Should the UN go away?

AceofBase - Good work in reminding us of UNICEF, UNMOVIC and others. There's also UNESCO (United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization), which among others designates World Heritage Sites (the Isle of Goree in Senegal, from which many slaves left for the Americas, is one).

For some reason I can't fathom, the United States retreated from UNESCO in the 80's.

Verfed, an Israeli leader was also assasinated (by an Israeli) for supporting a peace deal with the Palestinians. There are a lot of radicals over there.

The UN does belong in Israel.
The Israelis should not be allowed to just do whatever the hell they feel like doing if what they happen to feel like doing is invading other countries and infringing upon the rights of Palestinians.

I can't believe you are suggesting that they should just move to another country and leave behind the land they inhabited for so long.




[edit on 7-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by Otts
AceofBase - Good work in reminding us of UNICEF, UNMOVIC and others.

I stopped pointing to the good parts of the UN. If posted people just drop out of discussion as it's against their big picture that the UN is bad and a waste of money. Sad.

Originally posted by AceOfBase
You want to get rid of UNICEF, who helps children around the world?

You want to get rid of UNMOVIC, who it seems did manage to keep Saddam's weapons programs in check?

You want to get rid of the IAEA, who works to monitor nuclear programs around the world and attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation? Who would you replace them with?

You want to get rid of the World Health Organization, that tries to eliminate disease around the world?

How about the World Food Program, who provides food to refugees and victims of natural disasters?
Do you think the US should take over their responsibilities?

How about ILO - International Labour Organization, FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization?

Do you think the US should take over all of the programs that the UN currently runs or should they all be abandoned?

Yes to all of them, the aid can still get to the folks who need it. The UN is just plain too corrupt and its time has passed. Just what we need a bloated world organization that is corrupt and dictating laws?

The UN sucks! GET THE US OUT OF THE UN!

This comment comes from somebody savely born in a western country!
Come on, if not pressured the western countries wouldn't care that much about international health and social care programs for Africa and other lost places all around the world.
The UN as body governing over other governments has failed and I can agree that that this concept won't work and isn't a perfect idea at all.

The other, actually all together, bigger parts of the UN are a worthful addition to our world and without them many people would suffer more than they already do. Think about that.

Just removing the UN is populustic and election rhetoric but not an approach to a better world.

Yitzchak Rabin the Israeli prime minister was giving Israeli land away for "peace." He didn't understand that the "palestinians" want the whole pie not just a piece. If Rabin was willing to give a little land away for "peace" then wouldn't he be willing to give a lot more? He should not have been assasinated by a bullet just by a voter ballot.

ace,

As for dropping the programs you pointed out....especially those. Look at the cost to run those�even the financially irresponsible US charities do a better job of distributing money �..those programs do a little good and line a whole bunch of pockets.

Surf,

The links that I asked for have absolutely nothing to do with your previous post so I�m still waiting for your links.

Originally posted by keholmes
ace,

As for dropping the programs you pointed out....especially those. Look at the cost to run those�even the financially irresponsible US charities do a better job of distributing money �..those programs do a little good and line a whole bunch of pockets.

If your'e going to make statements like that, back them up with links please.

Here's the Administrative and fundraising costs for some UN orgs:

UNICEF.org
How much money spent by UNICEF goes toward administrative costs?
In 2002, the total UNICEF expenditure was $1,273 million. Of this, 93 per cent was spent on its programmes around the world, six per cent went to management and administration and one per cent to write-offs and other charges.

State.gov
UN Development Program (UNDP)
Its administrative expenditures
were $405 million or 15.4 percent of the total.

World Food Programme (WFP)
WFP�s overhead averages nine percent. Its budget is performance based. The WFP has the largest budget, the smallest permanent staff, and the lowest percentage of administrative costs within the UN system.

[edit on 8-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

[edit on 8-10-2004 by AceOfBase]

Originally posted by verfed
Can you defend anymore of those absolutely ridiculous resolutions ?

Not that hard. I'll bite, verfed. All of the below are vetoed by the US, with the entire Security council either for or in absention of the motion. Taken right from the source: Vetoed Middle East Motions, UN Security Council

Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459.

Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000.

Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1

Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2.

Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434)

Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780)

Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions.

Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers.

Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993

Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza

Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers.

Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence.

Kind of them, eh? Vetoing objections to attacking civilians and respecting holy sites.

As for my opinion of the Un, I think it just needs some rearrangement, for instance teh removal of veto power from the Security Council. A surprising amount of good has come from the UN, whether we see it or not.

DE

Ace,

there are no links to that, as the base org UN supports those organizations and that funding is not identified as part of their budget....although the UN does help...as for other concerns....here is a link it is to another thread here on ATS documenting UN support for Hamas....man what a great organization such a good thing.
www.abovetopsecret.com... so we are by funding the UN directly funding terrorism. Let�s see lefties scream rant and rave trying to connect bush to funding terrorism go through endless contortions to try to make something that is not true, fly�..and then want to directly fund terrorism. And again go through all sorts of contortions about what a great help and how we wouldn�t be here blah blah blah�.all while this organization directly supports terrorism.

If the UN has no business in Isreal, then they have no business anywhere.

My point of this thread was this:

The UN passed many sanctions on Iraq, of which many were violated. Did this stop anything in Iraq? NO.

Did the US have UN support to go to war with Iraq? NO.

So, the UN passes sanctions that aren't followed but does nothing. The US goes to the UN for support and doesn't get it, but does our own thing anyway.

WHAT GOOD IS THE UN? Aside from the charitable organizations that could be run without the UN, it appears the UN is a dog with a big bark but no bite.

Originally posted by keholmes
so we are by funding the UN directly funding terrorism. Let�s see lefties scream rant and rave trying to connect bush to funding terrorism go through endless contortions to try to make something that is not true, fly�..and then want to directly fund terrorism. And again go through all sorts of contortions about what a great help and how we wouldn�t be here blah blah blah�.all while this organization directly supports terrorism.

WOW do you nail that one spot on!@ Cheers m8, I ahve been saying this for years and now that the oil for food is out, do we have any doubts now?