Quote:

---

The U.N.: Threat or Menace?

---

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

---

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*

---

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"

---

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?

---

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.

---

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".

---

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?

---

Quote:

---

Geezer:

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

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!!!!!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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"

---

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.

---

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.

---

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."

---

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).

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---