Should UN be taken down or remain?

[Jersay]

Hello, I am just interested in this question because I am really interested in the United Nations.

Now the UN does have good benefits, and it has done mistakes just like other huge organizations.

However, because I want to work for the U.N. I would like to find it interesting what other Canadians, and other people think about the UN. Because on Wikipedia it says most Canadians love the UN, so I want to see if that is correct.

So what do you think of the UN?

 

[missile]

It is a great organization, and with the exception of a minor scandal,does so much good that it has to remain as it is.

 

[Colpy]

Hello, I am just interested in this question because I am really interested in the United Nations.

Now the UN does have good benefits, and it has done mistakes just like other huge organizations.

However, because I want to work for the U.N. I would like to find it interesting what other Canadians, and other people think about the UN. Because on Wikipedia it says most Canadians love the UN, so I want to see if that is correct.

So what do you think of the UN?

I voted to have it made into Starbucks, but I wish there were an option between that and only a little important.



The UN has recently been a negative force in the world. Just ask the people of Srebrenica.

THey stood by in Rwanda.

They are a rabid enemy of democracy, not only in Israel, but in the world.

They are trying to create a world ban on private ownership of small arms, mostly to protect the status quo, which, in most of the world, is not a good thing.

They are useful only as a debating society.

 

[MMMike]

I'm not sure if the idea of collective security is even workable. The UN as it exists is highly disfunctional. The vetoes have to go... two-bit dictators should not have a vote... A country such as Syria should not head the Security Council, neither should China head the human rights tribunal. It is good in theory if all voting members are democracies, answerable to their people.

 

[Reverend Blair]

THey stood by in Rwanda.

Because of the US and France. Mostly the US.

They are a rabid enemy of democracy, not only in Israel, but in the world.

The UN has done more to spread democracy than any other force in this world.

They are trying to create a world ban on private ownership of small arms, mostly to protect the status quo, which, in most of the world, is not a good thing.

Ah, the guns and violence lobby speaks up again. :roll: You no doubt support 8 year old boys having an AK-47 thrust into their hands so they can kill other child soldiers while learning to rape the girls, Colpy. Most of us do not support that though, so we support the UN's attempts to address the easy availability of small arms and the violence that availability leads to.

A country such as Syria should not head the Security Council,

The Security Council is controlled by the five permanent members. They are the only ones with vetoes.

neither should China head the human rights tribunal.

So how come the United States opposed Annan's reform package, instead pushing reforms that would make the UN into the USA's lap dog?

Hello, I am just interested in this question because I am really interested in the United Nations.

Now the UN does have good benefits, and it has done mistakes just like other huge organizations.

However, because I want to work for the U.N. I would like to find it interesting what other Canadians, and other people think about the UN. Because on Wikipedia it says most Canadians love the UN, so I want to see if that is correct.

So what do you think of the UN?

The UN is a great organisation. It has it's problems, and those on the right have promoted a decided and purposeful misunderstanding of how the UN works and what it does. I suggest you keep that in mind when they criticize it because they have an agenda that does not include anything that might take away greed as a motivating factor. When you see statements like those I quoted and rebutted above, do some research into what really happened.

If you can work for the UN, Jersay, then go for it. It's a great organisation.

What part of the UN wre you considering working for?

 

[annabattler]

No sense tossing it out..it's the only international body we have.
And it's the only one where the whole world can be represented.
The UN is "us",all of us.
I'd like to see less politicking,and I'd like to see more support of UN programmes,and I'd like to see member nations pay their UN dues on time...and I think the idea of a UN paramilitary force,ready to be deployed at any time,is a good idea....and I think the idea of an international court to which all countries are accountable,is a good idea.
Eventually,I'd like to see the UN be able to operate preventative programmes,as opposed to "after the fact" programmes.

 

[Colpy]

THey stood by in Rwanda.
Because of the US and France. Mostly the US.

It is true that the USA and France prevented any strong military reaction to the massacre in Rwanda. The USA had been burned trying to do good works in Somalia, and Clinton was not going to get involved. BUT ther UN also prevented D'Allaire from doing what he couild when it forbade him to carry out pre-emptive attacks on the gov't radio station and arms caches, and when it ordered surrounded Belgian troops to surrender their arms. The Rwandans knew what they were doing when they turned their backs on Annan during his visit.

The UN has done more to spread democracy than any other force in this world.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: How?

By having Saudi Arabia, Cuba, the Sudan, and China run the Human Rights Commission and boot the USA out?

Ah, the guns and violence lobby speaks up again. :roll: You no doubt support 8 year old boys having an AK-47 thrust into their hands so they can kill other child soldiers while learning to rape the girls, Colpy. Most of us do not support that though, so we support the UN's attempts to address the easy availability of small arms and the violence that availability leads to.

Don't be silly, Rev.

I'm not providing child soldiers with rifles, and the UN is not preventing it

 

[Jay]

We don't support AK47's being thrust into the hands of children, leftist revolutianary types that do that. AK47s aren't small arms either....

 

[Reverend Blair]

BUT ther UN also prevented D'Allaire from doing what he couild when it forbade him to carry out pre-emptive attacks on the gov't radio station and arms caches, and when it ordered surrounded Belgian troops to surrender their arms. The Rwandans knew what they were doing when they turned their backs on Annan during his visit.

Again, due to interference from the US and France. The US was making huge profits from both the war and their mining interests next door in Uganda. They supplied the shoulder fired missile that shot down the plane, killing the the Rwandan leader and precipitating the tribal genocide. They didn't want the UN poking around in the region because they would have had to explain their actions. Somalia was just an excuse.

How?

By working quietly behind the scenes encouraging elections, promoting human rights, fighting for freedom of the press, brokering peace deals, and just generally engaging in diplomacy.

Unlike George Bush and the murderous thugs who support him, the UN recognises that democracy is not spread at gun point or by dropping depleted uranium and daisy cutters on women and children.

I'm not providing child soldiers with rifles, and the UN is not preventing it

The UN is working to prevent it, and the small arms initiative is a major part of that. By fighting that initiative you are supporting the use of child soldiers, civil wars, violence, rape, and forced labour.

Your simplistic worldview does not excuse that in the least.

 

[Colpy]

[

quote]BUT ther UN also prevented D'Allaire from doing what he couild when it forbade him to carry out pre-emptive attacks on the gov't radio station and arms caches, and when it ordered surrounded Belgian troops to surrender their arms. The Rwandans knew what they were doing when they turned their backs on Annan during his visit.

Again, due to interference from the US and France. The US was making huge profits from both the war and their mining interests next door in Uganda. They supplied the shoulder fired missile that shot down the plane, killing the the Rwandan leader and precipitating the tribal genocide. They didn't want the UN poking around in the region because they would have had to explain their actions. Somalia was just an excuse.[/quote]

This is baloney, Rev.

D'Allaire's report on his intended actions went out directly to his immediate supervisor, Canadian General Maurice Baril', and was quickly replied to by Kofi Annan. He was ordered by Annan not only to stand down, but to turn all information he had over to the Rwandan President, who was later responsible for the massacres. (Shake Hands with the Devil, page 145-146) It had nothing to do with the USA

The Rwandans know who was responsible, and they direct their insults at Annan.

The UN is working to prevent it, and the small arms initiative is a major part of that. By fighting that initiative you are supporting the use of child soldiers, civil wars, violence, rape, and forced labour.

Your simplistic worldview does not excuse that in the least

This is simply insulting and ignorant.

How does my owning a handgun help those who conscript child soldiers?

Where in the western free world are AK 47s built?

You can do better than this.

 

[Reverend Blair]

This is baloney, Rev.

D'Allaire's report on his intended actions went out directly to his immediate supervisor, Canadian General Maurice Baril', and was quickly replied to by Kofi Annan. He was ordered by Annan not only to stand down, but to turn all information he had over to the Rwandan President, who was later responsible for the massacres. (Shake Hands with the Devil, page 145-146) It had nothing to do with the USA

D'allaire's book is written from his perspective. He has spoken of US involvement behind the scenes in presentations that were televised on CPAC.

What I said is also backed up by statements made by Madeline Albright (no use of the word genocide because then the US couldn't keep others from getting involved) and various news stories that have come out over the years about US involvement in Uganda at the time.

Interesting thing about that missile. It was US-made. The French confiscated it from the Iraqis during the Gulf War. The US denied that the French turned it over to US forces, but France was able to produce the paperwork showing that the rocket had in fact gone back to the Americans. How did it get from the US government to the Ugandans who shot down the plane? It doesn't take a rocket scientist :wink: to figure that out.

This is simply insulting and ignorant.

How does my owning a handgun help those who conscript child soldiers?

Your opposition to restrictions on small arms, including your misconstuation of the small arms deal and likely your objections to the agreement on child soldiers helps support those that conscript (actually most of them are press ganged under threat of death to them or their families) child soldiers.

Where in the western free world are AK 47s built?

Your opposition to the small arms deal implicitly protects all manufacturers and dealer of all small arms, Colpy. If the US can give rockets to the Ugandans, then Russia can supply AK-47s to anybody willing to pay for them.

There are several manufacturers making copies of the AK-47 around the world though. That includes both in the east and the west.

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

How does my owning a handgun help those who conscript child soldiers?

Where in the western free world are AK 47s built?

Resistance to the UN's Programmes on small arms does this Colpy, as does refusal to sign up to or properly enforce it's protocols (which, incidentally, have more to do with preventing the illicit trade in arms and the misery that causes than coming to take your weapons away). And the western free world has plenty of blood on it's hands on this front - they make more considerably money selling arms to conflict zones than they ever give in aid.

 

[no1important]

RE: Should UN be taken do

An Interesting news item today:

Hundreds of millions of children suffering, UN says

A teaser:

The United Nations sounded the alarm Wednesday about the plight of hundreds of millions of children around the globe who suffer from discrimination and exploitation.

"The children who are hardest to reach include those living in the poorest countries and most deprived communities," UNICEF says.

Many, it says, end up forced into work as sex-trade workers or domestic labour.

"Nearly two million children are used in the commercial sex trade, where they routinely face sexual and physical violence," the report says.

As well, other children get "caught up in armed conflict or affected by HIV/AIDS" while others are not treated as children at all.

The report also mentions the children who become casualties in war zones.

"Children who are caught in armed conflict, for example, are routinely subjected to rape and other forms of sexual violence," the report says. [/end of teaser]

Very sad. I hope something can get done about this.

Not to mention as well, children working long hours in sweet shops, so we can get our cheap goods from Wal Mart and the likes.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Should UN be taken do

The UN does a lot of good work through organisations like UNICEF. Hopefully this report will have some positive effect.

 

[Jersay]

The UN is a great organisation. It has it's problems, and those on the right have promoted a decided and purposeful misunderstanding of how the UN works and what it does. I suggest you keep that in mind when they criticize it because they have an agenda that does not include anything that might take away greed as a motivating factor. When you see statements like those I quoted and rebutted above, do some research into what really happened.

If you can work for the UN, Jersay, then go for it. It's a great organisation.

What part of the UN wre you considering working for

I am either going to work as a UN peacekeeper or I am going to work for UNICEF.

And to note about Rwanda, there is evidence that French forces did held the militias slaughter Tutsi civilians in the southern part of the country. However, no french official has ever gone on trial for war crimes.

The UN did not have a chance to keep the peace because of all the sides, internal or external who wanted this violence to start which sadly resulted in the deaths of 1 million innocent civilians and 23 peacekeepers including 4 Canadians.

 

[Nosferax]

THey stood by in Rwanda.

.

Because the US and other on the security council imposed their veto when DeChastelain asked for more troop...

The problem is not the UN. The problem is that 5 nation have veto power over the rest of the world. Expanding the security council is an half measure. The security council should be scrapped and decision should be made by majority vote. One country one vote.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The problem is not the UN. The problem is that 5 nation have veto power over the rest of the world. Expanding the security council is an half measure. The security council should be scrapped and decision should be made by majority vote. One country one vote.

The Security Council should be scrapped, but that's not possible at this time because those 5 members are unwilling to release their grip on power. The expansion (two versions of it, actually) was offered as a compromise to reduce the stranglehold that the five permanent members have over the UN, but they (most specifically the US) have fought any sort or reform that would reduce their power in any way.

I am either going to work as a UN peacekeeper or I am going to work for UNICEF.

Both laudible goals, Jersay. Are you trying to go as a representative of Canada or, in the case of UNICEF anyway, as an employee of the UN?

And to note about Rwanda, there is evidence that French forces did held the militias slaughter Tutsi civilians in the southern part of the country. However, no french official has ever gone on trial for war crimes.

No, but it is at least partially responsible for France starting widespread corruption investigations into it's corporations actions abroad as well as the actions of public officials who promoted the interests of those corporations. Interestingly enough, it's what has put Dick Cheney under threat of inditement in France for Halliburton's actions in Nigeria when he was CEO.

It was public pressure on the French government by the French people that got the ball rolling on all of that and, although Rwanda has not led to any direct charges, it was the catalyst that got the ball rolling.

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

The Security Council should be scrapped, but that's not possible at this time because those 5 members are unwilling to release their grip on power.

It's probably not a coincidence, in reference to those who point to a lack of effective activity by the UN on the small arms/light weapons issue, as mentioned earlier, that these 5 are accountable for 88% of all sales.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Should UN be taken do

Not a coincidence at all, Henry. They all like proxy wars to protect their assets too. Hmmm...think I'll listen to the Clash next.

 

[Jersay]

Both laudible goals, Jersay. Are you trying to go as a representative of Canada or, in the case of UNICEF anyway, as an employee of the UN?

Yes, I will like to be a representative of Canada if I become a peacekeeper. And if I join UNICEF I will be a UN employee.