The absurdity of the UN

[Bonam]

It would be, if that was what I was saying.

To recap: "To not consider a transition plan in advance of removing them would be inhumane."

Ok, so we cut the UN and "consider a plan". Sound better?

"one" being Bob... and "develop naturally" meaning die in large numbers and in misery...

As opposed to dieing in even larger numbers, but spread out over many decades? For all our "aid", people in the third world are still dieing in "large numbers". All our aid is doing is letting the unsustainable populations, incapable of providing for themselves, grow even further at an alarming rate. Cut the aid off, and within a generation the only populations that would exist would be those that can provide for themselves. Surely that is a better situation than hundreds of millions living on barely sufficient handouts, huddling in overcrowded slums, and dying by the millions from preventable diseases and malnutrition?

Because we should only interfere when there are resources there for us to make use of, and attendant regimes for us to prop up in order for that to happen...

Umm, yes. We should only devote our economic power, the lives of our soldiers, our "sweat, blood, and tears", when there is likely to be some reasonable benefit to us.

I'm mocking you here, which isn't quite fair. You're a pretty reasoned poster from what I can recall. In fact, I see some merit in what you say. I recall a radio program from NPR, wherein a long-time social advocate and lefty type decried the culture of helplessness that came out of the US Welfare System.

Events around that time - in the 1990s - made me change my mind about workfare and see the value in social engagement from Workfare. So handouts, I agree, shouldn't be a long term plan.

And yet, permanent handouts seem to be the only plan when it comes to our aiding the third world. We have been sending aid for decades, and in that time, populations in the third world have grown vastly (enabled by our aid), horrific diseases have become more common, not less (see the spread of AIDS for an example), and most of the recipient countries have made no progress towards being able to sustain themselves.

However:

1. The strident and arrogant tone of some posters - exponentialized by puffy language and hyperbole - indicating that the UN should be banned, cut, eliminated - without dialogue and without any kind of plan - is not helpful and puts people off.

On the contrary, suggestions to eliminate the UN create dialog, since few people generally consider the possibility of removing the UN. It is not that common of a topic, and the worthiness of the UN to continue to exist is certainly worth discussing. OF course, arrogant tone is never good, but we have to deal with all kinds of tones on MLW, that's just part of the reality of this forum.

2. What we should be talking about, across the board, is reform: pilot projects, and self-help that creates new approaches. Some of these happen on the aid side, and some changes happen with free trader as well.

Certainly, those are valid issues to discuss. However, my point in this thread had nothing to do with aid. It was about the absurdity of the UN, as the title clearly indicates. The UN selecting a country like NK to chair a disarmament committee is fantastical enough that one can hardly believe it happened in the real world and not in an Onion article. The UN has many aspects. Some people run to the defense of its aid programs, while ignoring the waste and absurdity in its political side. If the aid programs is all that people can defend of the UN, perhaps that is all it should be, a big global umbrella for charity organizations, and we can at least rid ourselves of the ridiculous committees, conferences, and assemblies where third world dictators opine on human rights?

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, so we cut the UN and "consider a plan". Sound better?

When you fail to plan you plan to fail !

As opposed to dieing in even larger numbers, but spread out over many decades? For all our "aid", people in the third world are still dieing in "large numbers". All our aid is doing is letting the unsustainable populations, incapable of providing for themselves, grow even further at an alarming rate. Cut the aid off, and within a generation the only populations that would exist would be those that can provide for themselves. Surely that is a better situation than hundreds of millions living on barely sufficient handouts, huddling in overcrowded slums, and dying by the millions from preventable diseases and malnutrition?

That's why reform is necessary to create sustainability.

Umm, yes. We should only devote our economic power, the lives of our soldiers, our "sweat, blood, and tears", when there is likely to be some reasonable benefit to us.

That negates the moral obligation, but at least you are open about it.

On the contrary, suggestions to eliminate the UN create dialog, since few people generally consider the possibility of removing the UN.

Perhaps, but not a dialogue with Bob in any case.

I agree about dealing with tones. I turn the treble up or down on my receiver.

Certainly, those are valid issues to discuss. However, my point in this thread had nothing to do with aid. It was about the absurdity of the UN, as the title clearly indicates.

I had forgotten that it was you that started this thread, because of my other dialogue on here. So what is the plan then ?

Maybe it's to create a new UN whereby nations have to be approved to enter by showing basic respect for rights. Maybe membership in those nations mean one nation one vote. Tell me your plan.

[bloodyminded]

That negates the moral obligation, but at least you are open about it.

And negates most of the reasoning we are given by leaders, and most of the reasoning offered on boards like this one in support of this or that intervention.

It rather changes the paradigm of the discussions.

[Oleg Bach]

All organizations when they become to intricate and huge...fall to the seductive lure of corruption - It would be better if nations - which are families - or tribes deal with each other one on one..No one needs a cop -especially a cop without a moral compass breathing down your neck. The UN supposedly dispises the tribal and national family system - They are like interlopers and vacarious and useless people who can not mind their own business - I say stop paying them and let them fall _ IF they want to have an international club - let those who want to participate pay the tab - I am sure that North Korea can squeeze the life out of what is left of the populace to come up with some expense money.

[Michael Hardner]

And negates most of the reasoning we are given by leaders, and most of the reasoning offered on boards like this one in support of this or that intervention.

It rather changes the paradigm of the discussions.

It's very rare when the leaders depart from the heartful "We only do good" message. And entertaining. One example that comes to mind was when the US administration couldn't bring itself to support the Egypt uprisings at the beginning.

[Oleg Bach]

It's very rare when the leaders depart from the heartful "We only do good" message. And entertaining. One example that comes to mind was when the US administration couldn't bring itself to support the Egypt uprisings at the beginning.

All leaders can not and will not depart from the we only do good message. Leaders stay in power by this profession..that they are and will be percieved as GOOD people. This is achieved through propoganda and secondly only achieved effectively if they have convinced themselves that they are GOOD...How do you deal with delluded sinister leaders who insist they are angels?

[dre]

My point is basic: programs exist now, and the only humane thing would be to transition them.

You refuse to go there in your discussion, which tells me that either you don't care or that you don't have an idea how to do it. I can't think of any other reasons for your stance.

But theres no compelling REASON to transition them, and the people talking about shutting these programs down have absolutely no idea what they even are, or how they work. And they also dont even appear to know what the UN is.

The reality is that as the global economy developes the existance of such a forum will become more and more important, as will multilateralism in general.

[Oleg Bach]

The members to not elevate themselves to the highest common level of thinking - They degrade to the lowest common way of thinking - It is theatre of compromise mixed with tacit self interest.

[bud]

But theres no compelling REASON to transition them, and the people talking about shutting these programs down have absolutely no idea what they even are, or how they work. And they also dont even appear to know what the UN is.

The reality is that as the global economy developes the existance of such a forum will become more and more important, as will multilateralism in general.

shutting down the UN is another way to shut down criticism of israel. that's all they really care about.

if they really cared about the taxpayers' money being wasted on these foreign projects, they would say something about the $3 billion a year of welfare money given to israel from the US taxpayers, which is significantly more than what US owes to the UN each year.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bud

[M.Dancer]

if they really cared about the taxpayers' money being wasted on these foreign projects, they would say something about the $3 billion a year of welfare money given to israel from the US taxpayers, which is significantly more than what US owes to the UN each year.

And even more....the US gives over twice as much to Egypt (1.5B), Pakistan (2.9B), Saudi Arabia and other arab states.

If US taxpayers opinions are what matters to you, given a choice between aid to a strong ally or aid to pakistan and arab states, which to you think they would be in favour of cutting?

[Bonam]

if they really cared about the taxpayers' money being wasted on these foreign projects, they would say something about the $3 billion a year of welfare money given to israel from the US taxpayers, which is significantly more than what US owes to the UN each year.

3 billion to a strong ally to defend itself against aggressors that have attempted to eradicate it from the face of the Earth a half dozen times in the last 60ish years, or 2 billion to a debating society for third world dictators? Hmm, I wonder which is the better investment?

[bud]

3 billion to a strong ally to defend itself against aggressors that have attempted to eradicate it from the face of the Earth a half dozen times in the last 60ish years, or 2 billion to a debating society for third world dictators? Hmm, I wonder which is the better investment?

spare us the violin playing.

israel can take care of itself.

i rather money be going to programs that save people's lives and to organizations like UNICEF that give children an opportunity to be educated than money going to israel to buy more weapons that end up killing civilians.

if you gave that choice to any sane, unbiased person, i'm sure they would prefer $800 million to the UN, rather than $3 billion to israel.

[dre]

Man... we dont need ANOTHER thread about CONFLICT: DIRTFARM.

Lets get back to people who know absolutely nothing about the UN, whining about it.

[TimG]

if you gave that choice to any sane, unbiased person, i'm sure they would prefer $800 million to the UN, rather than $3 billion to israel.

Actually, I can't imagine a sane person wanting to give $800 million to the hot bed of corruption we call the UN.

[dre]

Actually, I can't imagine a sane person wanting to give $800 million to the hot bed of corruption we call the UN.

The countries that participate in the UN (almost 200 of them), know better. The organization does a lot of important things and its becoming more important by the day... which is why besides a few twits in places like this, theres absolutely no real talk about "abolishing the UN" (as if you can "abolish" a voluntary association of countries anways ).

[Oleg Bach]

The countries that participate in the UN (almost 200 of them), know better. The organization does a lot of important things and its becoming more important by the day... which is why besides a few twits in places like this, theres absolutely no real talk about "abolishing the UN" (as if you can "abolish" a voluntary association of countries anways ).

Who does not attend and stops paying their dues is themselves abolished. A movement could arise where nations that do not want to belong to the league slowly drop out til there is no UN ...and if there is it might consiste of Libya, North Korea and Somalia...and they all deserve each other.

[Pliny]

Having read the thread I just have to say - you aren't going crazy, Bob - You're in a looney bin.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm quoting you back to you, which is likely why you're starting to get a little potty-mouthed.

Not like Bob to use the word shit.....did that really come out of his mouth....I am shocked that a gentleman of his stature and grace would poop out the wrong end.