It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UN at its best

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
The UN is going to use $30 million of the Iraqie peoples money from the Oil for food progam, to fund a fraud probe into the UN's handling of Iraqi oil sales.

The UN is using the money of Iraq to invesigate if they misused the money of the Iraqie people.


This is the UN at its best people



www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
well if they find there is missing money then it wouldnt happen again.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The UN is worthless!



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The UN is worthless!


That's putting it mildly.
They've actually attained a negative value now, not just a zero value. The U.N. actually makes things worse when they get involved.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud


That's putting it mildly.
They've actually attained a negative value now, not just a zero value. The U.N. actually makes things worse when they get involved.

so your saying the UN law and geneva convention are bad? make a situation worse?
or do you say all the relief programs that have been set up and are funded by the UN are useless?
or the idea of many countries talking instead of bombing the crap out of each other doesnt appeal to you?



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
So your saying the UN law and geneva convention are bad? make a situation worse? or do you say all the relief programs that have been set up and are funded by the UN are useless? or the idea of many countries talking instead of bombing the crap out of each other doesnt appeal to you?


When the U.N. was a young organization, it did some good things. But over the last several decades it has become one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. The U.N. still has a lot of potential, but until it's cleaned up from the inside out, it will continue to be the detriment it is today.

It doesn't help either that the U.N. considers republics and dictatorships equivalent in its eyes. Communist nations should be put on a probation of some kind as members, and outright dictatorships should be banned from the U.N. The nations these dictators took over could be readmitted to the U.N. once a republic has been re-established.

The main problem the U.N. has with relief programs is that, while they look good on paper, in practice the money, food, medical supplies, etc. rarely ends up going to the intended people in need. They usually end up in the hands of the dictators and warlords that caused the human suffering in the first place that brought about the establishment of said relief programs. The program's intentions are noble, but the corruption gets to the relief program first. The U.N. has to fix problems like this.

Of course I don't want countries bombing the crap out of each other. But I don't want to be railroaded into an agenda that hurts my country, or many countries, though a corrupt organization either.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
People, although I do admit that the UN has its problems, I'd like you guys to consider these two elements:

A) The UN is made up of individual governments. There is a bureaucratic culture, for sure, but individual governments laid down the groundwork.

B) The UN is made up of many divisions, some of which function better than others.

For example, UNESCO (United Nations for Education, Science and Culture Organization) has been active in identifying, protecting and promoting world heritage sites all over the planet. Among those:

- Notre-Dame Cathedral in Tournai, Belgium
- Royal Palaces of Abomey, Bnin
- Central Amazon Conservation Complex, Brazil
- Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks, Canada
- The Great Wall, China
- Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur, Egypt
- Chartres Cathedral, France
- Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin, Germany
- Acropolis, Athens, Greece
- Piazza del Duomo, Pisa, Italy
- Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, Israel (proposed by Jordan)
- Yosemite National Park, United States of America

A lot more of those here: whc.unesco.org...

UNESCO has also set a goal of education for all by 2015, and endeavors to provide aid and resources to member countries to promote education (portal.unesco.org...=8369&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).

What I mean by this is that for sure, the United Nations is not perfect and requires reform. But doing away with it would mean doing away with a lot of less-known programs in which there is some good. I think the philosophy here should be "If it's broken, fix it" and not "If it's broken, throw it away".



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Since how does it cost 30 million to do an investigation ?

..........

Deep



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud


When the U.N. was a young organization, it did some good things. But over the last several decades it has become one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. The U.N. still has a lot of potential, but until it's cleaned up from the inside out, it will continue to be the detriment it is today.

It doesn't help either that the U.N. considers republics and dictatorships equivalent in its eyes. Communist nations should be put on a probation of some kind as members, and outright dictatorships should be banned from the U.N. The nations these dictators took over could be readmitted to the U.N. once a republic has been re-established.

The main problem the U.N. has with relief programs is that, while they look good on paper, in practice the money, food, medical supplies, etc. rarely ends up going to the intended people in need. They usually end up in the hands of the dictators and warlords that caused the human suffering in the first place that brought about the establishment of said relief programs. The program's intentions are noble, but the corruption gets to the relief program first. The U.N. has to fix problems like this.

Of course I don't want countries bombing the crap out of each other. But I don't want to be railroaded into an agenda that hurts my country, or many countries, though a corrupt organization either.

one thing before i make my reply, you know why its curupt? its because countries DONT obey its rules and the countries that do are not prepared to send troops in and sort the mess out. frankly its not that bad , hell i would love to wear a blue beret, thats the hardest task any soldier can face is stopping a war , not starting one. i mean a UN troop cleans up the mess his comrades made or enemy made. hell an army member of the black watch came to my school , iwent and asked him if he done UN dutyy and what it was like. he said it was a difficult task and he helped get wounded civies outa , think it was bosnia. said it was one of the best things he's done was getting them out of the fire.

firstly there is no comunist goverment in existance in the world and has never been one. secondly look up comunism before you make a comment on how evil it is.

easier said than done , unless the world's goverments are prepared to bring down the dictator there is little chance of re-establishment.

so its the UN's fault that it cant protect its civilain workers ? want to know one reason ? many goverments have given up on the UN want to know why ? its because they dont like all these noble things hell they would do buisness with them all the time if they could , if it helped thier country. also one thing the UN does needs is to become more harsher on self defense.

also what curruption are you referring to?
and rail roaded? i do belive all actions made are optional



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ThunderCloud


That's putting it mildly.
They've actually attained a negative value now, not just a zero value. The U.N. actually makes things worse when they get involved.

so your saying the UN law and geneva convention are bad? make a situation worse?


Yes - I say UN law is worthless. Remember according to UN law the UN should have gone into Iraq. But because countries are allowed to veto, they will look out for their own best intrests instead of upholdig the spirit of the law and resolution (France, Germany, Russia and Iraq ring a bell?).

The Geneva convention is good in theory, but in practice will only be practiced by a few countries, and even then individual soldiers will break it.



or do you say all the relief programs that have been set up and are funded by the UN are useless?


Yes, I say they are all useless because they are so wastefull. And guess whos money is being wasted - yours and especially mine.



or the idea of many countries talking instead of bombing the crap out of each other doesnt appeal to you?


Give me a break. No one wants that, but the UN doesn't do too much of this either.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
firstly there is no comunist goverment in existance in the world and has never been one. secondly look up comunism before you make a comment on how evil it is.


You're right; Communism can't exist naturally because it goes against human nature. Most 'Communist' countries are really just dictatorships in disguise -- so the U.N. should ban them too, since they're really dictatorships.

I don't think Communism as it's written on paper is 'evil'; but I do think that it's one of many grandiose ideas that will never work in the real world because it fails to take human nature, as well as inherent human rights & freedoms, into account. In real world applications, Communist countries quickly deteriorate into dictatorships, like a manufactured element created in a chemistry lab quickly deteriorates into a simpler, naturally occuring element.


Originally posted by devilwasp
easier said than done , unless the world's goverments are prepared to bring down the dictator there is little chance of re-establishment.


True, which is why the removal of Milosivec in Yugoslavia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Heussein in Iraq are good things. Other dictators should beware, and know that the only reason they're still in power is because they can only be removed one by one (as a single removal of a dictator and the re-establishment of a rebublic can take several years of work).

I don't advocate the destruction of the U.N., or for the U.S. to leave the U.N.; but, the U.N.'s house is full of ants, termites, roaches, and spiders, and some major fumigation needs to take place there.



[edit on 10/18/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Yes - I say UN law is worthless. Remember according to UN law the UN should have gone into Iraq. But because countries are allowed to veto, they will look out for their own best intrests instead of upholdig the spirit of the law and resolution (France, Germany, Russia and Iraq ring a bell?).

The Geneva convention is good in theory, but in practice will only be practiced by a few countries, and even then individual soldiers will break it.

mad man the countries that did veto did so because they wanted more info, not because they didnt want to go in , they didnt want to go in with the info availible. you see?




Yes, I say they are all useless because they are so wastefull. And guess whos money is being wasted - yours and especially mine.


i wouldnt say so.
remember bosnia?
was that justified?



Give me a break. No one wants that, but the UN doesn't do too much of this either.

you'd be suprised, they have a meeting every month i think.
see all these third world countries? they are in peace talks alot.
did you know the UN has its on anti terrorist comittee?



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud


You're right; Communism can't exist naturally because it goes against human nature. Most 'Communist' countries are really just dictatorships in disguise -- so the U.N. should ban them too, since they're really dictatorships.

lol
yeah.


I don't think Communism as it's written on paper is 'evil'; but I do think that it's one of many grandiose ideas that will never work in the real world because it fails to take human nature, as well as inherent human rights & freedoms, into account. In real world applications, Communist countries quickly deteriorate into dictatorships, like a manufactured element created in a chemistry lab quickly deteriorates into a simpler, naturally occuring element.

yeah but it really takes the right group of people to work. most anarchists are alot like comunists.
there has actually never been a real comunist country u know that?




True, which is why the removal of Milosivec in Yugoslavia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Heussein in Iraq are good things. Other dictators should beware, and know that the only reason they're still in power is because they can only be removed one by one (as a single removal of a dictator and the re-establishment of a rebublic can take several years of work).

yeah tru true.



I don't advocate the destruction of the U.N., or for the U.S. to leave the U.N.; but, the U.N.'s house is full of ants, termites, roaches, and spiders, and some major fumigation needs to take place there.


yeah mabye a change of leader ship and a few charter changes.


]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

mad man the countries that did veto did so because they wanted more info, not because they didnt want to go in , they didnt want to go in with the info availible. you see?

No - the reason they didn't want to go in was purely economical. They all stood to loose billions of dollars. Oil For Food scandal ring a bell?



i wouldnt say so.
remember bosnia?
was that justified?


Yeah - I remember Bosnia... We did some good things there, and lost some very good men. BTW, how is that country doing today? What was solved?




you'd be suprised, they have a meeting every month i think.
see all these third world countries? they are in peace talks alot.
did you know the UN has its on anti terrorist comittee?


Of course they have a meeting every month. They probably have 50 because thats all the UN does - talk.

Of course the UN has an anti-terrorist comitee. They have one for everything and waste everyones money doing it to make a few of these people rich.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

No - the reason they didn't want to go in was purely economical. They all stood to loose billions of dollars. Oil For Food scandal ring a bell?


no really if you look up it says they wanted to wait for more to get more info.

[quote[
Yeah - I remember Bosnia... We did some good things there, and lost some very good men. BTW, how is that country doing today? What was solved?
no its not its stable but still simmering, so to speak. that army guy i told ya about? he was donig that not in the war but only a few years ago.





Of course they have a meeting every month. They probably have 50 because thats all the UN does - talk.

talking helps. belive me it helps alot.


Of course the UN has an anti-terrorist comitee. They have one for everything and waste everyones money doing it to make a few of these people rich.

no this comittee actually invented a charter on international law concerning terrorists. the US gov is using it today. they organise with interpoll to do stuff.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
The honour acheived by being a peacekeeper is better than a normal grunt.in my unit, my RSM is a two-term peacekeeper veteran.He displays his blue jungle hat proudly behind his desk.




top topics



 
0

log in

join