Bonam Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Apparently, North Korea was selected to chair the UN disarmament conference! http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110710/un-conference-110710/ How much more farcical could it get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Ya, I think I watched a UN Watch video on YouTube where Hillel Neuer brought that up in some press interview. And the silence is deafening, as the free world continues to fund this evil institution. It's pathetic how Harper refusing to attend the anti-Semitic Durban conference and walking out of Ahmedinejad's speeches is considered "bold" leadership. I regard that a MINIMUM expectation of any decent leader. Obama, on the other hand, wants to increase American participation in the UN. One example was the USA's bid to have a seat on the absurd UNHRC, as if he thought he could make a difference. STOP FUNDING THE UN! We need to see some real leadership from politicians to condemn this organization and stop subsidizing it. On the bright side, I am optimistic that as time goes on, more and more fair-minded people will begin to learn the truth about the UN and harbour contempt towards it, which would perhaps in turn unchain the media and politicians from attacking it and making moves to dismantle it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Apparently, North Korea was selected to chair the UN disarmament conference! http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110710/un-conference-110710/ How much more farcical could it get? That is the whole problem I see with the UN. I advocate for Canada to pull out of the UN, no need for it anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 That is the whole problem I see with the UN. I advocate for Canada to pull out of the UN, no need for it anymore. If we were to pull out of the United Nations, what implications might have have for all the United Nations treaties we have signed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 If we were to pull out of the United Nations, what implications might have have for all the United Nations treaties we have signed? Sweet fuck all. Because other countries have pulled out of agreements, and not much happened to them. If we are to consider ourselves a sovereign nation , then we take matters in our own hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 If we were to pull out of the United Nations, what implications might have have for all the United Nations treaties we have signed? Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 What kind of transition plan would we have to put forward in order to ensure that effective programs continue ? How long would the whole process take ? Is it worth it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machjo Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Apparently, North Korea was selected to chair the UN disarmament conference! http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110710/un-conference-110710/ How much more farcical could it get? Then start a petition for Canada to withdraw its membership from the UN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 What kind of transition plan would we have to put forward in order to ensure that effective programs continue ? How long would the whole process take ? Is it worth it ? What effective programs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 What effective programs? Immunization, disaster relief, hunger and disease prevention programs. The last time I brought that up in a thread of a similar topic, the response was "oh well, yes but the developed countries could manage all of that better without the UN" Now its "What effective programs ?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 What effective programs? Why look here ! Bob's Post 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 Did you forget saying that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Why look here ! Bob's Post Did you forget saying that ? That wasn't an acknowledgment of successful programs, rather a statement about the possibility of good programs having been administered by the UN, and that any such programs could more effectively be implemented outside the auspices of such a bureaucracy. How can you not understand that? I know for certain that I lack nothing when it comes to writing skills, and my own words are clear for any honest observer to understand. So either you're dumb or disingenuous. Take your pick. Look, you made the claim of "effective programs". You and I both know that you had nothing specifically in mind when you said that, because you're clueless about the UN. You just said it reflexively because you can't fathom that such an institution could not only be completely useless, but in fact harmful. I ask again, what "effective programs" were you referring to? I'll wait for you to come back with a real answer to a simple and straightforward question, rather than a blatant misrepresentation of a quote of mine from a previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Immunization, disaster relief, hunger and disease prevention programs. The last time I brought that up in a thread of a similar topic, the response was "oh well, yes but the developed countries could manage all of that better without the UN" Now its "What effective programs ?". Be specific, which programs are you referring to? You're just making shit up. Again, you and I both know you can't refer to anything specifically without running to Google. So go do your thing, and come back with proof of effective programs being administered by the UN. Once you do that, feel free to tell us that the UN is the indispensable vehicle through which these endeavours are accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 That wasn't an acknowledgment of successful programs, rather a statement about the possibility of good programs having been administered by the UN, and that any such programs could more effectively be implemented outside the auspices of such a bureaucracy. How can you not understand that? I'm not trying to say you praised the UN or called the programs effective, I'm saying that you acknowledged that programs exist and that there's a responsibility for taking those over, which you now seem to have forgotten. There's a reason you've forgotten them, I suspect. I would guess that you don't care about them enough to remember them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 You're just making shit up. I'm quoting you back to you, which is likely why you're starting to get a little potty-mouthed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) what about all these programs and agencies: - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development --International Trade Centre (ITC) - United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - UNDP Field Offices - United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) - United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) - United Nations Volunteers (UNV) - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHSP-UN-Habitat) - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) - United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) - United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) ** - World Food Programme (WFP) - United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) ** - United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) - United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) - United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) - Counter-Terrorism Committee - International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) - United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) - United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) shut her all down? getting rid of the UN will do more bad than good. of course, there are problems with it and in this instance, i agree with the canadian government for boycotting this conference. perhaps canada should submit a complaint and recommendation on how the system can be improved so we don't have a country like north korea chairing such a conference. Edited July 11, 2011 by bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 There are a vast number of possible or almost certain consequences to consider if Canada were to leave the UN, or if te UN was disbanded altogether. I think most if not all of the people here calling for Canada to leave the UN and/or have the UN entirely dismantled have seriously considered and researched what would occur if this were to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I'm not trying to say you praised the UN or called the programs effective, I'm saying that you acknowledged that programs exist and that there's a responsibility for taking those over, which you now seem to have forgotten. There's a reason you've forgotten them, I suspect. I would guess that you don't care about them enough to remember them. 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. Edited July 12, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 what about all these programs and agencies: - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development --International Trade Centre (ITC) - United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - UNDP Field Offices - United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) - United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) - United Nations Volunteers (UNV) - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHSP-UN-Habitat) - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) - United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) - United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) ** - World Food Programme (WFP) - United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) ** - United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) - United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) - United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) - Counter-Terrorism Committee - International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) - United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) - United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) shut her all down? getting rid of the UN will do more bad than good. of course, there are problems with it and in this instance, i agree with the canadian government for boycotting this conference. perhaps canada should submit a complaint and recommendation on how the system can be improved so we don't have a country like north korea chairing such a conference. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 There are a vast number of possible or almost certain consequences to consider if Canada were to leave the UN, or if te UN was disbanded altogether. I think most if not all of the people here calling for Canada to leave the UN and/or have the UN entirely dismantled have seriously considered and researched what would occur if this were to happen. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 So what, you think a copy-and-paste list of program titles is a strong argument in favour of the maintenance of a program? what? you would have preferred if i typed them down individually? 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? i think there is a lot of waste and inefficiency in many of the UN programs. but to call to dismantle the UN while there are thousands of active programs running through their agencies and their subsidiaries which many people rely on to survive around the world is illogical and shows how little the person has thought about their ignorant, knee-jerk statement. and If you want to make a serious argument, which in all honesty we all know you cannot do, this is coming from the guy who wants to make a serious argument for ethnic cleansing the palestinians? stfu. 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. UNICEF- JUBA, Southern Sudan, 3 April 2008 – As children in Southern Sudan celebrate the second anniversary of the UNICEF-supported 'Go to School' initiative, approximately 1.3 million pupils are expected to enter classes this year, as compared to some 340,000 in 2005. bye bye UNICEF? fuck them black kids? UNRWA - a relief and human development agency, providing education, health care, social services and emergency aid to over 4.8 million Palestine refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as well as in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It is the only agency dedicated to helping refugees from a specific region or conflict. It was established following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War by the United Nations General Assembly under resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949. This resolution also reaffirmed paragraph 11, concerning refugees, of UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and was passed unopposed, supported by Israel and the Arab states someone has to clean israel's mess, right? if you want to talk about wasting money, then we should talk about the $3 billion the u.s. gives to israel from its own tax payers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 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. Fine. I didn't say you contradicted yourself, I said you forgot about the existing programs. Arguing about the subtleties of language is boring, though. I'm wondering about these programs. Let me rephrase it then: "What kind of transition plan would we have to put forward in order to ensure that *existing* programs continue ?" 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. I think that someone else posted a long list in this thread - why don't you start with that one ? 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. You like arguing to win. I don't - I like arguing to see what we can learn. 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. Why shouldn't I run to Google ? I know the names of programs off by heart (Unicef, Unesco) but not the details of what exactly they have achieved, success statistics and costs. Who would ? In such a case, is it a bad idea to research a post beforehand ? I think that's a strange stance to take on a web board. More than once, in the service of 'arguing to learn', I have researched a post to find out that my assumptions were wrong, and had to mitigate my stance on things. Maybe, like Jesus, you were born with all of the wisdom you have today. That would be quite cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 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. By logical extension, any hand-out therefore perpetuates dependence. So there should be no hand-outs. Also, your statement here assumes you can peer into the heart of do-gooders. It's subjective at best. People do good because they want to help people, not because they want to perpetuate poverty. I don't argue against right-wingers by saying they're personally greedy, I argue against their proposed policies will help, period. You also have a very strident tone, which again makes me think you're arguing to win and not to discuss - which is after all the purpose of this board. It's not a radio or a megaphone for your self-rationalizing views - it's a medium for writing back and forth. The best of the posters here from left- and right- can do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm not trying to say you praised the UN or called the programs effective, I'm saying that you acknowledged that programs exist and that there's a responsibility for taking those over, which you now seem to have forgotten. There's a reason you've forgotten them, I suspect. I would guess that you don't care about them enough to remember them. Bob just acknowledged that the programs exist. He did not say he supported them or say they are effective. Two different things here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.