The absurdity of the UN

[Michael Hardner]

Bob just acknowledged that the programs exist. He did not say he supported them or say they are effective. Two different things here.

That's what I said.

[Bob]

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

All of that happened, after I asked you about transitioning the existing programs though. Are you not going to answer that first, since I asked it first ?

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.

I already responded that a list of programs had been posted. And I believe I did name two above. Didn't you see that ?

You tell me I am here to "argue to win". Quite the contrary. I am attacking you...

ATTACKING ME !

Ok, maybe you argue to kill then ?

...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".

Or somebody who:

1. Ignored the point I made, when I asked about transitioning existing programs and misrepresented my statements by accusing you of contradicting yourself.

2. Doesn't answer the question.

3. Doesn't read my posts, or ignores the fact that I already named a few programs as well as a list that had been posted.

4. Uses the word 'attacks' to characterize how they engage in discussion with me.

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.

You first.

[Bob]

All of that happened, after I asked you about transitioning the existing programs though. Are you not going to answer that first, since I asked it first ?

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.

I already responded that a list of programs had been posted. And I believe I did name two above. Didn't you see that ?

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".

[Bob]

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Ok, that's fair. Do you plan to provide additional programs though ?

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".

You asked for programs, and you got them.

You're asking me to provide argumentation of effectiveness, here's from their site:

• Mortality rates for children under five have dropped by around 15 per cent since 1990

• Deaths from diarrhoea, one of the major killers of children under five, have been cut in half since 1990

• Polio, once a deadly killer, is nearly eradicated

• Measles deaths dropped by nearly 40 per cent

• More children are in school than ever before

• National laws and policies to better protect children have been enacted in dozens of countries

http://www.unicef.org/publications/index_36603.html

[Shakeyhands]

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".

If they disagree...They're LEFTISTS... oh the horror!!!!

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I never claimed to have deep knowledge. Certainly, I wouldn't disparage somebody who read a few newspaper articles on something and claimed knowledge of the matter.

I really don't get the feeling that you're on here for discussion, for mutual edification, as you yourself admitted that you 'ATTACKED'. That's not conducive to discussion, IMO.

Post an article that provides something substantial - I would love to read it and given that I admit no deep knowledge on the issue, I can almost guarantee that it will change my position somewhat.

[Shady]

I wasn't aware that the UN was created in order to provide world social programs. Perhaps something like that can be seperated from the absurdity of the political and diplomatic aspects of the UN.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Shady

[Bob]

• Mortality rates for children under five have dropped by around 15 per cent since 1990

• Deaths from diarrhoea, one of the major killers of children under five, have been cut in half since 1990

• Polio, once a deadly killer, is nearly eradicated

• Measles deaths dropped by nearly 40 per cent

• More children are in school than ever before

• National laws and policies to better protect children have been enacted in dozens of countries

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.

[Bob]

I wasn't aware that the UN was created in order to provide world social programs. Perhaps something like that can be seperated from the absurdity of the political and diplomatic aspects of the UN.

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.

[GostHacked]

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.

On this matter, I do agree with you.

[Bob]

On this matter, I do agree with you.

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

[Bob]

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...

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Ok- let's have at it.

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)?

Hmmm ? Did you qualify your statements about the UN to say 'recently' ? I didn't see that.

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.

Was the program effective is a different question than what it cost effective. Secondly, you don't even know that it wasn't cost effective, as you say "I am quite certain [that] if we ...".

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.

You are really moving the goalposts quite a bit. If they don't achieve 100% success at a low cost it seems to you that they have failed. Furthermore, you used terms like 'catastrophic failure' and 'unfathomable failure'. It's hyperbole. The UN did the work - whether or not it was cost effective or not, you seem to be saying that no replacement programs are needed, unless I misunderstood.

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.

I concede that all of these agencies can and should do a better job at metrics, and they appear to be working on that. But your breathless condemnations ring false.

By your metric, even the most successful businesses could be considered failures.

"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.

Again - you're moving the goalposts. In their single bullet point they didn't detail quality or costs, but it doesn't matter. What we're discussing is whether programs need to be transitioned and replaced. To say that they don't need to be - as you have - is already shown to be false. You could have said that they need to be improved, streamlined or something along those lines and you would have a point.

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.

Of course they're not attributable to UNICEF alone. UNICEF administered programs that were funded by the nations of the world, built on science provided by Salk or others.

Again - please provide a link. I "ran off to Google" to check out Moyo, and read the Wikipedia entry on her, so I have about 20 seconds education on the topic. Moyo says that she doesn't want to cut off charity or humitarian aid so you seem to not be on the same page with her.

[dre]

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.

International treaties that we have signed become the law of our own land, and are enforcable by our own courts. Most of them make pretty good sense too.

And why the hell would we want to pull out of the UN anyways?

[Shady]

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.

Exactly. It's like a type of mission creep.

[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.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Bob

[GostHacked]

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

How much of an asshole can you be Bob? I agreed with you, and yet you still turn it around and want to bash me? Fuck you Bob. I hope you are not representative of all jews/isrealis because that alone would be enough reason to hate you and your kind.

I tried to hold back the rude language, but sometimes it just needs to be said.

[GostHacked]

International treaties that we have signed become the law of our own land, and are enforcable by our own courts. Most of them make pretty good sense too.

And why the hell would we want to pull out of the UN anyways?

Because we are making our laws more in line with the UN, eventually we will have no say what laws we make in this country without the approval of the UN. We are no longer a sovereign nation when we let the UN dictate what we do and how we live and how we run this country.

We see how government bureaucracy works on the country level and how ineffectual it currently is, you think it's going to get better with a larger world governing body that dictates what we can do in our own country? Let the EU be a lesson to anyone who thinks something like the UN can help us.

[Bob]

International treaties that we have signed become the law of our own land, and are enforcable by our own courts. Most of them make pretty good sense too.

And why the hell would we want to pull out of the UN anyways?

What international treaties?

[Michael Hardner]

I tried to hold back the rude language, but sometimes it just needs to be said.

Not here it doesn't. If you can't beat Bob on the field of debate, then you'd best leave and not get so emotionally involved.

[Michael Hardner]

It's so typical and pathetic that a leftist like you disregards cost. Cost must ALWAYS be examined.

Sorry, you're the one who continually moves the goalposts. We weren't talking about cost at all until you introduced it. I was responding to YOUR questions, and answered them then you came back with a new condition.

Your hyperbole, coupled with your continual changing of parameters to your argument is giving you away. I won't swear at you, though, as I don't get aggravated by arguments like yours anymore - they just tire me.

Why don't you start again - what exactly are you proposing for replacing these programs ? You're not saying (so you say) that aid programs should be abolished, but the UN and its aid-distributing agencies should be ? Can you really blame me for being confused by your argument here ?

[Bob]

What's the point in discussing with ou? You're not addressing anything I've said and you've yet to demonstrate that any UN endeavour has been successful. And if you can demonstrate a UN success story, you're going to then need to explain how this achievement was better achieved through the UN then through direct relations between relevant stakeholders. You haven't even made a good argument for the initial challenge - give us examples of successful UN aid programs. All you did was copy-and-paste UNICEF talking points for soliciting donations, several of which I've addressed.

[Michael Hardner]

What's the point in discussing with ou? You're not addressing anything I've said and you've yet to demonstrate that any UN endeavour has been successful.

At least I've answered your questions, despite the changing parameters that I'm expected to guess at for what 'successful' means.

And if you can demonstrate a UN success story, you're going to then need to explain how this achievement was better achieved through the UN then through direct relations between relevant stakeholders. You haven't even made a good argument for the initial challenge - give us examples of successful UN aid programs. All you did was copy-and-paste UNICEF talking points for soliciting donations, several of which I've addressed.

And yet, you still haven't explained what you're proposing as an alternative. Can you see why posters here get annoyed with you ? Your attitude seems to be that I'm obliged to answer questions, move the goalposts with your, and eat your saucy hyperbole while you just sit on your perch and ignore my questions.

And then you ask what the point is in discussing with ME. Strange behavior.