Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

Peter F · July 8, 2012

What's this Bull Sheet, eh? I could care less if Canada belongs to the UN. Nor, really, do I care if waldo wants to be in Mugabe's Will. Or Mugabe's beeatch, for that matter...you choose.

Well Bullsheet it is. You do care otherwise you wouldn't have asked why he loves Mugabe so much

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

If you didn't care, you wouldn't devolve into pretending that everyone who disputes you loves dictators, or terrorists, or Nazis, or any other parts of your (limited) arsenal.

Indifference is what indifference does. And your responses don't qualify.

So you're for Syria being on the UN Human Rights Council? I'd hate to misjudge Assad...nor your palio Mugabe.

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

Well Bullsheet it is. You do care otherwise you wouldn't have asked why he loves Mugabe so much

Still up, eh? Perhaps a few more whiskeys will put you to sleep. Chop, chop.

Peter F · July 8, 2012

Still up, eh? Perhaps a few more whiskeys will put you to sleep. Chop, chop.

Perhaps...we shall see

bleeding heart · July 8, 2012

So you're for Syria being on the UN Human Rights Council?

Actually it sounds ridiculous to me.

I'd hate to misjudge Assad...nor your palio Mugabe.

And there you go again. Lazy, lazy.

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

Actually it sounds ridiculous to me.

And there you go again. Lazy, lazy.

Well...give me something to work with...lol.

bleeding heart · July 8, 2012

Well...give me something to work with...lol.

You've already insisted that you're not up to the task...lol.

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

You've already insisted that you're not up to the task...lol.

I hear Katy Perry is quite the musical talent.

Edited July 8, 2012 by DogOnPorch

bleeding heart · July 8, 2012

I hear Katy Perry is quite the musical talent.

I hear the same thing, but I remain dubious about the claim.

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

I hear the same thing, but I remain dubious about the claim.

Then you shouldn't be so quick to claim I insisted upon anything. Personally, I don't get why waldo is a fan of Mugabe's or that being an ambassador is that much different than a champion. But waldo does. Perhaps you should be tasking him? If you're still a fan of the UN, yourself, maybe you can "explain the difference"...

:lol:

Meanwhile, the UN is getting pretty silly if Assad is being groomed for the Human Rights slot.

Right??

:lol:

bleeding heart · July 8, 2012

Then you shouldn't be so quick to claim I insisted upon anything. Personally, I don't get why waldo is a fan of Mugabe's or that being an ambassador is that much different than a champion. But waldo does. Perhaps you should be tasking him? If you're still a fan of the UN, yourself, maybe you can "explain the difference"...

But I read the back-and-forth exchange between you and Waldo...and I see zero evidence, none at all, that Waldo is a "fan" of Mugabe.

That was my entire point.

Meanwhile, the UN is getting pretty silly if Assad is being groomed for the Human Rights slot.

Right??

There's lots silly about the UN, no doubt we agree on that. But it's not just third-world tinpots who are to blame. Naturally, when we perceive serious flaws in any organization, we look first to its most powerful and influential members.

Why should they get a pass?

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

But I read the back-and-forth exchange between you and Waldo...and I see zero evidence, none at all, that Waldo is a "fan" of Mugabe.

That was my entire point.

Waldo is pretty quick to jump to the Great Leader Bean's defence.

There's lots silly about the UN, no doubt we agree on that. But it's not just third-world tinpots who are to blame. Naturally, when we perceive serious flaws in any organization, we look first to its most powerful and influential members.

Why should they get a pass?

America is evil...yes, I think I got that point.

bleeding heart · July 8, 2012

America is evil...yes, I think I got that point.

Where do you get this stuff?

I repeat:

Naturally, when we perceive serious flaws in any organization, we look first to its most powerful and influential members.

That is a truism, and extrapolates to any organization...with zero exceptions.

I'm surprised you dispute the general principle.

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

Where do you get this stuff?

I repeat:

That is a truism, and extrapolates to any organization...with zero exceptions.

I'm surprised you dispute the general principle.

We are captains of our own ships. Nobody forced Assad to murder his own people. Same goes for Mugabe.

bleeding heart · July 8, 2012

We are captains of our own ships. Nobody forced Assad to murder his own people. Same goes for Mugabe.

I agree 100%.

waldo · July 8, 2012

But I read the back-and-forth exchange between you and Waldo...and I see zero evidence, none at all, that Waldo is a "fan" of Mugabe.

That was my entire point.

your point, your most astutely garnered point, is one lost on UN bashers... like the PorchDog. He has no argument to begin with. In being called out, he weakly falls back on marginalization attempts... a consistent pattern.

DogOnPorch · July 8, 2012

your point, your most astutely garnered point, is one lost on UN bashers... like the PorchDog. He has no argument to begin with. In being called out, he weakly falls back on marginalization attempts... a consistent pattern.

The UN was relevant at one point. That point has past. It is now a tax payer funded Jew bashing centre that appoints monsters to positions of prestige and power while bad mouthing Canada. You and the UN can move to Zimbabwe, frankly.

waldo · July 9, 2012

The UN was relevant at one point. That point has past. It is now a tax payer funded Jew bashing centre that appoints monsters to positions of prestige and power while bad mouthing Canada.

in your opinion? Now... now... tax payer funded? Just now? Only just now? A "Jew bashing centre"? Just now? I expect over the history of the UN there have been several examples of, as you say, "Jew bashing" at the UN, but how/why would that warrant your collective all encompassing attachment and labeling? Monsters to positions of prestige and power? You might need to qualify this one as we saw how you failed with Mugabe, big time, hey? In any case, I believe it was MLW member, 'wyly', who succinctly spoke to an inclusiveness approach; one that attempts to foster exposure/improvement by association rather than isolationism - what a concept, hey? Bad mouthing Canada? Really? How so? :lol:

carepov · July 9, 2012

Ummm...OK...here 'Ya go: Indonesia and East Timor

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/27353

The story of East Timor is complex. It does seem like the UN (and Int-com) failed to protect East Timor 1974-1999 but I cannot figure any argument that would suggest that "without the UN East Timor would be a better country today".

It looks like the UN is helping the country to develop.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/asiathepacific/timorleste/TIMOR_LESTE_2006_en.pdf

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2012

The story of East Timor is complex. It does seem like the UN (and Int-com) failed to protect East Timor 1974-1999 but I cannot figure any argument that would suggest that "without the UN East Timor would be a better country today".

It looks like the UN is helping the country to develop.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/asiathepacific/timorleste/TIMOR_LESTE_2006_en.pdf

I think we can say that with a properly run UN we could see better results. Every successful mission that the UN runs is successful in spite of the UN rather than because of it.

dre · July 9, 2012

I think we can say that with a properly run UN we could see better results. Every successful mission that the UN runs is successful in spite of the UN rather than because of it.

I think we can safely say that if the UN attempted to operate the way you want it too, there would be no UN at all.

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2012

I think we can safely say that if the UN attempted to operate the way you want it too, there would be no UN at all.

I would have to respectfully disagree, but even if you are right no UN is better than what we have right now.

bush_cheney2004 · July 9, 2012

The story of East Timor is complex. It does seem like the UN (and Int-com) failed to protect East Timor 1974-1999 but I cannot figure any argument that would suggest that "without the UN East Timor would be a better country today".

That wasn't the question, you asked when has the UN hindered "freedom and prosperity".

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9909a/copyright/timorvote-unstrikeout.html

dre · July 9, 2012

I would have to respectfully disagree, but even if you are right no UN is better than what we have right now.

As I said before you would have to really look at all the stuff the UN does in order to make that judgement, and you simply have not done that, and you dont seem to understand how it works. For the most part its just a place where a bunch of countries can sit down and talk and forge agreements and treaties on hundreds of different types of issues... everything from security, to humanitarianism, conservation, trade and commerse, etc.

Unless you read them all and evaluate what they do all you can do is take a wild guess on whether or not we would be better off without the UN in its current form.

Signals.Cpl · July 9, 2012

As I said before you would have to really look at all the stuff the UN does in order to make that judgement, and you simply have not done that, and you dont seem to understand how it works. For the most part its just a place where a bunch of countries can sit down and talk and forge agreements and treaties on hundreds of different types of issues... everything from security, to humanitarianism, conservation, trade and commerse, etc.

Unless you read them all and evaluate what they do all you can do is take a wild guess on whether or not we would be better off without the UN in its current form.

You mean like the EU, G20, G8, and the dozens of other organizations? What good is the UN if the primary reason for its creation is a complete failure?

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

1) Complete and undisputed failure. Lets break it down:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace,

They have not done that, nor are they doing that or planning on doing that at some point in the future.

and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,

Works like a charm...

and to bring about by peaceful means,

Peaceful means=let the innocent die like animals.

and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,

How can they even write that down when the veto powers are exempt from following ICJ rulings?

adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

We can safely say that this is a fail as well.

I can continue but the point is that there is a primary and most important mission and then there is the secondary and much less important mission of the UN. The UN fails in its most basic mission, and the core reason for its existence, international treaties have existed and been signed for thousands of years before the UN was created.