Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Cato RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans...Mex101 1/23/2006 4:50:45 PM

My Spanish sucks, so I'll just do it in English. The U.N.=the inmates have taken over the assylum. Think it over, Cato

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 1/23/2006 8:04:08 PM

Being a social progressive in the US and a "red headed commie tree hugging lefty terrorist lover baby killer business hater" on this board my condemnation of the UN should have a little more weight. The UN is a majority run body and the majority of the people on it are relatives or friends of military juntas or "el-presidentes for life" in Latin America, Asia and Africa who support programs that put money and food into their pockets and the pockets of their loyal thug armies. Alot of food and money for africa doesn't make it to the people that need it. The UN did nothing until after the Rawanda and Uganda massacres were finished. If NK is under a trade embargo then how does their leadership have such a nice, international lifestyle? The UN couldn't help but be for the first invasion of Iraq. How long did it take to act on the Balkans? And it was mostly the US and western Europe that did the job in the end. Then there is the security council, it needs to have about 6 or 7 new permanent members or be dismembered.

Quote Reply

FJV RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 1/24/2006 12:34:16 PM

Errrrr you might wanna look more closely and honestly at the history of those events you cite. Especially if look honestly, then you will see a lot of things you don't like. You need to look beyond just the surface. It's not always the UN's fault. Often the UN fails, because some people want/expect the UN to be something it isn't. It's also that people expect things done in wars by the UN that are simply impossible. Being Dutch 1 example I can give you is the fact that Dutchbat got shafted during the fall of Srebrenica when UN air support was denied. The result is called the largest massacre of civilians in Europe after WW2. I regard the UN as a bureaucracy that has limited uses (a tool for diplomacy). I don't see the UN as some legit world govt. PS In my opinion Africa is way to huge and divers to make blanket statements like "the poor Africans". For instance a statement that is true for Zimbabwe would be false for Morroco.

Quote Reply

Mex101 RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 1/24/2006 4:29:10 PM

"PS In my opinion Africa is way to huge and divers to make blanket statements like "the poor Africans". For instance a statement that is true for Zimbabwe would be false for Morroco. " Its just a title The Vetos keep the UN security cuncil from acting, Its not ment to be a World Gov. its like a town meeting were people come and agree on things Give me the Number of Latin american Dectatorships and Cummies and cumpaore it to Democraceis. Latin Amercia is mainly Democratic. They usealy support the US when they are not mad at the US. I believe that the UN needs a Reform like the US did with the Articles of Confederation. Most of the damige to the UN was done by USSR,US disagrements that distableized the UN from the Start. and I don't know of anything that overrides the Security cuncil, That is one of the flaws that I see. My answer is to change it not dissolve it.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 1/24/2006 10:30:18 PM

"The Vetos keep the UN security cuncil from acting, Its not ment to be a World Gov. its like a town meeting were people come and agree on things" That's kind of in line with the current administration's thinking. The world considers the UN a world gov't or town hall when it's politically convenient. "Latin Amercia is mainly Democratic. They usealy support the US when they are not mad at the US." I don't know about that, South America is making a big turn to the left out of economics and political "anti-US" appeal. Thankfully Brazil is big enough to keep rowdy upstarts like Chavez in place and prevent him from making big alliances.

Quote Reply

Mex101 RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 1/25/2006 8:13:10 PM

Mexico is keeping an eye un Cuba after a dispute alst year. It almost ended any Mex/Cuvan Relations. Mexico is becoming less fund of Castro every day. Brazil is keeping an eye un chavez though and has Mexico's support. A good question came to mind, How many Latin Nations have keeped their democracies intack since their birth? Mexico Chile? a few Central American Nations I realy can't say which others did so.

Quote Reply

Zerbrechen RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/8/2006 5:57:57 PM

I think the problem with the UN is that providing food for starving peoples is good, and nations don't mind helping out. The "police action" where your nation's troops may get shot at, without your command having the authority to "REALLY take care of the problem" is a bitter pill to swallow. The corruption in the upper levels needs to be cleaned up. I have the view that the UN is just a big cashcow that the US puts a lot of money into for corrupt oficials to dip into. Let the UN stay as a way to assist against starvation, and as a forum to speak your country's views. Let the policing be done by a command structure with more backbone.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/8/2006 6:22:52 PM

Imagine if the funding that has for the most part been wasted by the UN had simply been given to non profit non government charities, with good track records and public transparency, instead of the UN. The money for the UN goes through a large bureaucracy that takes its percentage to support itself, then a bit more through corruption, then the aid gets there and is dropped off. Now comes the point where the UN futility enters the scene. Alot of that aid ends up in the hands of Warlords and Rebels who use the food to control people. Africa needs a steel fist to come in and deal with the problems, instead it gets the UN who comes in and monitors the atrocities. Give the money to a Charity, it will be better spent. Who needs to send soldiers to Africa if they are never going to do anything but watch Atrocities happen?

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/8/2006 8:27:51 PM

Doctors with Borders could put a fraction of the UN budget to excellent use.

Quote Reply

PlatypusMaximus RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/8/2006 9:30:47 PM

Doctors with Borders could put a fraction of the UN budget to excellent use. Youc could say that about anybody. Right now the bar is set at: Trading the money for sex with under-aged refugees. Source: UNHCR

Quote Reply

Mex101 RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/8/2006 9:34:09 PM

I would like to see links to UN curroption. I don't feel like surfing the web for reliable links so if any of you are nice enough, please show me some links.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym RE:Anti-UN people want to stop feeding the poor Africans 2/9/2006 9:25:19 AM

UN Sex Crimes in Congo link Oil For Food (read the whole thing) link link UN Human Rights Commission (The Greatest UN Joke going) link link link More Corruption Probes and other Miscellaneous Items link link You know Mex I could spend all day Googling "United Nations Corrupt" and other variations and fill pages of links to articles and forums who talk endlessly on the subject. If you want to know the truth do the rest of the research, there is ALOT more out there.

Quote Reply

Pseudonym Repost of Appleciderus from another UN discussion 2/9/2006 9:28:39 AM

'appleciderus' Never solved a crisis, 11/18/2005 8:25:29 PM but occasionally successful in spite of itself! Swami: There were NO UN ?peacekeepers? in Cambodia. The UN was so ineffectual dealing with Pol Pot that a disgusted North Vietnam intervened. Imagine North Viet Nam interceding in a ?human rights? issue while the UN debated. Millions of innocent dead. Crosshairs: Korea is arguably a UN success, but only because the Soviet Union had walked out of the Security Council over a different issue. They never did that again. BTW, there is today only a ?cease fire? preventing renewed conflict, not a UN negotiated peace. Ilpars: Gulf War I is a prime example of the UN reluctantly dragging its feet. Without US prodding, the UN would still be negotiating Iraq?s withdrawal from Kuwait. However, UN fans can put that one in the ?win? column. Yobbo: East Timor was a UN disaster until Australia stepped in with troops. The UN claims credit, but let us all thank Australia for not waiting as long as North Vietnam waited. Never the less, innocent people died waiting for the UN to save them. Bombard: The UN has not eradicated smallpox. As uncomfortable as this is to say, Louis Pasteur had more to do with eradicating smallpox than Bombard understands. River blindness? Schools? Roads? Wells? Sanitation? Health Care? They are all UN disasters! The money allocated versus the money delivered to programs is felonious. Senator Coleman?s committee reported last month that a $600,000 UN program had a 10 MILLION dollar administrative budget. Where is the ?outrage?? Lebanon, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, Liberia? Sound familiar? Of course they do: recent additions to the long list of UN failures, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. Along with Somalia, Srebinicia, Sudan, slavery, etc..and my favorite: polio. Since the polio vaccine became available in the mid 1950?s the UN has had multiple ?5 year plans? to eradicate polio, the latest goal being 2008(?). The number of worldwide polio victims increased again this year. In fact, US victims are now on the increase because of ?imported? poliovirus. BTW, most of the UN funds for polio eradication come from Rotary International, about 130 million dollars this year alone. (Please see UN administrative costs noted above.) Sentinel: In 1956 the President of Lebanon publicly requested the US, Britain, and France to protect Lebanon from internal political interference by the United Arab Republic. Lebanon then formally complained to the UN Security Council. The UN sent ?observers?. Had the UN been forceful rather than observant, Beirut might still be the ?Pearl of the Orient?. Instead, almost 50 years later, Lebanon is still a disaster as the UN debates the possible involvement of Syria. (Former United Arab Republic) in a political assassination. Pucka: I hope your caf� romance lasts forever, but your rose colored glasses confuse the UN?s original purpose with its present performance. Phoenix: We agree on many things, but not this. The UN was formed by the victors of WWII in order to prevent another conflict, a conflict they believed to be the fault of the weak League of Nations. The Security Council was composed solely of the victors, who by 1945 were calling themselves the ?United Nations? rather than the ?Allies?. It was not set up as a forum for lesser nations to flex their muscles, but for the ?United Nations? (Allies) to be sure that no nation flexed its muscles but they. Yet, as early as the San Francisco conference in 1945, both Truman and Churchill knew it was a sham as Eastern Europe was swallowed up by Stalin. Then Churchill was gone from the scene. Today, the UN is the image of the prewar League of Nations. (Unfair to the League, which had no opportunity for similar corruption.) The only thing that has saved the world from nuclear conflict to date is the West and the Soviets respecting each other?s ability to fulfill their ?mutual destruction? policies. Even in the ?Cuban Missile? crisis the UN played no role. Today, ?mutual destruction? policies have no benefit with theocratic jihadist Iran, and the UN has been unwilling to be more forceful than it was in Lebanon a half century ago. Warrior: Add to Korea the creation of Israel. Ranger: You understand why the UN is a petrie dish of corruption, but only Security Council consensus was conceived as necessary. Hello?: This is a classic example of how the UN sits on its hands, waits for the outcome, and then claims jurisdiction and credit for success. It was not any nations calls to Eisenhower that effected events. It was Eisenhower?s calls to the Brits and French that changed events. Eisenhower was always cool under stress and I remember only twice seeing his anger publicly visible: with Suez, and in Paris after the U2 incident. He was furious that the US had no warning of the Brits, French and Israeli actions. The UN ?monitors? (not ?peacekeepers?) were documented by media to turn a blind eye to abuses by the Egyptians. I read the stories daily. How times have changed. The UN?s only success was claiming credit for events others had affected. (Sound familiar?) Knives: See above comments re: UN claiming credit for deed done by others. In conclusion I can honestly believe that the UN has had only 3 successes in its 60 years of existence: 1. Korea, through a mistake by the Soviets. 2. The creation of Israel, a noble act. 3. Avoiding payment of NYC parking violation fines. If the UN is to survive, and fulfill the expectations of its proponents, it must be cleansed of corruption. If the UN is to be even moderately effective in the areas it now claims to be successful in, it must be unbiased. I don?t believe this is possible. Even so, until the next worldwide conflict exposes the failure of the UN, we must accept its existence, but not its failures and corruption.

Quote Reply

Ezekiel Dictatorship rules in the UN 7/5/2007 1:14:32 PM

An institution will be as good as the participant within it......as simple as possible is this rational.

The majority of nations that take part in the U.N. democratic processes are totalitarian regimes therefore the u.n. will always be a fundamentally flawed and ineffective body. Far from creating peace it has in many instances caused bloodshed and deepened crisis. The U.N. is contemptible b/c the majority who take part it in are brutal regime's that uses and encorporates the U.N. as part of its strategies. The U.N. must either be reformed or sidelined as a body with any real importance!

Quote Reply

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us