Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Craig Read

Useless Nattering Organism-Useful?

Recommended Posts

The UNO - the great hope of mankind. Lofty rhetoric, bromides, dreams of a World Government !! Kofi Annan striding the world stage like a Colossus, benign, wise all seeing, and corrupt ??

Besides soft issues and humanitarian relief what good is this group ?

A play thing for France and Russia who still believe they are 'great powers'?

A way for cowards like Canada to hide while the big boys do the real heavy lifting ?

Another massacre while the Useless Nations sit and watch - this time in Africa.

In the Republic of Congo -- More than 950 civilians have been killed. Investigators found about 20 mass graves and discovered that many of the victims were executed, the Associated Press reported.

What does the UN actually do besides eat up taxpayer dollars, give Kofi and gang lots of mayonnaise on their fries, and make people feel warm and fuzzy ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than that which has already been said about the UN being essentially a bureacratic body whose primary mission is to preserve itself, I feel that the following is true.

The UN's main goal in international affairs is not to preserve peace or to grant the wishes of the world's population. Ineffectual or entirely absent interference in world affairs have attested to that. I think the main goal is to push politically correct social programmes on the world. For instance, it seems that it is less important that the people of Central African states be free and have self-government, than that they have access to birth control.

This sounds like a laudable goal, however, it almost invariably goes against the wishes of these people. Third World people don't want birth control, they want large families. This is for many reasons, but basically, other cultures praise large families. Rather than address the problems of a large, immature population (housing, employment, infrastructure), the UN would rather persuade these people that their cultural and religious beliefs are irrelevant against Western values, and re-educate these people to embrace birth control, abortion and a birth rate lower than the death rate, as many Western countries now have.

Consider too the large portion of UN time devoted to women's rights and issues. Information is available on their website. The UN should not even recognise the term "women's issues", in my opinion. I consider that there are no women's rights or issues, only *human* rights and issues. If women are oppressed in the Middle East, that is not a violation of their women's rights but a violation of their human rights. The UN is not solving any problems with these kinds of stances, merely playing up to lobby groups and popular causes, and that is what the UN is all about. Style over content, and procedure more important than results.

Comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the two of you I don't have too much to add to what you've said!

Except, perhaps that you have my 100% agreement and support.

The US should withdraw from this organization pronto. The fundamental flaw that doomed the UN from day one, was the lunatic idea of inviting dictators to the table, expecting that they were open to dialogue and discussion, and would make a positive contribution on the world stage. Dictatorships exist for one purpose only: Power. Power for its own sake. If this were not the case then they would not need police state apparatus to maintain their regimes.

The best course of action might be for the US, and a few proven democratic allies (ie: UK< Australia, Spain Portugal, Poland, Italy, Japan etc) get together and form an organization that will ACT decisively against rogue nations.

There can be no place for France or dictatorships in this group. And as a prerequisite for Canada's joining, a new government must be elected that will restore us to "real country" status that the Liberals ( a government of whoich Paul MArtin has been an integral part) have so effectively destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hugo

regarding women as long as they are heard, i don't mind who represents them. the world is borne out of a strong patriarchal culture, prejudice and discrimination are a reality and issues for women of the world to deal with. i sometimes think it is so ironic that the US is wanting to "emancipate" the depressed women of those arab regions. The UN adopted CEDAW and many countries ratified the treaty to eliminate discrimination against women. But nothing supersedes the US who took a stance, we will free the afghan and iraqi women and children, bring western values, change cultures, some democracy to the land but couldn’t surrender to ratifying - a country who is borne on freedom - but like americans they only surrender to their own domestic matters and laws, compliance to the UN - none, so rendering the UN useless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rita,

I'm sure it'd be a new thread and that's not my intent, but I don't believe that women are universally "oppressed" (or have been at one time or another) because of males overpowering the weaker sex, so to speak. The reasons that women were "out of the loop" with public life and work and politics and still are in many countries seems more to do with biology to me. Women have children and because they are more naturally bonded to them, tend to want to stay home to look after them. This cuts them out of public life. That's why so many women who now enter the workforce because of feminists telling them that they're supposed to or they'll be irrelevent end up feeling so guilty for leaving their children. It's not really in our nature to have babies and then leave them for 8 hours (or more) a day. But hey, no one else is having the kids - until Planned Parenthood or NOW works out a way for a machine to do it for us icon_biggrin.gif

Secondly, CEDAW is not ratified by the US because pretty much everything in there already exists in the US. It has been ratified by Afghanistan and Iraq as well as a host of other countries though. Where would you rather live? The US has Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. I don't think there's a women's rights problem there. I think CEDAWs main agenda was to legally enforce unrestricted abortion rights around the world. In case you hadn't noticed, George Bush isn't a big fan of abortion.

But anyway.. like anything the UN does, it's useless anyway in case you didn't get the REAL irony that the US has not ratified CEDAW but Afghanistan and Iraq have. UN advocates, note that good and evil are not defined by whether or not a state subscribes to the UN's unenforced paper-tiger laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ronda

you really do like an argument, yes, i hope you are in politics icon_smile.gif

...well lets just say that the US really did not ratify CEDAW for the same reason they don’t believe in ICC – basically the US do not answer to international bodies. Carter did sign into CEDAW but was rejected by the senate. I see this as such hypocrisy-double standard really, wanting to be leaders influencing women’s suffrage worldwide (oh I agree the us do much for women,...hmmm replace clinton with rosalind franklin-double helix) but they are just as non-committal, cannot buy-into international agreements, how more immoral and non-binding can one get.

"CEDAW is about gender inequality and consists of 30 articles of what constitutes discrimination against women and action to end it..well it includes discrimination in areas such as education, employment, health care, marriage and family relations, politics, finance, and law"...should be adopted by those who are genuine about women's issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rita,

quote
I see this as such hypocrisy-double standard really, wanting to be leaders influencing women’s suffrage worldwide... but they are just as non-committal, cannot buy-into international agreements, how more immoral and non-binding can one get.

I'm not sure how you would justify your stand on this. You say that the US has a double standard because they want to "influence women's suffrage worldwide" while they have women's suffrage at home?

It is not immoral to fail to ratify an international agreement that goes against your ethics as a nation. Ronda has suggested that the most probable reason for failing to ratify CEDAW is the abortion issue, and in a country where 73% disagree with legalised abortion-on-demand that is fair enough.

To ratify this treaty would do a disservice to the American people, not to mention the fact that it is a complete waste of time as "women's rights" are not in any danger in the US. This doesn't even take into account that CEDAW is impotent and worthless - it was ratified by the Taliban government, who really weren't into women's rights at all.

I believe that you suggest that this document is a meaningful guarantee on women's rights - which cannot be while the signatories treat women worse than non-signatories. I think it would be hypocritical if the US *did* ratify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well like I said previously the US do not succumb to international laws for the fear it takes precedence over their own domestic interest. employment with regards to women is the interest for me and yes inequalities exist in the US and Canada not as prevalent as long ago, but still exists.

But what I meant was that if the US so believe in women rights, then signing into to some agreement with an international body would make it moral to reinforce, buttress some rules that is universally accepted, in this case iraq, taliban who is in serious violation of the treaty. I couldn’t be more pleased that the US led invasion will help liberate the women of the arab region and give them freedom of choices. All I am saying is that there is a perception that the US has identify others as behaving inappropriately based on whose standards – the US, or the UN whose rules that the US did not ratify. So this justifies the US taking mis or appropriate actions, and then who monitors the US?. Really the crux of the matter says that the US really don’t give a damm about UN or anyone for that matter, and really looks after its own interest. Btw “Article 12” Quote "1993, 68 Senators-[they represent the people voices no] — more than the 2/3 majority necessary to ratify a treaty — signed a letter in favor of CEDAW ratification – for the Center for Reproductive Rights believes it would be preferable to ratify CEDAW without such restrictions in order to ensure subsequent implementation of CEDAW’s principles of non-discrimination in the U.S"unquote...still did not ratify. So what really has the US agreed and signed with UN, - the international labor law with regards to child work exploitation and what else? One has to admit that the US is a major player and influences worldwide activities, with its lack of support to the UN you really have to beg the initial question on the post about UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rita, the failure of the US in matters such as this, the ICC and Kyoto is that we have not properly explained to the World that it is impossible for us to accept or ratify them if they are in conflict with our Constitution. When we say our Constitution is the "Law of the Land" that is not some PR statement but a basic fact.

If there are provisions in such treaties or pacts which conflict with the Constitution, they can not and will not be adopted by the Senate and if they made the mistake of doing so, their action would be null and void. No President be he a Clinton or a Bush can act to make these the law of the land - again, the action would be null and void.

Changing our Constitution requires a long complex process, deliberately so . Such changes must be passed by two successive Congresses and then ratified by 2/3rds of the States within a seven year period.The limited number of changes in that document since its adoption are clear evidence of the difficulty of any change.

We don't explain this well enough to people which leads to a great deal of misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i would like to know is the following about the UNO:

1. Who are the jokers who run it and what is their backgrounds and how did they get there ? What vested interests do they represent ?

2. Of the $10 billion spent every year what is the audited return on investment and justification for the spending ? Where are the audited numbers ? Or is there a double standard for private companies and government agencies?

3. Why do we have the IMF and The World Bank as well as the UN Economic and Social Council. These 3 overlap - get rid of one of them.

4. If the UN does not have an army and cannot prevent the slaughter of people why is there a UN Security Council ? Secure for what ? Secure to do nothing i guess.

5. Why don't Canadians get to vote on how much we give to the UN ? Why are taxpayers forced to pay for a group they know nothing about ?

If the money spent on the UN was known i bet there would be a lot more interest in understanding how this body works.

6. Finally why are there 51.000 bureaucrats at the UN. This works out to U$19.608 in budget per UNocrat. In Canada we have U$45.000 per sniveling government union based worker.

Got to love that UN efficiency. Even Canadian governments make it look unproductive and inefficient !!!!

That is truly scary.

Well I am sure the UNocrats more than make up for their lack of efficiency with their insufferable arrogance and vanity.

Kofi for God !!! Save us Kofi, save us please. Hallelulah. I feel like I want to dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. UNO is accused of skimming hundreds of millions of dollars from the 'oil for food' programme from Iraq. [WSJ April 22-24]

2. Kurdish leaders have charged the UN with withholding $ from them in aid and using the $ to pay UN expenses.

3. WHO tells the world not to travel to Toronto due to SARS. SARS is totally quarantined you have no chance to catch it, and more of a chance to die from lightning.

No WHO officials have been to Toronto.

4. Cuba is a shoo-in apparently to get a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission. 6 spots are available next month. Candidates include; China, Russia, Congo, Angola and yes North Korea. Chair nation; Libya.

5. Another study this week out of Montreal debunks Global Warming. States the world has no increase in temperature. Public records in Alaska, Chicago and yes London Ont. home of David 'i am an eco fascist twerp' Suzuki, point to cooling since 1950.

A recent study found Antartica 20c Colder than Kyoto models predicted.

Still want a World Government ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey craig do you realize world climate is a complicated subject?

if you were lost in the desert and had one bottle of water would you drink it without concern and find more later, or would you ration it?

obviously you would ration it.

once you screw up your environment, you cant get it back. it only makes sense to take precautions, whether you are absolutely sure or not. its called discipline. same skills required to make a household budget or go to the doctor regularly.

instead of hating the best country in the world, maybe you should suggest how to make it even better.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think trying to reign in an organisation that is capitalising on people's ignorance about climate qualifies as trying to "make it [the country] even better".

Why was there an Ice Age? Did the dinosaurs drive SUVs? icon_biggrin.gif

Trying to not litter, recycling, reducing dependance on oil are all worthy causes. Getting together a global committee that is allocated billions and billions annually and forcing a stake through the heart of industry for a *possible* negligable effect on the global climate is absurd. Especially when their primary concern seems to actually be keeping themselves employed and the general public afraid of life without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ronda - Kyoto is a sham and a fraud. First, those of the Third World, the largest sources of pollution are exempt and to add insult to injury, the can sell "Pollution Credits" which are based upon their measured pollution (which they can continue to generate). Second, the NGO's, the UN people and several EU Governments played with the "Base Year" so that much of the EU is either exempt or has minimal standards to meet.

Kyoto is aimed at North America, mainly the US but Canada was also a target. The Treaty is a "two-fer; if adopted,it would transfer very large amounts of money from "wealthy" North America to the Third World and as a bonus, it would make North America non-competative with the EU providing them with substantial cost advantages for their export trade. The purpose of Kyoto has nothing to do with air quality and everything to do with European politics and exports.

The only real question remaining is how long Canada will shoot itself in the foot before it wakes up and discovers it has priced itself out of the market. And SirRiff, these are the same people who have banned crops from modified seeds, again to protect their farmers and their export markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, Ned.

quote
to add insult to injury, the can sell "Pollution Credits" which are based upon their measured pollution (which they can continue to generate).  

Can you please clarify this?

It seems to be pretty close to a worldwide welfare program to me. Force corporations (read: wealth) from successful nations to set up shop in third world countries. Sounds nice until *your* job gets flushed down the toilet.

I actually work for a company that serves Americans. The reason I'm employed is that Canadians do the work cheaper than Americans. Just wait till American companies, courtesy of Kyoto, are banned from operating in Canada.

Then again, we could always ignore it and just reap the good publicity. Like Iraq, Afghanistan, China etc. did with CEDAW. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rhonda,

Firstly American companies aren't going to be banned from working in Canada.

Second I have serious doubts that Kyoto will even be implimented in any meaningful way.

If companies are leaving Canada and the States to set up shop in third world countries it's because they don't have to pay decent wages, obey labour regulations or follow environmental law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what I said. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nonsense and out of the scope of this thread to state that companies move to 3rd world countries due to wages.

Many factors contribute to plant/office locations including quality, productivity, market access, laws, protection of private property, educated labor, language, culture, and sundry other little nit picking items that have zero to do with how much does Manolo collect each hour.

If wages were the only variable than all industry would be in Mexico. As it is no discernible migration has occured since 1995 - NAFTA - to Mexico that was not already in train. NAFTA is an expression of reality - it is regional SECTORAL trade agreement and not Free Trade. Plenty of loop holes and obstacles remain that precludes 'free' trade.

No proof from the 'sucking sound' camp aka Ross Perot and small minded nationalists like Maude Barlow, or Barfing Maudlin, who can't cite one study to support their inanity that America and Canada are denuded of industry. If that is right then why is industrial production, economic growth and job creation from 1995-2003 up in both countries - in fact the net job creation in the US is about 2.5 million even given the post 9-11-01 contraction. Advanced economies always become more value added and service oriented - low paying labor jobs are destined to disappear or relocate. This is a process that is necessary as it is beneficial for 3rd world recipients who on average get paid a lot more by IBM than they would by picking tomatoes.

As for the Useless Nattering Organism - the less it interferes with economics the better.

These clowns just made $21 billion on killing 500.000 Iraqi's and the World bank and IMF lose about $7 billion a year on dubious projects, many of which just prop up assorted dictators and wacko's in various countries.

Time for government and the UNO to stop distorting reality and let real people deal with real issues - at the local level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides Kyoto which is now under daily fire for its Junk Science, we have Junk Judiciary - the ICJ. I can't understand why nation states voluntarily support unelected unaccountable un-democratic groups like the ICJ. Who are these clowns ? Can anyone name 1 article of the ICJ or one ICJ Judge ?

I read today the following. It is laughable until you realise what is truly at issue:

=========

The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal.

France, Germany and Syria abstained, apparently ignoring a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent, which the U.S. initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the International Criminal Court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping."

The resolution, adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the U.S. and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court.

================

Incredible. Now the idea is that after one year we can try any and all nationals including Israeli's of course, that defend themselves or civilian populations from aggression and terror.

Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me Craig if I got lost here but is it not customary for the victor in a war to be kind of exempt from prosecution in any way shape or form from those whose *** he just whipped? I do believe as well that in the case of the UN that any crimes commited by soldiers are dealt with by the nation whose soldier commited the offence. A perfect example is Trooper Kyle Brown of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. If he was tried by the Somalis for his small role in the murder of that thief he would have been hacked to pieces by a mob of people with machetes. Hardly makes me want to volunteer for any UN duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes exactly. Sumbit your national autonomy and security concerns to the wonderful claptrap called the UN. Soon they will be telling us if our local police can issue parking tickets to minorities, since that properly infringes 'human rights' development and 'self esteem' principles. The UN is the epitome of a governing body looking for something to do. To justify their existence they whip up frenzy, SARS, Global Warming, American war crimes, Israeli war crimes [never Palestinian or Arab], destruction of Whales and so on.

Not one politician in Canada has explained why we fund the UNO and where the money goes and what it is the return on the investment. A lot of it gets channeled into foreign aid and hand outs which does nothing to help the receiving country. It is a collection of small weak nations that feels the UNO can challenge US hegemony. In order to so, they will enact the most frivolous and illegitimate of acts and proposals. Instead of reforming themselves they like to lecture others though who exactly the others are gets lost and usually is directed at the US and Israel. Time to pare it down and reform it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

national authority is useless when the world goes to hell around you.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SARS is another good example of the impotence of the WHO and WHAT and UNO groups.

That Canada's socialised health care system failed [along with China's socialised system]is obvious. That socialised health care is a scam is clear - economically, morally, and in terms of technology and efficiency. The real debate in Canada which will never happen due to the 'mass tyranny' of ignorant people [ie voters] is the reformation of the entire health services sector.

Having said that Gro Bruntland, a socialist Norwegian, and her band of merry Marxists have NO authority to issue warnings, advisories or comments on national systems. None whatsoever. Through media manipulation and hysteria the WHO created a major problem with SARS over a small epidemic affecting less than 100 people in Toronto.

Each year in Toronto thousands die from the flu and other communicable diseases. In a rational world these diseases, which still do not have a known cureall would be the subject of 'travel advisories' and 'public panic'.

Like the entire UNO, the WHO has to justify its budget, its $400K salary for a former socialist PM, and its massive tax payer funded facility in Geneva. Creating panics is a good way to justify ones existence.

No funds should be given to UNO agencies without a review of where the funds go, who uses them and why and what the return is to the Canadian taxpayer.

As for SARS the UNO should give Canada 2 % of the GDP of Toronto's economy as compensation for its delusional hysteria and media manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no one abhors King Kofi and his merry band of socialist engineering friends than myself, but Kofi is dead right about Africa. Good to see that the UNO finally recognised the Black Hole that is the African Continent. Poverty, War, Disease, Misery; all induced by corruption, fraud, stupidity abetted by Western largesse, monies and funding of various stripes. Now the UNO has to follow up its rhetoric with hard action - no money unless political and economic reforms are undertaken. Period. Money talks. Rhetoric walks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

A few comments:

Re: International Criminal Court.

The ICC is only authorized to act in cases where local authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Therefore, if nations wish to avoid having citizens of theirs prosecuted by the ICC, they should be extra vigilant in ensuring that offenders are punished.

That Canada's socialised health care system failed [along with China's socialised system]is obvious. That socialised health care is a scam is clear - economically, morally, and in terms of technology and efficiency. The real debate in Canada which will never happen due to the 'mass tyranny' of ignorant people [ie voters] is the reformation of the entire health services sector.

And its leftist who are always accused of "elitism". :rolleyes:

The United States is the only western democracy that does not have a system of socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is the best and only way to guarantee a reasonable standard of living across the board. The alternative is an anti-democratic health system where the profit motive and shareholders' bottomlines trump public health concerns.

Many factors contribute to plant/office locations including quality, productivity, market access, laws, protection of private property, educated labor, language, culture, and sundry other little nit picking items that have zero to do with how much does Manolo collect each hour.

Other factors: ability to avoid/circumvent environmental regulation, ability to buy the compliance of local authorities, ability to crush organized labour, ability to maintain sub-par working conditions, ability to avoid taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...