The absurdity of the UN

[Bob]

I am not using hyperbole and I am not changing parameters. I am accurately describing the deaths of hundreds millions of people to preventable illnesses as being an absolute catastrophe that the UN is largely responsible for. It's telling how you describe my adding of context to one-liners from a UNICEF public relations link is "changing parameters".

As long the UN isn't held accountable for its actions and has no direct stake in the outcomes of its operations, the problems it claims to be addressing will persevere. That's why extreme poverty continues, and why a 40% reduction in an easily preventable illness like measles for which we've had a vaccine since the late sixties is touted as an accomplishment to be proud of, rather than a sickening illustration of failure.

[Michael Hardner]

I am not using hyperbole and I am not changing parameters. I am accurately describing the deaths of hundreds millions of people to preventable illnesses as being an absolute catastrophe that the UN is largely responsible for. It's telling how you describe my adding of context to one-liners from a UNICEF public relations link is "changing parameters".

As long the UN isn't held accountable for its actions and has no direct stake in the outcomes of its operations, the problems it claims to be addressing will persevere. That's why extreme poverty continues, and why a 40% reduction in an easily preventable illness like measles for which we've had a vaccine since the late sixties is touted as an accomplishment to be proud of, rather than a sickening illustration of failure.

Again, with the soapbox. Will you answer my question please before we continue ? I've been quite gentlemanly in answering yours and dealing with you ? I think it's only fair.

[GostHacked]

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.

Maybe you should be directing that kind of stuff towards people like Bob as well, who is openly advocating for genocide.

[dre]

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.

The UN doesnt dictate any of our laws. And its not a "world governing body" either.

[dre]

What international treaties?

All of them. Heres a few...

"Andrés Bello" Convention (SECAB)

African Charter on Human Rights

Agreement of Lima

Air Quality Agreement

Amazon Treaty

Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention

Antarctic Treaty

ASEAN Agreement

Athens Protocol

Baghdad Pact

Bamako Convention

Banjul Charter on Human Rights

Barcelona Convention

Basel Convention

Berne Convention

Bogota Pact

Bonn Convention (conservation of migratory species)

Brazília Treaty (Treaty for Amazonian co-operation)

Bretton Woods Agreements (IMF)

Brusselles Convention (civil liability:carriage of nuclear material by sea)

Brussels Treaty (collective self-defense)

BW Convention (bacteriological weapons)

Canberra Convention (CCAMLR, Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention)

Cartagena Convention (Caribbean region:protection)

CITES (endangered species)

CLC (civil liability for oil pollution damage)

Continental Shelf Convention

EEC Treaty

ENMOD Convention (disarmament)

Espoo Convention (environmental impact assessment)

GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)

Geneva Conventions (with Protocols)

Georgetown Agreement (ACP)

Guadalajara Convention (international carriage by air )

High Seas Convention

High Seas Fishing Convention (living resources:conservation)

ICCPR (civil and political rights)

ICESC (Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)

Law of the Sea Convention

Lima Convention

Lisbon Agreement (appellations of origin:protection)

Locarno Agreement

Lomé Convention (ACP-EEC Convention)

Madrid Agreement

Malaga-Torremolinos Convention (ITU/Telecommunications)

MARPOL (maritime pollution)

Montevideo Treaty

Moon Treaty

NAOS Agreement (North Atlantic Ocean Stations)

Nice Agreement (int. classification of goods and services)

Nordic Convention

Nordic Patent Institute

Noumea Convention (South Pacific Region SPREC)

NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)

Outer Space Treaty

Ozone Convention (Vienna Convention)

Pact of San Jose, Cosat Rica (human rights)

Panama Convention (SELA)

Paris Convention (industrial property:protection)

Partial Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (PTBT)

Phyto-Sanitary Convention (Africa, Sahara)

Protocol of Port of Spain

Puerto Montt Act

Quadripartite Agreement

Ramsar Convention (Wetlands Convention)

Rarotonga Treaty (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone)

Rio Treaty (Inter-American Treaty )

Rome Convention

Rome Statute

Rome Treaty (EEC)

SALT (strategic arms limitation talks )

Sea-bed Treaty (Nuclear weapons)

Single European Act

SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea)

Strasbourg Agreement (int. patent classification)

Tashkent declaration (India:Pakistan)

Territorial Sea-Contiguous Zone Convention

TIR Convention (Customs convention)

Tlatelolco Treaty

UNESCO Constitution

Warsaw Convention (air transport)

Warsaw Treaty

Whaling Convention

World Charter for Nature

Edited July 12, 2011 by dre

[GostHacked]

The UN doesnt dictate any of our laws. And its not a "world governing body" either.

I did not say it does, but I did say it could. If this charade that is global warming is any indication, they are trying to implement carbon taxes in many countries.

And since you have all these international treaties, it essentially can dictate laws within a given country because of these international treaties, hence a world governing body.

[dre]

I did not say it does, but I did say it could. If this charade that is global warming is any indication, they are trying to implement carbon taxes in many countries.

And since you have all these international treaties, it essentially can dictate laws within a given country because of these international treaties, hence a world governing body.

No the country can simply not sign. The only carbon taxes will we have in Canada are ones our democratically elected government decides to enact.

[Remiel]

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.

It can also be said that you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the least unsuccesful UN programs, which is, by the way, necessary for you to establish that your ass does not do all your talking for you.

[Bob]

All of them. Heres a few...

And which of those treaties are "enforceable by our own courts"?

[Oleg Bach]

Lost respect for the UN when I saw - the former head - that little black guy..who was married to the blonde nordic woman...You would think that this man would be smart enough not to be a genetic social climber.

[bloodyminded]

Lost respect for the UN when I saw - the former head - that little black guy..who was married to the blonde nordic woman...You would think that this man would be smart enough not to be a genetic social climber.

What makes you think she wasn't the "genetic social climber," if such a remark even has merit?

[Oleg Bach]

What makes you think she wasn't the "genetic social climber," if such a remark even has merit?

All social climbing is based on false and artifical notions...that is why I used the term "social climbing" _ the point I was making is Kofian - or what ever his name was - had corrupt adult children who profited through the end - and this former head seemed to like the expense account - the fine food and hotels and YES the hot blonde - He reminded me of a poor black kid that thinks knocking up some white trash girl is a step up..It's a cultural insecurity - Or shall I say a lack of a real culture.

[Bonam]

Replacing UN aid, development, and charity programs is really not some insurmountable problem. There are plenty of private charities that cover all of the same types of aid as the UN does. My opinion is and has always been that charitable giving should be a voluntary choice. It should not just be taken as taxes by our government and then given to some UN bureaucracy to do with as it pleases. If UN programs were to be defunded, other non-profits would take their place. Let's not forget that corruption is inherent in UN programs, much worse than in private charities. Or has everyone forgotten the oil for food fiasco?

Anyway, the real reason we should pull out of the UN isn't because of the effectiveness or lack thereof of their social programs. Rather, it is simply an insult to be told how to disarm by North Korea, or lectured on women's rights by Iran for that matter. Why should civilized countries stand for that, and provide funding for that? I for one see no reason.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

If UN programs were to be defunded, other non-profits would take their place.

Are you sure? And how do you know this?

[Bob]

Are you sure? And how do you know this?

Non-profits predate the UN by a at least ten thousand years. And they will exist indefinitely after the UN.

[bloodyminded]

Non-profits predate the UN by a at least ten thousand years. And they will exist indefinitely after the UN.

I didn't say otherwise. I was responding to the assertion that "other non-profits would take their place."

[Bob]

, the real reason we should pull out of the UN isn't because of the effectiveness or lack thereof of their social programs. Rather, it is simply an insult to be told how to disarm by North Korea, or lectured on women's rights by Iran for that matter. Why should civilized countries stand for that, and provide funding for that? I for one see no reason.

Aside from the insult that the UN is to its primary funders, the UN needs to be disbanded because it a force for ill in this world. It makes things worse, not better. It's one thing to fail, it's another thing to actually cause harm. Every dollars waste at the UN is another dollars not used towards proper aid and development. It's almost a way in which we wash our hands of responsibility by saying, "well we gave them money, what else do they want?". We have a responsibility to ensure that the money is spent appropriately. The UN is one of the largest organs in a system of aid that perpetuates poverty, and exacerbates problems (disease, war/violence, poor education, and poor infrastructure. I'm talking about extreme poverty. Not poverty-lite that you'll find in subsidized housing neighbourhoods in Canadian urban centres. Impoverished people are dying as a result of these failures, and the ignorance of so many shows when they cling to this fantasy that somehow the UN provides some sort of lifeboat, that these impoverished people would die without.

[Bob]

I didn't say otherwise. I was responding to the assertion that "other non-profits would take their place."

I think the point is obvious, ceasing funding to the UN would free up those funds to be spent appropriately, or saved, or a combination of both. The UN is the absolute WORST vehicle through which rich countries should work towards their development goals in impoverished societies.

[bloodyminded]

I think the point is obvious, ceasing funding to the UN would free up those funds to be spent appropriately, or saved, or a combination of both. The UN is the absolute WORST vehicle through which rich countries should work towards their development goals in impoverished societies.

As I've said before, I'm not entirely unconvinced by much of what you have said about the UN. But I was asking a direct question to a declarative statement.

If the freed up monies would replace (or better) current UN aid practices, then one would think charity and aid must have been higher before the advent of the UN. That one part of your argument depends on this factor, actually.

Is it the case that, sans the UN, charity and aid were proportionally higher? I personally doubt it (even adjusting for income levels, population, etc), but if there's evidence for it, I'm all ears.

[Remiel]

Anyway, the real reason we should pull out of the UN isn't because of the effectiveness or lack thereof of their social programs. Rather, it is simply an insult to be told how to disarm by North Korea, or lectured on women's rights by Iran for that matter. Why should civilized countries stand for that, and provide funding for that? I for one see no reason.

If you cannot convince the countries that pay for the UN that something must be done about this, then how would you expect, in the course of ordinary diplomacy, to justify the headache you have caused them by pulling out? Canada gains nothing by unilaterally pulling out of the UN.

[Bob]

As I've said before, I'm not entirely unconvinced by much of what you have said about the UN. But I was asking a direct question to a declarative statement.

If the freed up monies would replace (or better) current UN aid practices, then one would think charity and aid must have been higher before the advent of the UN. That one part of your argument depends on this factor, actually.

Is it the case that, sans the UN, charity and aid were proportionally higher? I personally doubt it (even adjusting for income levels, population, etc), but if there's evidence for it, I'm all ears.

But why are you thinking that more money being sent to impoverished people is better? There are two questions you need to ask, is Africa in need of more aid, less aid, or is the amount of aid it receives now appropriate? Second, through what structure should the aid to impoverished people be sent? You're viewing this simplistically - as if a lower total of money being sent to impoverished people in the event of the UN's abolition is inherently a bad thing. As if people will start dying en masse (many of them already are, and it's not for a lack of aid being sent) in greater numbers if the sacred UN could no longer fund its noble endeavours.

You're clearly assuming that a reduction in aid in the event of the UN's abolition is inherently a bad thing, and you're expressing this with your statement that implies concern over a reduction in aid that you think would result from the UN's abolition. And I'm telling you that I think it's exactly the opposite, in the sense that less aid is better, and of course with a major structural overhaul.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Bob

[Remiel]

Furthermore, as insulting as you mind find some counties membership on a Commission (and the Status of Women has nearly a quarter of all UN member states), do you think that the plight of women is Iran, for instance, can be worsened by their membership? If anything, the fact that they are free to voice their opinion in the Commission makes it all the more legitimate if that Commission decides to kick their asses. It would be far better, I think, to focus on how to minimize their ability to mouth off to those commissions rather than deny them outright.

This does not change, however, that countries that are not in line with the goals of such commissions should not be chairing them.

[Bob]

Furthermore, as insulting as you mind find some counties membership on a Commission (and the Status of Women has nearly a quarter of all UN member states), do you think that the plight of women is Iran, for instance, can be worsened by their membership? If anything, the fact that they are free to voice their opinion in the Commission makes it all the more legitimate if that Commission decides to kick their asses. It would be far better, I think, to focus on how to minimize their ability to mouth off to those commissions rather than deny them outright.

This does not change, however, that countries that are not in line with the goals of such commissions should not be chairing them.

What in the world are you talking about? Who has a right to voice what opinion? What makes you think the UNHRC is an open forum that permits free speech?

[bloodyminded]

But why are you thinking that more money being sent to impoverished people is better? There are two questions you need to ask, is Africa in need of more aid, less aid, or is the amount of aid it receives now appropriate? Second, through what structure should the aid to impoverished people be sent? You're viewing this simplistically - as if a lower total of money being sent to impoverished people in the event of the UN's abolition is inherently a bad thing. As if people will start dying en masse (many of them already are, and it's not for a lack of aid being sent) in greater numbers if the sacred UN could no longer fund its noble endeavours.

You're clearly assuming that a reduction in aid in the event of the UN's abolition is inherently a bad thing, and you're expressing this with your statement that implies concern over a reduction in aid that you think would result from the UN's abolition. And I'm telling you that I think it's exactly the opposite, in the sense that less aid is better, and of course with a major structural overhaul.

You may have a point about a certain oversimplistic worldview. That doesn't sound like something totally outside my realm. But that doesn't really change the fact that Bonam made a direct statement (unquestionably implying that the current amount of aid money would continue, under charitable auspices)...and that you chimed in, agreeing with him.

It seems you wish to change the conversation whenever the unlikely occurrence of my making a reasonable point hovers on the horizon.

[Bob]

Actually, that's not what he said. He said NGOs and other charities would pick up the slack. That's not the same thing as stating that the flow of money labelled as "aid" would remain constant. Moreover, that's not a standard we should seek to uphold. Most people, particularly leftists, think more and more and more money is the answer to all the world's ills. This idiotic mentality is what keeps the money flowing, decade after decade, while the steward of this money continually fail but keep their cushy jobs and are never held accountable. Although you didn't explicitly state it, it's obvious you think that less money "sent" to Africa labelled as "aid" in the event of the UN's abolition is automatically a bad thing. That's a product of your leftism.