being denied to some countries who need food.
busy day at work today

 

[Wino]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

What our government takes from it citizens, forces them to do, and prevents them from doing should ALWAYS be debatable subjects. =)

True - I should have used the word "objectionable". Sorry.

Andy

Which is why forums for long winded people such as oursleves are such great things!