Bob

Let me be even more clear - the fact that this alleged eradication of polio is a recent development is sourced in the very link you provided. It is a claim made in 1995. I will quote - WHO announced on World Health Day in April 1995 that 146 countries had not experienced a single case of polio for at least a year. Bear in mind, polio is still a problem in certain impoverished societies. It has not been eradicated (although the countries that still suffer from incidents of polio, aside from India, experience major security issues so it's understandable to a degree that the disease perseveres in those areas - I won't blame the UN for that). This is over thirty years after the development of the vaccine. THIRTY years. And hundreds of billions of dollars later, likely over a trillion by that point. And how many thousands of lives of lives have been lost during these thirty years? How can this NOT be described as a catastrophic failure? This is not hyperbole. Where is accountability for the tens of thousands of victims of this disease (to say nothing of the millions of children who have died as a result of easily preventable illnesses)? All the money that was dedicated to helping them went where exactly? And this is just ONE illness among many that are easily treatable and still killing people in these impoverished areas. It's so typical and pathetic that a leftist like you disregards cost. Cost must ALWAYS be examined. Do you not realize that there is a finite amount of resources, specifically money, to go out and assist people in dire conditions? Every dollar wasted is literally another dead child that didn't receive anti-diarrhea medication as ten cents a dose. Wasting money COSTS LIVES. The wasting of money and the loss of life are inextricable phenomena - they are directly linked to one another. Don't forget that cheap basic needs are still unprovided for in many impoverished societies, and this is not for lack of funding - it is a direct result of waste. Describing the perpetuating dire circumstances of many impoverished societies around the world despite massive budgets for aid program over many decades as CATASTROPHIC FAILURE is being kind, and isn't hyperbole in the least. I also never said that all foreign aid should be ceased. I said that the UN and all of its subsidiaries should be abolished. Your intellect fails again as you are unable to distinguish between foreign aid and the UN.

Maybe someone can explain this to me, when I read about gun control laws in Canada awhile back (which included official stuff such as reading the relevant Criminal Code sections), I read that guns DO need to be registered, which I figured was the product of licensing. What am I missing here?

What agreements are being treated in bad-faith by Israel? This is your cue to run to Google to try and save face and pretend you know what you're talking about....

What do you mean "how so"?

You can't carry a police officer around with you in your pocket, that's why. And if you could, you'd have to lock him or her up in a closet, with the ammunition for his or her firearm in another.

In short, the fact that all vaccine-preventable illnesses have not been mostly eradicated in impoverished societies (primarily in parts of if Africa, specifically sub-Saharan Africa) is a testament to the monumental failure of the UN's aid subsidiaries. It's actually an indictment of the structure of foreign aid in a broader sense, although of course the UN's subsidiaries as massive organs of this harmful system. If the UNICEF claim that polio has been largely obliterated is true, it is yet another indictment as it should have happened decades ago. Measles reductions? That disease should also be largely wiped out. And again, these are just two of many other easily preventable illnesses. These failures are just the tip of the iceberg...

Seriously. As if this isn't just another smear attempt. And as if bud said anything when Fatah and Hamas were killing each other in 2005/2006 in Gaza. Although this new law is a step in the wrong direction, it's the Palestinians and broader Arab societies that are light-years behind with respect o providing real freedom and liberty to people. I wonder when bud will comment on more serious deficiencies in democracy in non-Jewish majority countries....

I may have said that before, but I believe that on an independent level a non-Jewish person who lives in Israel has the same rights as a Jewish person in this country, which includes "claims to land". A non-Jewish person can live here with full rights, which obviously include property rights. On a collective level, though, it's something entirely different. This is the land of the Jewish people. So if I said "more claim" in an earlier post in reference to a returning Jew as compared to an Arab with deep roots in the land, I meant it in a collective context.

How does it do that, exactly? You think the "bad guys" register their guns?

Of course you do, because it jives with your Alex Jones NWO/Bilderberg group conspiracy theories.

They're not. And the right question to ask is - how does gun registration actually serve the public interest and justify its cost?

I didn't know that, but I can't say I'm surprised considering Canada's leftist political culture. It's really too bad. If what you're saying is true, then I would replace the word you chose "duty" with "right". If a person breaks into another person's home, it is not unreasonable at all to assume that the criminal is dangerous and a threat to one's safety. The criminal, in my view, is fair game. Imagine how much of a reduction we'd see in break-and-enter crimes if more Canadians armed themselves and defended their lives and property.

I have virtually no knowledge about gun mechanics or usage. I do plan to take a firearm training course sometime, though. Either in Israel (although gun control laws are quite restrictive here, unfortunately) or in Canada. I am the exact opposite of a gun-enthusiast. I have only held a gun once in my life when I was a young child visiting family friends in the USA.

But in the interests of owning a gun for self-defense, this is completely counterintuitive. The gun registry, on the other hand, is just another government make-work project. it accomplishes nothing towards its stated objective of increased public safety. I'm sure any fair-minded person would agree.

Well, like virtually all governmental bureaucracies, the UN has grown and grown and grown some more. It's constantly solicits MORE money and tries to broaden its scope of influence. And also like virtually all government bureaucracies, the UN and its subsidiaries consistently fail in achieving their objectives.

Well, of course the self-evaluation of the very UN subsidiary we are discussing is a great source? Even if we accept the statistics provided to be true, they need careful analysis, especially with respect to context. Let's go down the list. As far as polio is concerned, the polio vaccine was developed by the famous Jonas Salk in 1952. He famously didn't hold a patent to it as he stated his only intention was to benefit others and not to personally profit from production or distribution of the vaccine. A single-dose of the vaccine cost pennies to produce. How can you celebrate this achievement as a success when it has occurred in the late 90s (or more recently, perhaps)? It is pure madness to hold this up as an achievement rather than a catastrophic failure. Moreover, how much money was spend on this anti-polio initiative? I am quite certain if we navigated the labyrinth of documentation at the UN, assuming it is even transparent enough to disclose such financial details, we would find that this initiative was carried out as an astronomic cost in proportion to the simplicity of the objective. Without examining costs, which the UN and its subsidiaries will never disclose openly, how can we accurately examine the effectiveness of a program? Indeed, the only time the UN's subsidiaries talk about money is when they run their pledge drives and get people like Angelina Jolie or Bono to act as pro-bono (no pun intended) public relations agents. Remember, UNICEF was established in the late 40s. This leads us into the touted success of the 40% reduction in measles. After checking Wikipedia, I learned that the measles vaccine was developed in the late 60s. Considering this fact, how is it possible that UNICEF and other self-described "aid" agencies STILL have not wiped out this disease? It is an unfathomable failure. But of course people like you cheer gleefully and think you're doing good by impoverished people around the world because Canadian taxpayer money is going to these horrendous bureaucracies. And again the most important question to ask is - what was the cost of this anti-measles endeavour? And again, good luck finding that information in the labyrinth of UN documents. The flipside of this coin is thus - if UNICEF can claim to its credit such reductions in two deadly illnesses, does it also assume responsibility for perpetuation of other illnesses? Accountability for success must be matched with an accountability for failure, where applicable. Considering that these are just two examples of many other easily preventable illnesses that plague certain impoverished populations in parts of Africa and elsewhere, how can we hold the UN's aid subsidiaries in any esteem when there are still children dying of easily preventable illnesses EVERY DAY. And this is certainly not occurring for lack of funding - last I read, the West has poured in almost 2.5 trillion dollars of aid into Africa since aid initiatives really took off in the aftermath of WWII. Well, at the least the UN bureaucrats have Italian clothing and German cars when they give speeches in NYC. "More children in schools than ever before"? So what? What quality is the education? Is it relevant to the needs of the population? How much does it cost? What about proportion - what proportion of children were in school last year, last decade, or thirty years ago? Again, without any relevant context we cannot make an accurate evaluation. And of course UNICEF will never provide such context as it goes against its self-interest of self-preservation and growth. Also important to consider is whether or not these claims of success are actually attributable to UNICEF, and if so, to what degree. I would imagine that UNICEF and other UN subsidiaries like to take all the credit they can for any positive statistical change, while simultaneously washing its hands of any responsibility for failure Anyways, I could go on and on but there are much better sources of information on this subject that I. Like I said, if anyone actually find this subject interesting, check out Dambisa Moyo and William Easterly.

I'm clearly wasting my time here, we've got two leftists who reflexively support the UN and its "aid" subsidiaries, as well as other self-described "aid organizations". I'll aim for greener pastures and try to start a separate dialogue if there are interested parties. I am of the opinion that conventional aid programs that have been in effect for many decades actually cause more harm than good, and disproportionately hurt the most impoverished and vulnerable, all the while claiming to operate in the best interested of these the impoverished and vulnerable. We can talk about Dambisa Moyo and William Easterly, who seem to be the some of the more well-known critics of the systems of most contemporary foreign aid - of which the UN is a major organ. It's very clear that both Michael Hardner and bud have literally zero knowledge of the very systems they're trying to defend in order to be consistent with their ideological leanings. Rather than simply admit they've never looked at these issues at a level deeper than a NYT article, they choose to participate and display their ignorance. For starters, and although this is admittedly brief and shallow, jump to 44:22 to hear William Easterly's answer to a question about possible future reform of the World Bank, IMF, and of course the UN. If you've got the time, I'd highly recommend listening to the whole lecture. He really wrecks leftist economist argumentation advanced from Jeffrey Sachs.

Have I not made myself clear? I am not concerned about any of the UN's programs. On balance, they cause much more harm then good. They should all be abolished. I do not wish to transition any UN program. What a sad state of affairs for MLW when the moderator believes that simply listing a couple of UN programs is a sufficient argument in defense of those programs. This is literally bud-calibre argumentation. After listing the program(s), please provide some valid argumentation of how those programs are "effective".

I was mocking the use of the term "existential threat". Why does a threat need to be existential, anyways? We have the right to do whatever is required to defend ourselves from any threat.

From the gun laws I've read that we have in Canada, they're WAY over-the-top. I would certainly support liberalization of gun laws in Canada. For starters, in Canada guns must be stored unloaded and locked away in a cabinet (with few exceptions). Moreover, the ammunition needs to be kept somewhere else! What's the point of owning a gun if you're going to make it more difficult to access when needed? There are many crazy laws in Canada regarding guns that need to be revisited.

Look, I asked you a very simple question in response to your statement about "effective programs". You made a statement asserting that the UN runs effective programs, and seemed to be implying that great harm would befall people in the event of the major donor countries to the UN ceasing their welfare payments to the institution. I'll ask one last time, what "effective programs" were you referring to? Surely you had some programs in mind before you made that statement, correct? This is why I am mocking you for having to run to Google to back up an assertion you made without any knowledge - you couldn't name and explain one single program, yet you quickly imply the UN's indispensability. So go ahead, list some programs (or even just one!) that are effective. Then explain to us why it's effective. Then explain to us how the objectives of these programs are best served under the auspices of the UN and not through another method. You tell me I am here to "argue to win". Quite the contrary. I am attacking you because I know you're making things up as you go along. Rather than answer a simple question I asked you ("What effective programs?"), you linked to an irrelevant post of mine in a recent thread about the UN, and micharacterized it! Doesn't this type of behaviour from someone who claims to be here to learn seem like a contradiction to you? Of course I will take a "strident" tone with you when instead of answering a simple question and beginning the dialogue you engage in an infantile mischaracterization of a recent post of mine, again, quite hypocritical from someone who states that he is "here to learn". And where are we after all of this? Still as square one, with you not having addressed a simple question - which effective programs were you referring to? Even bud's useless copy-and-paste of UN subsidiaries added more to this thread than your deflections. I am still waiting for an answer.

UNICEF and UNRWA should certainly be abolished. They do the opposite of what they claim their intentions are - they create dependencies and perpetuate poverty. Even if we are to accept the sincerity of advocates for these programs, which is quite a leap of faith in my view, by design these programs perpetuate the very problems they seek to address. Of course the failures of the programs will always be blamed on external factors, such as a lack of funding or overly restricted mandate. In other words, advocates for these programs say they need more money and more power to be effective. Most importantly, you're not providing any real facts or analysis. How much money was spent on this Southern Sudanese educational program? What exactly was UNICEF's role in increasing educational access for children in Southern Sudan? You're giving us "facts" directly from a UNICEF website, which of course seeks to promote itself by speaking highly of its "successes" in order to solicit more donations. I could go into much more detail about the failures of the UNRWA, which is something I'm more familiar with than UNICEF, but seriously... it's always a waste of time talking to you. All you do is copy-and-paste meaningless tripe. From listing the pleasant-sounding names of UN subsidiaries to providing some brief quotes from UNICEF proclaiming its successes in Sudan... we're never going to get any serious contributions or analysis from you on any issue.

If there are a vast number of "almost certain consequences" in the event of Canada's refusal to continue to fund (or to completely withdraw from) the UN, then certainly you'd be able to list a few and explain them? Tell us what would happen.

So what, you think a copy-and-paste list of program titles is a strong argument in favour of the maintenance of a program? If I start a government program and label it, "National Research Institute for Alleviating the Distress of the Disadvantaged", does that in and of itself make it worthwhile? If you want to make a serious argument, which in all honesty we all know you cannot do, take one or more of those programs are illustrate their "successes" towards achieving their stated goals. If you can do that, which again we all know you won't, you must then explain to us how those objectives are best accomplished through the UN and not through simpler arrangements. I'll say it again, the UN should be disbanded which of course includes all of its programs and subsidiaries. It's just a forum through which the West subsidizes its enemies' political opinions and permits the monies contributed by the West (virtually the entire UN budget) to be managed by failed states and dictatorships.

Here are my very own words, that you are alleging contradict my statements in this thread - My position remains the same - anything the UN can try to claim to its credit can be done more easily and more effectively directly between nations outside of the absurdities of the UN horror show. . How exactly is that an acknowledgement of valuable programs? It is an acknowledgement of the possibility of valuable/successful programs administered by the UN. Moreover, the point I was making in that thread and that I will continue to make in this thread is that any UN program that is valuable/successful (I am not saying any of them are) would be more effectively administered outside of the auspices of the UN, through direct relations between states/businesses/NGOs/charities. I am challenging your assertion that the UN is an indispensable tool chock-full of worthwhile programs. And I am waiting for you to provide concrete examples of UN programs that were successful. Once you do that, good luck convincing us that these endeavours wouldn't have been more effective/efficient without the UN. It is obvious that you're still making shit up, "the UN must be worthwhile" is the unfounded supposition upon which your entire "argument" is based. Again, you and I both know that you couldn't name one single effective program from the UN, let alone explain to us why it's effective and why its mission is best achieved through the UN. You're just assuming these things without having any information, whatsoever. Now go run to Google and try to form an argument.