Is there a place for the UN?

csforstall · 10-17-2004, 13:18

I believe that Kofi Annan made this statement earlier today.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/iraq_annan_4

It seems all he can do is stand there and crticize.

Aside from ducking and runnning has the UN anything to offer? is it an institution that need to be completely dsbanded or will reforms work? All it really seems capable of is dropping a few goods to those in need and lining the pockets of the bueraucrats who ordered the operation. I beleive that UN has a place, I just think it lost in long ago.

Solid · 10-17-2004, 14:39

I think that having the UN maintain the perception of utter impartiality by criticising the US will only help make the coming elections in Iraq seem more legitimate, which may be an important factor in developing a stable Iraqi nation.

JMO,

Solid

rubberneck · 10-17-2004, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by csforstall

I believe that Kofi Annan made this statement earlier today.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/iraq_annan_4

It seems all he can do is stand there and crticize.

Aside from ducking and runnning has the UN anything to offer? is it an institution that need to be completely dsbanded or will reforms work? All it really seems capable of is dropping a few goods to those in need and lining the pockets of the bueraucrats who ordered the operation. I beleive that UN has a place, I just think it lost in long ago.

It seems to me that Kofi Annan lives in some other world. Either he is a pathological liar or he is delusional, either way the UN under his leadership has become a haven for anti-US sentiment. The UN has been trending towards an anti-US sentiment over the last 20 years but under his watch it has come to the point where everything we do causes the General Assembly to fly into fits of rage.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 10-17-2004, 20:38

Generates some interesting signals, I would imagine.

szechuan · 10-17-2004, 20:54

I think the UN, including Mr.Annan, should stay out of politics all together. Just focus helping those in need through UNESCO etc. and try to trim the organization of useless bureaucrats. It seems to me the UN is just a playground for the political elite of the developing world, which also makes it impossible to address the widespread corruption and other real issues in those countries.

But nice to see Mr.Annan has so much trust on the French and Russian leadership. Ask any ordinary joe on the streets of Paris or Moscow and he might give a slightly different answer.

Gypsy · 10-17-2004, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by csforstall

I believe that Kofi Annan made this statement earlier today.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...a/iraq_annan_4

It seems all he can do is stand there and crticize.

Aside from ducking and runnning has the UN anything to offer? is it an institution that need to be completely dsbanded or will reforms work? All it really seems capable of is dropping a few goods to those in need and lining the pockets of the bueraucrats who ordered the operation. I beleive that UN has a place, I just think it lost in long ago.

He did, I watched him do so on Fox News. Nothing like aiding the terrorists with his BS rhetoric. I think he is an oxygen thief and the UN is a waste.

Solid · 10-17-2004, 21:05

The UN was designed by us to be an integral part of politics. I agree that what Annan said about France, Germany and Russia may be particularly false, but nonetheless I think that this statement, and his statement on ensuring fairness in the upcoming Iraq elections, will overall benefit the US.

JMO,

Solid

Gypsy · 10-17-2004, 21:12

Hmmm...which statement Solid?

This one:

Quote:

"I cannot say the world is safer when you consider the violence around us, when you look around you and see the terrorist attacks around the world and you see what is going on in Iraq," Annan told ITV network.

seems to contradict this one:

Quote:

"We have a lot of work to do as an international community to try and make the world safer," he said in an interview with the network's "The Jonathan Dimbleby Program."

I mean...how do we make the world a safer place if taking out terrorists and those that aid them is not one and the same? Maybe I'm being to simplistic in my thinking...

CommoGeek · 10-17-2004, 21:41

The UN's role is as a bitter, unfullfilled footnote in history, another idea with good initiative and poor judgement.

It does have legitimacy in other countries, but that's about it; a political or moral tool is all.

Solid · 10-18-2004, 02:52

Gypsy,
In both cases he describes the world as an unsafe place. In the first quote, he talks about specific causes of this unsafeness, in the second a potential remedy.
At least, that's my interpretation.

Solid

**The Reaper** · 10-18-2004, 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid

Gypsy,
In both cases he describes the world as an unsafe place. In the first quote, he talks about specific causes of this unsafeness, in the second a potential remedy.
At least, that's my interpretation.

Solid

Once he said that there was no problem with the Oil for Food program, I decided that he was either a lying SOB, or is self-delusionart, neither good qualities in the leader of the UN as it was intended to be.

Looks to me like the place for the UN is going to be in the annals of history, along with the League of Nations.

TR

**The Reaper** · 10-18-2004, 05:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid

Gypsy,
In both cases he describes the world as an unsafe place. In the first quote, he talks about specific causes of this unsafeness, in the second a potential remedy.
At least, that's my interpretation.

Solid

Once he said that there was no problem with the Oil for Food program, I decided that he was either a lying SOB, or is self-delusionary, neither good qualities in the leader of the UN as it was intended to be.

Looks to me like the place for the UN is going to be in the annals of history, along with the League of Nations.

TR

10-18-2004, 06:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Once he said that there was no problem with the Oil for Food program, I decided that he was either a lying SOB, or is self-delusionart, neither good qualities in the leader of the UN as it was intended to be.

Looks to me like the place for the UN is going to be in the annals of history, along with the League of Nations.

TR

You missed one possibility, the one I think is most likely. He profited from the program, so there was no problem with it as far as he is concerned.

Gypsy · 10-18-2004, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solid

Gypsy,
In both cases he describes the world as an unsafe place. In the first quote, he talks about specific causes of this unsafeness, in the second a potential remedy.
At least, that's my interpretation.

Solid

Hey Solid. What TR and Greenhat said. I don't see his potential remedy.

Describing with words how unsafe the world is vs doing something about it are two different things as you know. I like men who are doers instead of men who are talkers, especially when they talk out of both sides of their mouth. A girlfriend of mine calls those types "bilingual".

D9 (RIP) · 10-18-2004, 13:56

Actually, since the UN's inception, it has been remarkably effective...

Effective, that is, if you are on the side of authoritarianism, nihilism, and the destruction of modern society. What started in the wake of WWII, supposedly as a place the nation's of the world could work on their problems through dialogue rather than force of arms, was premised from the start on a disastrous foundation: the moral equivalence of cultures/politics, and the evil of acting in one's own interest.

It's not just Koffi Annan. The whole history of the UN and its leadership is a long, absurd tale of inefficacy and failure at anything constructive. Instead, they have always wound up being the mouthpiece of whichever belligerent despot was willing to take the most truculent posture in world politics. Hussein is only the most recent example, as he was given a new lease on the life of his illegitimate rule over a decade by hand wringers at the UN. Why? Because Hussein was always more willing to resort to force than they were (not a difficult threshold to meet). They have been just as toothless against NK, against the Nasser before the Six-Day War, against the Soviets during the entire Cold War, etc. The only people who have ever had even the slightest internal convolutions over UN criticism, even when unjustly received, are the free countries of the West whose free media and citizenry are open to self-reflection and internal criticism.

One wonders if any of the starving millions within North Korea is even aware that there is such a thing as a UN. And, if they're aware, I doubt they know that Kim Jong-Il's regime is ever censured. But who is often scolded on the floor of the UN for letting political considerations interrupt the flow of gratuitous humanitarian assistance (read: military assistance)? The US.

The more one watches the UN in action, the more it seems obvious that free countries can gain nothing from participation there. It is a marketplace where the thugs of the world can assemble with the free nations under a veneer of legitimacy, for the sole purpose of extorting concessions from them.

There is no good that can come out of the UN. It should be dissolved, or at least we should refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy.