AdmiralKanos wrote:Of course, but you wouldn't know it from the way the hard-right crowd rants about them.
The UN is useful in diplomacy, for it allows countries that despise each
other, to use an analogy: for India and Pakistan to cooperate "sorta" on
projects without having to officially say they're working together
I'm going to have to agree with that. After all, wasn't that its entire original purpose?
Anyway, it also represents something of a "court of world opinion", which one may decry as irrelevant when you are the ruling class but is still hardly something that one can afford to completely ignore. And it also formally advocates certain lofty ideals that none of its member countries actually live up to (the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example) but which do serve as a useful reminder of how far we have to go before our actions match our collective rhetoric. And despite what some may think, UNICEF does some good things.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment! "This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
Coyote wrote:I'm not saying that the UN is 100% useless and inactive. The UN are doing things.
Of course, but you wouldn't know it from the way the hard-right crowd rants about them.
And that's where I am an oddball among many in the military-- I actually like the UN and have high hopes for it. That is it is a hamstrung bureacracy is primarily the fault of outside interests trying to manipulate it for their own gains, and the usual corrupt insiders doing the same. But this is not unique to the UN, every organization has this.
It's difficult to 'clean out' the UN because any serious work has to go through so many governments, getting them to agree...
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
MKSheppard wrote:When two different people in two different careers (Sailor and US Foreign Service Officer) come to the same conclusions
Oh yes, I forgot MGEN Supatra's opinion, yes, when three widely separated
people report the same general conclusions, they all corrobate each other.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Coyote wrote:I'm not saying that the UN is 100% useless and inactive. The UN are doing things.
Of course, but you wouldn't know it from the way the hard-right crowd rants about them.
And that's where I am an oddball among many in the military-- I actually like the UN and have high hopes for it. That is it is a hamstrung bureacracy is primarily the fault of outside interests trying to manipulate it for their own gains, and the usual corrupt insiders doing the same. But this is not unique to the UN, every organization has this.
It's difficult to 'clean out' the UN because any serious work has to go through so many governments, getting them to agree...
... and it can never be more efficient and less corrupt than its constituent members. The bigger the bureacracy, the bigger the project, the higher the inefficiencies (just ask Bostonians about the Big Dig). We're better than some, worse than others in this regard. It's not like the home of Tyco and Enron should be throwing too many stones in the glass house of ethical management practices. We should never let up the pressure to make the UN agencies more accountable, less corrupt, more efficient ... but we can't let that blind us to the global benefits provided by the various humanitarian agencies under the UN umbrella.
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer.
Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon" Operation Freedom Fry
Coyote wrote:It's difficult to 'clean out' the UN because any serious work has to go through so many governments, getting them to agree...
Don't forget the UN's own deeply ingrained bureaucracy. It sorely needs
a cleanout, and a fresh rethinking. We need to get it so that we have no
more of these shitty turd world nations controlling the UN Secretary's
chair, bring back the days of Dag Hammersjkold.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Chmee wrote:...We should never let up the pressure to make the UN agencies more accountable, less corrupt, more efficient ... but we can't let that blind us to the global benefits provided by the various humanitarian agencies under the UN umbrella.
Absolutely. I am generally optimistic about the UN, I pointed out in one thread the long-term and invaluable (and oft under-appreciated) help they offer in 'chronically unfortunate' regions like Africa.
In a way, I would wager (and I'm sure I'll be criticsed for this, but) that if the UN actually had some more power organic to itself, they could be much faster and more efficient in situations like this. In order for the UN to get any relief effort going, they have to go knock on everyone's doors and beg for money, supplies and personnel. And of course most countries will first ask, "whatcha gonna do for me in return?"
If the UN had its own fleet of hospital ships and some surplus, de-militarized amphibious helicopter-carriers, they could be all over this sort of thing in a flash. But then the paranoia erupts, and people start theorizing that the UN is 'going to take over' and set up a world government and make us all bow to Lenin or something.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Coyote wrote:If the UN had its own fleet of hospital ships and some surplus, de-militarized amphibious helicopter-carriers, they could be all over this sort of thing in a flash. But then the paranoia erupts, and people start theorizing that the UN is 'going to take over' and set up a world government and make us all bow to Lenin or something.
They already have a transport fleet of cargo haulers. 90% of their cargo
airlift is private, they give a company a contract, and they repaint the
planes in UN White.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
AdmiralKanos wrote:Of course, but you wouldn't know it from the way the hard-right crowd rants about them.
The UN is useful in diplomacy, for it allows countries that despise each
other, to use an analogy: for India and Pakistan to cooperate "sorta" on
projects without having to officially say they're working together
I'm going to have to agree with that. After all, wasn't that its entire original purpose?
Anyway, it also represents something of a "court of world opinion", which one may decry as irrelevant when you are the ruling class but is still hardly something that one can afford to completely ignore. And it also formally advocates certain lofty ideals that none of its member countries actually live up to (the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example) but which do serve as a useful reminder of how far we have to go before our actions match our collective rhetoric. And despite what some may think, UNICEF does some good things.
From the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, Section 3:
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
"These rights and freedoms," I believe, refer to everything else in the Declaration
Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but that seems pretty Draconian. What if the Bill of Rights had clause that said "these rights and freedoms may in no case be expressed contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States"?
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but that seems pretty Draconian. What if the Bill of Rights had clause that said "these rights and freedoms may in no case be expressed contrary to the purposes and principles of the United States"?
Actually, it looks like an escape clause, designed to let member states get away with shitting all over these rights and freedoms without being sanctioned. And every single member nation would agree on this, since I can't think of a single member nation which does not limit at least some of those rights and freedoms.
As I said before, they represent a public statement of lofty ideals which none of the member states can actually live up to.
For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little planet Cybertron.
But now, you shall witnesss ... its dismemberment! "This is what happens when you use trivia napkins for research material"- Sea Skimmer on "Pearl Harbour".
"Do you work out? Your hands are so strong! Especially the right one!"- spoken to Bud Bundy
AdmiralKanos wrote:As I said before, they represent a public statement of lofty ideals which none of the member states can actually live up to.
The UN worked pretty fine back in the 1950s and early 1960s, and then
a boatload of "former colonies" poured forth, all ruled by dictators and
"triangulated" themselves between the West and Soviets in the UN to
exert maximum gain for their vote. We need to restrict the UN to actual
functioning democracies, IMHO for it to regain it's effectiveness.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
MKSheppard wrote: We need to restrict the UN to actual
functioning democracies, IMHO for it to regain it's effectiveness.
Tempting, but then these various countries-- most of the third world and poor-- will simply say that it is a elite club of capitalists that has locked them out. And it a way, it already exists-- EEC and G-8.
For the poorest and most unfortunate countries, the UN is the only way they can have any sort of voice on the world stage, and their individual vote is the only time they are on a parity with the US's individual vote.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Coyote wrote:Tempting, but then these various countries-- most of the third world and poor-- will simply say that it is a elite club of capitalists that has locked them out.
Actually, Thailand, Mexico, etc and a lot of the third world are Democracies.
What this would do is get rid of all those shitty little countries ruled by dictators having a seat in the UN.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
AdmiralKanos wrote:As I said before, they represent a public statement of lofty ideals which none of the member states can actually live up to.
The UN worked pretty fine back in the 1950s and early 1960s, and then
a boatload of "former colonies" poured forth, all ruled by dictators and
"triangulated" themselves between the West and Soviets in the UN to
exert maximum gain for their vote. We need to restrict the UN to actual
functioning democracies, IMHO for it to regain it's effectiveness.
Thus losing about half the U.N.'s purpose ... we have plenty of organizations to devoted to talking to like-minded people and nations, the U.N. was created to help stop nations with NOTHING in common from dragging the rest of the planet into another world war.
Anyway, who's going to define a 'functional democracy'? The Florida Elections Bureau?
[img=right]http://www.tallguyz.com/imagelib/chmeesig.jpg[/img]My guess might be excellent or it might be crummy, but
Mrs. Spade didn't raise any children dippy enough to
make guesses in front of a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, and a stenographer.
Sam Spade, "The Maltese Falcon" Operation Freedom Fry
Coyote wrote:Tempting, but then these various countries-- most of the third world and poor-- will simply say that it is a elite club of capitalists that has locked them out.
Actually, Thailand, Mexico, etc and a lot of the third world are Democracies.
What this would do is get rid of all those shitty little countries ruled by dictators having a seat in the UN.
Since part of the original purpose of the UN was to provide a venue where the US and (for example) Stalinist Russia could publicly convene, this seems like a strange idea.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
MKSheppard wrote:
The UN worked pretty fine back in the 1950s and early 1960s, and then
a boatload of "former colonies" poured forth, all ruled by dictators and
"triangulated" themselves between the West and Soviets in the UN to
exert maximum gain for their vote. We need to restrict the UN to actual
functioning democracies, IMHO for it to regain it's effectiveness.
Other than the idea being rebutted, the question is why did you think the UN worked "pretty fine" back in the 50s and 60s? They were generally just as useless on their own back then as of now, the sole difference was that during the Korean war, the US was able to capitalise on the Soviet Union withdrawal to dominate the UNSC, thus securing their diplomatic graces to use as their own.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Iceberg wrote:Oh wow, to back up a blog entry, Shep references... ANOTHER BLOG ENTRY! What stunning rhetorical wisdom!
When two different people in two different careers (Sailor and US Foreign Service Officer) come to the same conclusions; it's a fair bet to say that
they're not exaggerating. It's called multiple sources you know. I wouldn't
have posted the original rant if I hadn't seen the Diplomidad's postings
back at the beginning of the month.
Ranty and Dickheadmad claim to be a sailor on the Lincoln and a former diplomat, respectively. No evidence whatsoever that they're anything but anonymous cranks. What's your next source Shep, someone claiming to be Angelina Jolie's new boyfriend?
Iceberg wrote:Oh wow, to back up a blog entry, Shep references... ANOTHER BLOG ENTRY! What stunning rhetorical wisdom!
When two different people in two different careers (Sailor and US Foreign Service Officer) come to the same conclusions; it's a fair bet to say that
they're not exaggerating. It's called multiple sources you know. I wouldn't
have posted the original rant if I hadn't seen the Diplomidad's postings
back at the beginning of the month.
Ranty and Dickheadmad claim to be a sailor on the Lincoln and a former diplomat, respectively. No evidence whatsoever that they're anything but anonymous cranks. What's your next source Shep, someone claiming to be Angelina Jolie's new boyfriend?
I knew you reminded me of someone in this thread, Elfie. Now I remembered of whom: Comical Axi when he was doing much the same thing, but with a board member.
fgalkin wrote:I knew you reminded me of someone in this thread, Elfie. Now I remembered of whom: Comical Axi when he was doing much the same thing, but with a board member.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
To be honest I'm behind him on it, at least insofar as using blogs as evidence is bullshit.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Why are you guys focusing solely on the anti-UN sentiment? That was only one part of the whole article, which focused on the waste of resources being diverted to assist people who were not involved with delivering aid?
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
