how come nobody is busting the UN's chops?

[thegirlfriday11]

they have been the most ineffective organization since they were started

they let inspections go on for years, writing resolution after resolution

i think they should also be held accountable for the runaway terrorism in the world

what the hell good is the UN if they won't ever really do anything?

the securities council and atomic energy commission were created to control nuclear weapons proliferations....

well, they pretty much fucked that up too

what does the UN and securities council actually do?

they've been in place since the 1940's and they haven't done a very good job at all

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

they have been the most ineffective organization since they were started

they let inspections go on for years, writing resolution after resolution

i think they should also be held accountable for the runaway terrorism in the world

what the hell good is the UN if they won't ever really do anything?

the securities council and atomic energy commission were created to control nuclear weapons proliferations....

well, they pretty much fucked that up too

what does the UN and securities council actually do?

they've been in place since the 1940's and they haven't done a very good job at all

I think the worst part is the corruption that was exposed when it became clear that France and Germany were resisting taking action against Saddam and it was found out later that Saddam was bribing them with money from the oil-for-food program that was authorized by the UN instead of Saddam using the money to feed his starving populace.

With this type of corruption, it's worse than ineffective, it's criminal.

 

[thegirlfriday11]

i agree

why isn't the world pissed at the UN for not doing its job?

if they would have taqken care of business, the US, UK, and other world powers wouldn't have to police the world

 

[Fagin]

If we bust their chops they'll pass 17 resolutions saying we are bad bad bad people. Ooooh that's got us shaking in our boots.

 

[LadyG]

"police the world"??

So don't. Just leave everyone else alone and let them do their thing. Simple concept.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

i agree

why isn't the world pissed at the UN for not doing its job?

if they would have taqken care of business, the US, UK, and other world powers wouldn't have to police the world

Don't forget the International Criminal Court (ICC) that Kerry wants us to join. They've already proven their nothing more than a policial tool for the EU and have little or nothing to do with true "Justice".

 

[gman23]

I blame the SuperBestFriends.

 

[thegirlfriday11]

"police the world"??

So don't. Just leave everyone else alone and let them do their thing. Simple concept.

sure, let's give everyone nuclear weapons, let's let dictators run rampant...

 

[JustSkye]

"police the world"??

So don't. Just leave everyone else alone and let them do their thing. Simple concept.

Exactly . And they will continue to do their own thing regardless of who is around . It's been that way for a very very long time . Why we have to babysit the world or seem to and ruin this country doing it is beyond me.

 

[LadyG]

Exactly . And they will continue to do their own thing regardless of who is around . It's been that way for a very very long time . Why we have to babysit the world or seem to and ruin this country doing it is beyond me.

I you.

 

[LadyG]

sure, let's give everyone nuclear weapons, let's let dictators run rampant...

They already do. Oh wait, that's Bush, sorry!

 

[thegirlfriday11]

They already do. Oh wait, that's Bush, sorry!

sorry, but nuclear weapons got to other countries that weren't supposed to have them long before bush

the UN and security council have never done their jobs

 

[LadyG]

So who decides who can and can't have them? The U.S?

LOL..I don't think so.

 

[bluespoke]

sorry, but nuclear weapons got to other countries that weren't supposed to have them long before bush

the UN and security council have never done their jobs

Weren't supposed to have them?

Do you think you own the place?

 

[CoolBlue74]

i agree

why isn't the world pissed at the UN for not doing its job?

if they would have taqken care of business, the US, UK, and other world powers wouldn't have to police the world

*stalk*

And I love stalking you too TGIF.

And I couldn't agree more. The UN SHOULD police the world. At least to the point that countries aren't massacring people.

 

[thegirlfriday11]

So who decides who can and can't have them? The U.S?

LOL..I don't think so.

read the history of nuclear weapons development, the UN and the securities council

On October 24, 1945, with the ratification of the UN Charter by the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, and France, the United Nations was established to address issues concerning world peace; friendly international relations; the protection of human rights and dignity; the promotion and progress of society; the equality of nations; beneficial uses of atomic energy; and, to protect future generations from the threat of war. Prior attempts at world peace organizations and international conflict control had largely failed due to disagreements between national parties; however, the profound dangers posed to world security by the threat of atomic weaponry demanded that control measures be taken and international laws concerning atomic energy were enforced. On January 24, 1946, the UN established the Atomic Energy commission to oversee and control issues related to the use and misuse of atomic energy, as well as govern the scientific knowledge and proliferation of materials related to fission and fissionable materials. Despite attempts at resolution, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. could not reach any non-proliferation agreements.
Perhaps no other nation understood the immediate need for control over atomic energy use and world security than the U.S., since it was responsible for creating the atomic bomb. On June 14, 1946, Bernard Baruch, representing the U.S., presented a plan to the UN concerning international control of nuclear resources and the uses of atomic energy, disarmament agreements, on-site inspections, as well as peacekeeping issues, human rights, and the need for collective world security. The Baruch Plan deemed that all nations should hand over their atomic energy development programs to the Security Council for international control; and, once this had been done, the US would do likewise. The Soviet Union vetoed the plan. They felt the plan gave the US a monopoly on atomic energy and weapons and feared the Americans were attempting to oppress them into nuclear inferiority. They countered with the Gromyko Plan, which called for US nuclear disarmament followed by national disarmament with possible inspections. The failure of the Baruch plan undermined the ability of the UN and the Security Council to implement and enforce international relations and disarmament.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Weren't supposed to have them?

Do you think you own the place?

Good question. Where does self-preservation justify meddling in another countries business. An issue worthy of a good debate. I must say, I have some personal concerns for my safety if nuclear weapons get in the hands of terrorists or rogue dictators/nations. I live near Washington DC and would probably be incinerated if a bomb went off in town.

 

[CoolBlue74]

I have a vested interest into the ongoings of all of mankind. What happens today in a small village in Africa COULD affect me tomorrow. Genocide is not a tolerable option.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[phrodeau]

Last time I checked, the US was part of the UN. Maybe if the US paid its dues and used some clout to improve the organization from within, it could do what it's meant to do.

 

[BigGator5]

Originally posted by phrodeau
Last time I checked, the US was part of the UN. Maybe if the US paid its dues and used some clout to improve the organization from within, it could do what it's meant to do.

I think we should withhold our dues. We pay on time and we give away billions in foreign aid each year.

I mean, the UN gets billions from bribs and kickbacks anyway... http://eteamz.com/sites/kulit/images/whaat.gif

 

[islandman]

they have been the most ineffective organization since they were started

The UN is only as effective as the political will of its constituent members, ie, the Security Council. With all Security members pursuing their own agenda, what you've seen over the past 20 years is as effective as it's capable of being given that it's being tugged in several directions at once.

However, with the nomination of an Indonesian Muslim to replace Kofi as the next Secretary-General, going forward I think you're going to see a UN that will strive to better represent second- and third-world countries and their objectives.

 

[Adrenaline]

I think we should withhold our dues. We pay on time and we give away billions in foreign aid each year.

I mean, the UN gets billions from bribs and kickbacks anyway... http://eteamz.com/sites/kulit/images/whaat.gif

A lot of those "billions" of foreign aid never actually materialize beyond paper. I am not implying that first world countries do not actually contribute, just that much of it is announced in front of cameras flashing and then tabled for years.

In any case, I find the tone I see from some about "busting the UN's chops" as if our own countries aren't apart of said organization rather amusing.

 

[Imgollum]

I know of an easy way to solve the problem with the UN, move them to France and close our checkbook. The UN is nothing more than a bad liberal joke. Then we need some leadership with a spine. Not the PC crap that we have been dealing with for the last couple of decades.

History is about to repeat itself where the world will be polarized to two sides, muslim and non muslim. The only thing that will breach that gap is greed and some countries willingness to sell others out, hell even their own securtiy, for money and a secure powerbase for themselves. The UN's food for oil program proved that. Greed can transcend all religious beliefs.

When your dealing with cultures that are willing to kill themselves and you because their god is better than yours, there is nothing a UN could do to prevent them.

 

[thegirlfriday11]

A lot of those "billions" of foreign aid never actually materialize beyond paper. I am not implying that first world countries do not actually contribute, just that much of it is announced in front of cameras flashing and then tabled for years.

In any case, I find the tone I see from some about "busting the UN's chops" as if our own countries aren't apart of said organization rather amusing.

i said UN, which implies all of its members
i didn't exclude the US

a lot of people are wanting to point their fingers at the US or certain US leaders for problems

yes, the US does create their fair share of problems, but we also help solve a lot of the world's problems..and it seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't

if you look at the security council resolutions you'll find countless numbers of letters sent to certain countries...the same letter sent for years in some cases...demanding that fighting should cease and desist or inspectors should be allowed in..or the UN would take serious action...what are they gonna do...send another form letter?!

yeah, that'll have them complying

 

[woody54]

Re: Re: how come nobody is busting the UN's chops?

I think the worst part is the corruption that was exposed when it became clear that France and Germany were resisting taking action against Saddam and it was found out later that Saddam was bribing them with money from the oil-for-food program that was authorized by the UN instead of Saddam using the money to feed his starving populace.

With this type of corruption, it's worse than ineffective, it's criminal.

Oh I see your point which has nothing to do with

1) The US has denigrated, undefunded and undermined the ooperations of the UN for years now because world opinion expressed through UN decisions did not favour US selfish interests. The UN is based on consensus, so when it no linger worked in US favour, they broke their crayons and turned spoilers.

2) France and Germany have a much longer history at the pointy end of International relations than the US and obviously they saw through the fatuous lies the US presented as its case for war. To cry corruption is a bit rich with the truth being now clear and I would be dubious about such claims when the aspect of sore loser is so strong here.l