![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Wednesday, 29 Nov 2006
Well, very little when it comes to stopping genocide it seems:
The U.N. Human Rights Council rejected on Tuesday an attempt to hold
the Sudanese government responsible for halting atrocities in Darfur,
opting instead for a less-pointed resolution calling on all warring
parties to end abuses.The council, which took over from the discredited U.N. Human Rights
Commission June, is dominated by African and Muslim countries that have
sided with China, Cuba and other countries in preventing criticism of
any government butIsrael.
Well, of course. Don't they know that all of the world's problems would cease to be if Israel, well, ceased to be? Muslims would stop killing Muslims, Genocide would end, and terrorists would just stop conducting terrorist attacks, and return to being artists and male-nurses. Oh yeah!
Ok, this isn't funny! This is genocide on a massive scale, and the world doesn't seem to care, probably because it's black people killing black people. Also, I hope that this is proof that the UN is absolutely fuckin useless and should stop existing. Keep the Unicief, the WHO, even the UNESCO, but for God's sake, end the General assembly, the security council and the joke that is the UN Human Rights council. I mean, if it wasn't bad enough that the UN human Rights council called the danes racist and blamed them for the reactions to the cartoon crisis or that Iran, IRAN, is now deputy chair of the committe of nuclear disarmement , now this? WTF?
No decent or self-respecting country should stay in such a corrupt body. It's time to shut it down. To start over. Maybe have an organization that will only have , I dunno, democracies as members? It might not be inclusive or representitive of the world, but goddamn it, it wouldn't be such a farce. You know?
November 29th, 2006 at 2:23 am
I agree entirely. The UN should be abolished and replaced with international bodies of more limited scope (mutual defense organizations like NATO, health care, etc.) and more serious membership requirements. The problem with the United Nations is its tendency, in a world composed mostly of Third World countries and France, to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
Besides, we don’t need Trinidad and Tobago’s opinion on most things. Sorry, Trinidadians.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:28 am
EXCELLENT idea. Truly wonderful.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:31 am
I totally agree. The UN has shown itself to be an entirely corrupt and irresponsible organization.
Tommy, yes, abolish it! The UN is composed of many nations with very shaky human rights records!
November 29th, 2006 at 3:40 am
Perhaps that’s why the fuckheads went for the WTC twice and not the UN, they knew that in the UN they had a warm and cosy ally, or at the very least a useless collection of fucking morons who would never say anything against them. Flogging with a week old egg noodle is the harshest sentence the UN can impose and that’s only to be used in genocide cases…total fuckwits…sorry for the language but those people really do shit me.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:59 am
Iran, I-R-A-N, the deputy chair of the committe of nuclear disarmement??
Hard to believe! I mean, really really hard to believe!
Up next will be:
-Saudi Arabia, deputy chair on Freedom of Religion (Egypt will be head on this one)
-North Korean, deputy chair on Free Trade and Globlaization.
-Somalia, deptuy chair on Global Warming.
It would only make sense, right? The U.N. is useless. At least Kofi Annan is gone in January, maybe things will change. Here’s to hoping John Bolton stays on and continues to kick ass for the U.S.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:55 am
FIX THE UN OURSELVES: Set up a web site called the Democratic Societies (DS). Invited members: all countries cited by freedomhouse.org as democracies. Rent tiny office (or mail box) across from UN. Organize webcam meeting, invite all UN reps of Democratic nations to attend (via webcam). Invite democratic NGO’s to monitor. For those countries not sending official rep, post invitation on web site for ANY citizen of that country to act as interim rep. Hold a virtual meeting, elect a chair, and begin drafting a constitution. Follow “Robert’s Rules of Order”. First meeting: Bill of Rights for DS. Issue press releases, and hold DS votes on EVERY UN resolution, to provide DS counterpoint opinion. Initial funding: $1 from every DS web site visitor. Ask big blogs to help.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:29 am
I completely agree….it’s just scary that no international body or government is laughing at this atrocity, but continuing to listen and support the UN.
A friend of mine in Jordan was getting paid $70,000 a year to translate for the UN; imagine the wages of the executives! If the UN would make the pay scale commensurate with normal wages in each country, they would cease to exist and something might get done about Sudan…and imagine, black Africa might have a chance to exist.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:27 am
I disagree about both the abolishing and making a new one with only democracies in it. The abolishing bit, because, like society is the sum of its parts, the countries in the UNshould pull themselves together and stand for principle and justice, not for short-sighted monetary gains. The making up a UN only with the democracies because during the Cuban missile crisis, if Adlai Stevenson hadn’t pwned the Russians in the summit and discussed with them in the background, we would all probably be glowing in the dark and type in the keyboards with two hands while swigging a beer with our tails.
The UN is just one of the symptoms. The problem in the world isn’t a tall buildling in NY. It’s backing or burying policies and countries according to business deals and/or on religious and/or partisan grounds
A case in point. What is happening in Darfur is very similar to what was happening in Siearra Leone a few years ago. A brutal and disgusting civil war had broken out, with the diamond mines at its hub. The UN security council had put a ban on Sierra Leone diamonds, in an effort to stop the funding of the massacre, but the diamond industrystarted taking measures only when public awareness gave rise to fears that diamonds as a luxury item would be tainted by its association with war crimes (see link at the end of the comment).
Now, would it be a “tall order” to enforce the UN ban if the consumers had said “we don’t want a part in this, we will do with plain engagement rings and manufactured rubies”? Being of a cynical and overall disagreeable disposition, I don’t think so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/781344.stm
November 29th, 2006 at 9:06 am
The problem with the United Nations is its tendency, in a world composed mostly of Third World countries and France, to be dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
and what is your highest common denominator ? lets see, oh, peace is in Irack, peace is in Afgahanistan…
France is very practical for you to make fun on , it keeps your conscience in high cloudy dreams of superiority, nah ? or is it we replace the jewishs for every thing which goes wrong in the world, it’s french fault !
It is also convenient to have France to make some vacations you could not possibly doing, yeah, Lebanon is one of these, go on there, let’s see what will happen !
November 29th, 2006 at 9:31 am
[...] What is interesting is that even the Field Marshal readily acknowledges 9,000 dead (instead of the 200,000 to 400,000 dead which the United Nations has found as the closer to the truth), a number far above anything blamed on Israel by its worst enemies and yet the Human Rights Council has not seen fit to condemn the Sudanese governmenmt for its systematic ethnic cleansing. Rantings of a Sandmonkey, an Egyptian Muslim (not a Jew, not a Zionist agent, not even an agent of American Imperialism), says it best: [...]
November 29th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I absolutely agree… the UN has to go. It has long outlived its usefulness, and now serves as a huge funds sink and a meeting place for the most evil and depraved bastards of this world.
Koffi Anan should be swinging from a beampole for his part in the Rwandan genocide, not “leading the world”.
OP - that’s exactly the problem. What would you boycott in Sudan, then? As a consumer? Their oil? Their Uranium?
And how about Mynamar?
Or do you think you could perhaps boycott all Chinese products to protest the Laogai concentration/forced labour camps?
Nomad -
Sorry, but French involvement in Lebanon is despicable. They do nothing but threatening Israel, protecting Hizballah and oggling Lebanese girls.
DR - a very interesting idea. Not quite in that way, I’m ‘fraid… but there might be a grassroots movements offering an alternative to UN. Hmmm…
*waddless off, thinking*
November 29th, 2006 at 10:08 am
“Just democracies as members? … it wouldn’t be such a farce”
I expect it would still be a farce. Australia (my country) made absolute demands that unverifiable reductions in land clearing be counted as greenhouse savings in the Kyoto protocol, significantly sabotaging the negotiations and the treaty, then refused to ratify it anyway.
The US and EU continue to absolutely refuse to reduce their agriculture subsidies and agricultiural export subsidies, sabotaging trade negotiations.
Consensus comittees and one nation one vote comittees both generally deliver a mess, unless there is a clear common interest. Sadly the human rights committees seem to take a common interest of criticising the west.
By the way, the links to your posts on the-un-blames-denmark-for-cartoon-crisis and IRAN, is now deputy chair of the committe of nuclear disarmement don’t work for me.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:14 am
UNICEF is beset by its own problems, as it is associated with the UN. Don’t be lulled into thinking UNICEF is so great!
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n05/v1n05-1.htm
Personally, I have a script I say about the UN:
The UN is a corrupt, feckless, terror enabling organization, that legitimizes terrorists, and should be immediately disbanded, and/or moved to France. The land in NYC devoted to the UN should go toward low income housing for New Yorkers, and all of the diplomat’s cars should be towed and impounded.
A girl can dream, right?
November 29th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Okay, most of the world couldn’t care less about Sudan. As UN has no actual power, like it shouldn’t have, it can only accomplish things that most of the world wants to accomplish.
UN, because of it’s democratic nature, has also the flaws of democracy. Majority rules. I don’t see how that proves that the UN is useless and corrupt. Democratic diplomacy can quite often achieve a consensus, which in most cases means something many won’t like but can live with it.
As for the union of democratic countries, UN doesn’t stand in it’s way. It’s downside is obvious, the union would have even less credibility in the non-democratic countries than the UN has.
I think the world still needs an organization where we can pursue a global consensus in difficult issues, which also requires the representatives of non-democratic countries to be heard.
Any other ideas how UN could be improved so it could achieve better results? Remove the vetos from UK, Russia, France, China and USA? Give vetos to more countries? Require more obedience from it’s member by threatning them with something? Give UN more power over it’s members hoping UN will be equal and fair? Take some power away hoping it will be more successful because of the decreased power?
November 29th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Olive Picker Says:”The abolishing bit, because, like society is the sum of its parts, the countries in the UNshould pull themselves together and stand for principle and justice, not for short-sighted monetary gains”
Short-sighted monetary gains? When did the UN *ever* do this? If only they did this. The members of the UN don’t murder people for money. No one does. They do so for fun and power. It is precisely because the UN is more than the sum of its parts that it ought to go. Every time the UN treats Sudan as the equal of the US it is contributing to the idea that Sudan is the equal of the US. Why? Sudan is a vicious hell-hole while the US is the richest, freest and most democratic society in the world (bar perhaps Switzerland). On no subject does Sudan have an opinion worth listening to. Everyone can learn from the US. So abolishing the UN would deprive the Third World of their free bully pulpit. If they wanted to influence people they would have to make a convincing case, build up their economy until it was worth paying attention to and generally behaving better. The UN gives them a cheap outlet for their rage and an inflated sense of self-worth.
Olive Picker Says:”The making up a UN only with the democracies because during the Cuban missile crisis, if Adlai Stevenson hadn’t pwned the Russians in the summit and discussed with them in the background, we would all probably be glowing in the dark and type in the keyboards with two hands while swigging a beer with our tails.”
There is no evidence that the UN played any role whatsoever in the Cuban Missile crisis. Countries have managed diplomacy for generations without the UN and generally rather well. We can do so again. You may as well say because Marilyn Monroe was acting, we were all saved from glowing in the dark.
Olive Picker Says:”What is happening in Darfur is very similar to what was happening in Siearra Leone a few years ago. A brutal and disgusting civil war had broken out, with the diamond mines at its hub. The UN security council had put a ban on Sierra Leone diamonds, in an effort to stop the funding of the massacre, but the diamond industrystarted taking measures only when public awareness gave rise to fears that diamonds as a luxury item would be tainted by its association with war crimes (see link at the end of the comment).”
Actually if I remember correctly what happened in SL was that the British landed several thousands Marines who shot a few rebels and then everything went quiet - proof the world would be better off with a more assertive West and no UN. Nor, by the way, do I know of any evidence that the UN played any role in the “blood diamonds” campaign. Source please.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
[...] And this is what the UN Human Rights Council has to say. We live in such a wonderful world! [...]
November 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
SM - “This is genocide on a massive scale, and the world doesn’t seem to care, probably because it’s black people killing black people.”
I disagree a bit with that. No offense, but I don’t think a lot of us in the west really give a sh!t about muslims killing muslims in the middle east either, but we’re there ‘ready to help’ because that’s where the oil is. So it’s _not_ racial, it’s political and economics.
I think if more oil were concentrated iaround Darfur, we’d be happy to go there instead, and probably buy you guys the guns to kill each other with.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
TomKat, no offense but you’re analysis is screwed big time…
Darfur does have oil and uranium too.
The UN going in without a green light from Bashir will mean war in Darfur and the UN doesn’t have the balls to face such a thing. Never again my ass. Oh ya and in case you didn’t know al-Qaeda said it will wage Jihad in Darfur too. The UN is full of shit. Meanwhile many are counting on America but America is too busy with Iraq.
The West cares but doesn’t have the balls to do anything about it. America doesn’t have the time.
Whatever it is, Darfur sure ain’t America’s responsibilit or the West’s. It’s the UN’s responsibility but we all know now how “responsible” the UN really is.
Big fat stupid dumb organization in need of bad reform the UN is indeed.
Crap, I’m starting to sound like Yoda.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Sorry, but French involvement in Lebanon is despicable. They do nothing but threatening Israel, protecting Hizballah and oggling Lebanese girls./i>
Racoon, it is the way they are seen, but if it only handle to the army, they would not be there for sure, for they know, they can’t do anything, and as far as ogling, Lebanese girls, it is they only thing they are allowed to, eheh, are your IDF soldiers didn’t do the same ? or any other army there ?
as far Hzh, I know for reading french army forum, they surely not support them, and the threatening is a political response to your anarchist soldiers behaviour, so far, nothing irreparable happened !
November 29th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
According to the President of Sudan, it’s all Israel’s fault.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
eero Says:”As UN has no actual power, like it shouldn’t have, it can only accomplish things that most of the world wants to accomplish.”
[/i]Or more accurately whatever the Big Powers want done. Only the Americans, essentially, have the capacity to do much of anything.
eero Says:”UN, because of it’s democratic nature, has also the flaws of democracy. Majority rules. I don’t see how that proves that the UN is useless and corrupt. Democratic diplomacy can quite often achieve a consensus, which in most cases means something many won’t like but can live with it.”
The UN is not democratic. No one is elected. Some of the members are appointed by democratically elected governments, but the UN is not. It is a cabal of kleptocrats, thugs and dictators and has all the flaws of such awful systems - corruption, moral sermonising, empty rhetoric, more corruption etc etc. And corruption. Diplomacy can often create a consensus anyway but what is a UN “consensus” worth? Any “consensus” that treats Niger as the equal of Britain is worthless. In the real world who gives a f*** about the opinions of Niger? They pose a threat to themselves, and perhaps one small neighbour. They can be safely ignored. In fact outside the UN-bubble, not one single member counts outside their own neighbourhood except the Big Powers. So who gives a damn about that “consensus”? A consensus on Global Warming means nothing unless the people with real economies agree. A consensus on peace keeping means nothing unless the people with real Armies agree. A consensus on Israel is meaningless if one single country stands against it and that country happens to be the US. It is PR and nothing else. Why let mass murderers shape that international “consensus”?
eero Says:”As for the union of democratic countries, UN doesn’t stand in it’s way. It’s downside is obvious, the union would have even less credibility in the non-democratic countries than the UN has.”
Except the democratic union could achieve something. It would have credibility because it would represent real values and values that can be effectively enforced. Niger would have to ask nicely if it wanted something. Not bluster and threaten in the UN. Once the notion that sixteen cannibals can meet on the Hudson and create a “consensus” is destroyed, if tin pot little banana republics want to count for something, they will have to work to cease being tin pot little banana republics.
eero Says:”I think the world still needs an organization where we can pursue a global consensus in difficult issues, which also requires the representatives of non-democratic countries to be heard.”
And I don’t. The notion of a global consensus is offensive to me personally and the UN has never solved any difficult issues - although when it was just a Western club it did. Now it isn’t, it can’t.
eero Says:”Any other ideas how UN could be improved so it could achieve better results? Remove the vetos from UK, Russia, France, China and USA? Give vetos to more countries?”
The vetos are the only things that make the UN acceptable. Why give even more pretense at equality between the Veto powers and non-entities like Syria?
eero Says:”Require more obedience from it’s member by threatning them with something?”
Your “global consensus” would only ever enforce it against the West.
The UN fulfills no role except to give dictators delusions of power. They need to be ignored and preferably overthrown. The UN only stands in the way. It should go.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Italics off now?
Anyway, Nomad -
The army does what it’s told. Simple, really. The French troops are told to shut up, sit tight and do nothing about HA. They are also told to make a show of bothering IDF, so they do that. The involvement is despicable - the troops are just fine (I presume. Don’t know any French UNIFIL troops, but the Scandinavians were dandy in their shorts
).
And the “anarchist behavior” of IDF troops… you mean the surveillance overflights, I am sure. Yes, the French government would like to present it as something bad, so that they would have a nice excuse to show the Islamonazis how they take a firm stand against the Joooooz. It’s pathetic - France knows the overflights will not stop no matter what (Israel needs to know just where HA places its rockets and such), and the silly posturing is obviously a sham to anyone with any idea about military aircraft and how things go in South Lebanon.
And about oggling - hey, I am all for it. Lebanon has some amazingly beautiful girls (especially the Christians - it’s a great Phoenician/European mix… ach, I did my own share of oggling back in the day
). I just used it as a metaphor for doing nothing.
Drima -
The UN needs the kind of reform usually administered with a sledgehammer. Or maybe tar and feathers for some and nice hempen ties for the others.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
totally right us already does every thing
November 29th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I posted the following on “On US Pressure”, and I’m posting it again here since it applies equally as well:
Haven’t you gotten it yet? Everything that’s wrong in the world is the fault of U.S. action except, of course, when it’s the fault of U.S. inaction. Don’t you know the UN isn’t supposed to do anything? The U.S. is supposed to take care of it . . . if the U.S. doesn’t, then the problem is the fault of U.S. inaction. If the U.S. does take action, well, then, any problems are the fault of U.S. action. The UN’s failure to accomplish anything is a nice, neat way the rest of the world can avoid responsibility for anything while awaiting the action (or inaction) of the US, which can then be blamed for whatever is wrong. aaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
November 29th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Meanwhile many are counting on America but America is too busy with Iraq.
How come the Middle-east isn’t doing something about it? This is a middle-eastern couunty with an Arab government slaughtering black Muslims. Why does Israeli on Palestinian violence provoke so much more rage when the scale of the atrocities aren’t even compatible??
November 29th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
And the “anarchist behavior” of IDF troops… you mean the surveillance overflights
I ment the ones who simulated attacks on french campment,
of course we all know that your troops won’t cease overflying Lebanon
I hope the new president, Segolene or Sarko will take the decision to take them out, they seem both more pragmatic than the old Jacques
here is a new song, Segolene vs Sarko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ehx2SHlTbk
November 29th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Aliandra Says:”How come the Middle-east isn’t doing something about it? This is a middle-eastern couunty with an Arab government slaughtering black Muslims. Why does Israeli on Palestinian violence provoke so much more rage when the scale of the atrocities aren’t even compatible??”
It is well known that only Muslims who are killed by Jews, or sometimes Christians, and usually with those special uranium-based weapons, are really dead. Muslims killed by other Muslims are less dead than those killed by Jews. So you only have to be worried about the Muslims being killed by Jewish people, not by Muslims. There is a difference between being “really dead” (i.e. killed by Jews) and “only sort-of dead” (i.e. killed by Muslims).
Hence the lack of outrage.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Amen to that, SM!
November 29th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
You’re spot on with this one, sandmonkey.
A world organizations of democracies should be a major priority. NATO is a first approximation towards it, but obviously territorially limited - because of its origins in mutual defense pacts. Perhaps NATO for Europe; an association of mid east democracies; one of far east democracies; etc., then a central body where they get together.
Rather than pull out of the UN completely, I’d prefer that the US dramatically reduce funding for it (and fund the association of democracies instead). There’s still some - limited - value in a forum where everyone can get together for discussion and debate.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
France is very practical for you to make fun on
Relax, nomad. You know I’m just teasing you.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
hehe Tommy, I know you won’t miss an occasion
November 29th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
HOW ABOUT if we get Sandmonkey to choose a name for our project (Democratic Societies, Democratic Union, UN democratic caucus, League of Democracies, whatever). Then he can start a stub on Wikipedia about it, and we can all have a go at writing the Mission statement, Bill of Rights, Membership rules, rules for electing a chair, etc. Better than reading these frustrating UN stories…
November 29th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
That’s a good idea, incentive-based international government open only to democracies.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
As much as I despise the UN’s current stupidity, it is a mistake to dissolve it as many have demanded. As we say in the US, “That is throwing out the baby with the bath”.
The UN is still needed as a safety valve for international tensions. It is a tool, one of many, that nations can use to resolve differences and defuse tense situations.
The most important function the UN serves is as a way for a nation to back down from a no-win situation without loosing face. It allows the leaders of such nation to blame the UN for theme not fulfilling their promise to bomb their neighbor back to the stone-age.
However, in order to be used in this manner, the UN needs to be respected. The current conduct of the UN is turning it into a laughing stock. It needs to clean up its act, not be dissolved. It allowed itself to become a bully-pulpit for 3rd world dictators.
The solution is to have the UN prune its “missions”. Like any other government, the UN suffers from mission-creep and empire building. It is trying to do to many things. It needs to implement a system that keeps it focused on its core business.
The UN is there to serve as a tool to defuse conflicts… not solve the world’s problems. Making such reforms will allow it to survive and fulfill its charter.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:23 am
The UN is still needed as a safety valve for international tensions. It is a tool, one of many, that nations can use to resolve differences and defuse tense situations.
Oh yeah. They are real good at that. Sorry, I believe more effective bodies could be created for this purpose.
The current conduct of the UN is turning it into a laughing stock.
By the way, the United Nations is sponsoring a fact-finding mission to Gaza. Guess which objective individual they’ve picked to lead the mission? None other than Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Yes, the same Desmond Tutu who has compared Israel to apartheid South Africa and has been active in calling for divestment of Israel.
Of course, this mission is being sponsored by the thugs on the United Nation’s Human Rights Council. Meanwhile, nothing is done about the dire situations in Darfur and the Congo.
Will the comedy never cease!?!
Abolish the UN. They’re officially worthless.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Nomad - I call bullshit on the “mock attacks”. This is not WWII - you don’t strafe or dive-bomb. Modern air attack is the sound of a jet passing a few k’s up in the atmosphere, closely followed by your death - and you only hear the jet when it’s a dew dozen kilometers past you.
BTW… I doubt that your government REALLY wants a war with Israel. Because if it downs a plane, it’s what it’ll get.
Bluff, bullshit, provide cover for terrorists… just the usual UNIFIL operation. In addition to “see no evil hear no evil”, of course.
Tommy - the UN is not just worthless… it’s damn harmful. They provide cover for assorted psychopaths and terrorists, and serve to disseminate the bullshit of the aforementioned lovely people. Not “worthless” in my book… the UN is a terrorist’s best friend, right after the Geneva Accords and the MSM.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:49 am
The UN is irrelevant. For too many of the delegates to the General Assembly, they are the only people in their countries who can cast a meaningful vote. Of course, this is a privilege they almost invariably waste. The world’s most powerful country, at least for the time being, is anti-imperialist and has been for over 200 years, believe it or not. The former imperial powers are still powerful, but not powerful enough to regain their empires.
There has never been an opportunity like this. If the people of any country in the world want to depose whatever tyrant is in charge, there is no external force willing and able to prevent them. Stand up! The question is not why the US is in Iraq; instead, ask why the Iraqis had not themselves hanged Saddam before the US invaded. Why do the Syrians put up with the Great Chinless Ophthamologist? Don’t they have rope? Can’t anyone in Syria tie a knot? Who decided that the presidency could be inherited, like a kingdom?
November 30th, 2006 at 5:25 am
[...] And this is what the UN Human Rights Council has to say. We live in such a wonderful world! [...]
November 30th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Sandmonkey -
Yeah, lol… and why don’t you repeat the feelings in this post to 10 of your friends in Egypt and see what they say.
Top 10 answers -
1) What are you a fing Zionist?
2) Did the Mossad implant a chip in your brain using their secret infrared lasers? (See Arafat aka A Fat Rat)
3) Oh, you’re joking…. lol…
Is that what those poor brainwashed Americans say after watching their Jewish controlled News stations?
November 30th, 2006 at 8:33 am
HeiGou wrote:
[i]“Only the Americans, essentially, have the capacity to do much of anything.”[/i]
And even they can’t occupy two countries simultaneosly. But I don’t think accomplishing something always needs big guns and John Rambo.
[i]“A consensus on means nothing unless the people with agree”[/i]
You are correct, consesus requires that everyone involved agrees.
[i]“The notion of a global consensus is offensive to me personally”[/i]
Does a global consesus on something like “it might not be brightest idea to destroy the world with nukes” or “the children should be supported” offend you also? If so, how?
dick wrote:
[i]“I’d prefer that the US dramatically reduce funding for it”[/i]
How much the US actually funded the UN this year? Or last year?
Mitch wrote:
[i]“The world’s most powerful country, at least for the time being, is anti-imperialist”[/i]
True, and I believe it’ll be anti-imperialist for some time. Losing the two ongoing wars destroyed the imperialist fantasies some had.
[i]“The question is not why the US is in Iraq; instead, ask why the Iraqis had not themselves hanged Saddam before the US invaded.”[/i]
Actually both are good and important questions without a good answer.
It could be also asked why haven’t people of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, Libya, Cuba or Belarus hanged their oppressive leader(s)?
Nargizian:
No, it’s not the jews. Jews are actually just puppets of the Crab People, the same evil masterminds who control the cigarette industry, McDonalds, Myanmar, gypsies and freemasons. The jew gold all jews carry around their neck is a symbol of Kha-Zul, the great Crab Lord who destroyed the Rat Cult led by the evil Treu Panchep in the battle of Kharowet. Before that, jews were controlled by the Rat Cult, where the symbolism of jews at rats originates. Currently the best way to fight the Crab People is to insert a greased pebble shaped like a rat in your rectum each night when you go asleep.
November 30th, 2006 at 9:37 am
#40 eero…I’m not going to spend a lot of time on the UN but it appears that according to the Washington Times 12/07/2005 Ambassador Bolton was not happy with the budget for the UN 2006 at U.S.$ 3.6 billion. Of the 191 countries in the UN it is widely reported that the U.S. contributes the most at 22% or U.S.$792 million. Can’t find if this was actually disbursed or not. The simplistic answer as to why people in shitty dictatorships haven’t given their oppressive rulers a ‘neck-tie party’…simplistic answer is their internal security forces, disappearing opposition forces and all that. Remember Argentina ? And finally to the last paragraph…I absolutely love it.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Ron Larson Says:”The UN is still needed as a safety valve for international tensions. It is a tool, one of many, that nations can use to resolve differences and defuse tense situations.”
Where is there any evidence it has ever served this role - especially given the evidence that it has served to do precisely the opposite. If the UN did not feed and house Palestinians for instance, the Palestinian issue would be solved by now.
Ron Larson Says:”The most important function the UN serves is as a way for a nation to back down from a no-win situation without loosing face. It allows the leaders of such nation to blame the UN for theme not fulfilling their promise to bomb their neighbor back to the stone-age.”
Why is this a good thing? Look at it from the other end - it allows tin pot dictatorships to play with fire right up to the edge safe in the knowledge someone else will pull their chestnuts from the fire. Think Nasir and 1967. Nations ought to suffer if they back down. It will make them think before going to the edge - and notice when it counts, the UN has not helped. It did not in Cuba for instance. No role whatsoever.
Ron Larson Says:”The UN is there to serve as a tool to defuse conflicts… not solve the world’s problems. Making such reforms will allow it to survive and fulfill its charter.”
The UN only pertetuates conflicts. What the world needs is a larger NATO as a basis for a league of Western democratic nations. If the Third World want to take part, they have to play by the rules - Western rules. If they don’t want to they can take a hike. I see no flaws in this plan. Why shouldn’t Iran et al be isolated? Why should we take Grenada seriously?
November 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Sandmonkey,
I was tempted to write a very adult “yeah, but” kind of reply to you, but I decided not to……
and then I found this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6195830.stm
Disband them. Send them all home, if we don’t have the nerve to prosecute them.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
“They may be military men but they are also humanitarian workers,” Sarah Martin told the BBC.
This is why the military should NEVER be used as Peacekeepers. You wouldn’t use a sword to butter you’re toast would you? The job of keeping the peace requires a very specific set of skills. Diplomacy and investigative analysis aren’t normally found in a combat unit. I’m not saying troops aren’t able to learn these things but if you split their attention then their primary job, that of making the enemy die for his country, degrades.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
eero,
“And even they can’t occupy two countries simultaneosly.”
Actually, we’ve occupied Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Qatar.
The list of countries without active duty US troops is a very small one. Check out this map: http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.htm
November 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
#36, Racoon,
how comes I can see your post just now, ? are you moderated ?
well, I told It was political “threatenings”, someone has to start a presidential campaign… and you guess : it is not de Villepin, it is not Chirac, it is Alliot-Marie, who represents with the both, the old team fashion !
she will no way get some great support from frenchs, everybody has enough of the old team ! and especially the army, which she is ment to represent as a minister
hey, Segolene is by your country next sunday, unless Hzh morder her till then
December 1st, 2006 at 7:38 am
hey, to those who have a problem with the moderation system of this blog, if you have a few email or gmail addresses, if one doesn’t work anymore, try the other ones, this is how I “conturned” the “modérateur suprême”
December 1st, 2006 at 8:18 am
Positively astonished, I was, when I read this:
Turning to the Middle East, Mr. Annan noted that the Council – which replaced the discredited Commission on Human Rights earlier this year – has held all three of its special sessions so far on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
“I hope, however, that the Council will take care to handle this issue in an impartial way, and not allow it to monopolize attention at the expense of others where there are equally grave or even graver violations.
“There are surely other situations, besides the one in the Middle East, which would merit scrutiny by a special session of this Council. I would suggest that Darfur is a glaring case in point.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20770&Cr=rights&Cr1=council
December 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am
OMG…Darfur is going to merit scrutiny (perhaps). 191 countries, 5 brain cells and no balls. No I say, that is unfair. If not for the UN then where else would a whole bunch of retrograded 10th world anti-U.S. semi-intelligent ^%^$##%^ &^$#$ ##$%U& get to be bribed by China and Russia to piss on the U.S. at every avaliable opportunity ? Good housing, three 5 star squares a day and never a cent to spend AND immunity from prosecution. OK, I want to be a UN ambassador.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:53 am
scooter, I veto you
December 1st, 2006 at 11:32 am
Damn, Les Francais l’ont fait encore. Les Miserables. Rainbow Warrior.
December 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
euh, Rainbow warrior was your ennemy
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:56 am
Not our enemy. Was yours though. Fancy the French Secret Service (DGSE) blowing up a peace ship in a foreign harbour. Naughty French, naughty.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:14 am
I did not know you like the lefty green-peace
yeah, that was under Mitterand 1st, With this brillant idiot Fabius as prime-minister, and one of the actors was Segolene Royal’s Brother
I am a bit desapointed by her, what she said in ME is not very diplomatic, or I don’t know all the given things ; yes, of course she is in campaign too ; seems her customers are between 18-25 years old , might be the surburbs, which she promised to solve (with the army, and take off the wealth revenue to the parents who leave their children outside late at night)
I wanted to give her time to learn her job, because she very well managed her first fight against the old rose elephants legion, I expected her to learn very quickly how to manage the foreign affairs, I give one more chance, (who never has done mistakes)
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:06 am
54…mon petit baguette, I’d rather save the planet than fuck it, even if it means shooting those who would destroy it. The Rainbow Warrior thing was not one of France’s better days. Sounds like she is the same as some of our politicians, take the money off the parents if their kids are out on the streets, not at school etc. I’ll leave your politics to you. regards..little pom pom
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
http://aussiebboys.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/kangaroo.gif
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:56 pm
IT’S NOT ONE OR THE OTHER – It’s both. I agree it’s premature (and unnecessary) to close the UN, but if a body of democratic societies met across the street, the democratic body would implicitly become the “Upper House”, and it would gain immediate credibility. FreedomHouse.org is already trying to establish a “democratic caucus” within the UN, and they may help us. Bill Gates may throw in a bit of $$. Ask UN reporters to cross the street occasionally. Get Colin Powell (or someone well known) to rep the US. Maggie Thatcher may stick up for Britain. Pamela Anderson for Canada. Eventually, the country reps should be elected by the populace of each country. Rules of membership – FreedomHouse rules. Voting status: 5 continuous yrs on the freedomhouse list. Chair and Cabinet officers elected by free vote from the floor. Observer status: any UN member. Later, set up a lower house, consisting of representation by population. “Security Council” – 10 largest democracies, no vetos. “Human Rights Council” chaired by Israel.
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
#56..nomad…..leave my mum out of this !
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
apparently she likes drinking beer
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Yes, mainly mine unfortunately.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:44 am
Well, the conversation seems to be continuing, so what I write might actually get read.
Everyone who has spoken in favour of dismantling the UN have a lot of animosity towards it, and for very good reasons. I can offer plenty more off the top of my head.
Thing is, I can’t help but thinking that greek proverb: “it’s the donkey’s fault but we’re beating the saddle”.
Here in Greece one of the most corrupt goverment agencies is the one handing out building permits. But do I want it dismantled? No, because I believe the fault lies with everyone who wanted to have the rules bent in their favour, get a building permit quickly or even stop competitors set up shop. They are the ones who generated, bred and conditioned the problem.
It’s easy to say ‘abolish the UN’. As easy as saying ‘it’s all the Frenchs’ fault’ or ‘once dictators are toppled democracy will flourish’. Nevertheless there is a chasm between theory and practice, and as abolishing the building permit bureau will leave everyone unchecked with disastrous results for the cities, abolishing the UN will mean shutting down necessary diplomatic channels.
Oh, you thought the UN was established to do actual work?
I am more worried about countries involved in the war against terror getting absolution for everything. Pakistan is a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is…you know better than I do, Egyptian police torture prisoners and keep them in indefinately without charges, that’s why CIA sends prisoners there, and now Syria is offering to help with Iraq. It won’t be the General Assembly that will sell Lebanon upriver.