If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Idiot)   UN Security Council head says members have better things to do than attend security briefings or show up to meetings on time   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 58
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

316 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2006 at 7:14 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-03-04 06:48:04 PM
I see John Bolton is continuing to harass and intimidate people at the UN by starting meetings on time.
 
2006-03-04 06:54:30 PM
Does anyone still take the UN seriously? This is a real question.
 
2006-03-04 06:57:05 PM
There's no question that Bolton's an assclown, but seems to me that people should show up at meetings on time just like they do in every other business. Then again, I don't know much about the inner workings of the UN and wouldn't want to spout assclown talking points about how screwed up it is.
 
2006-03-04 07:01:07 PM
Many countries do. The U.S., apparently, does not. (Well, except for those times when the UN and US agree.)

Seriously, the UN needs to go by the NationStates principle: If you're a UN member, you abide by everything the UN decides whether you like it or not. If not, you risk sanctions or (in particularly egregious cases) military intervention.
 
2006-03-04 07:02:36 PM
The UN continues to amaze me with its complete ineptitude.
 
2006-03-04 07:11:11 PM
"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill

"The UN is the worst overly ambitious, broad-stretching international organization except all those others* that have been tried from time to time." -me ripping off Winston Churchill

* Of course "all those others" in this case doesn't exactly include very many organizations
 
2006-03-04 07:16:19 PM
OK, serious question. Who sucks more, the French, or the UN. Personaly, I would have to say the UN. Because France does something amusing every now and then where the UN is just boring and stupid 24/7 IMHO.
 
2006-03-04 07:17:16 PM
I think the problem with the UN is that it doesn't have any power because the governments that form it don't give it any. The US does things that the UN doesn't want all the time but the UN doesn't have any power to sanction (yeah, it's a contronym) the US so the US just keep doing stupid things.
 
2006-03-04 07:27:56 PM
7of7: The problem isn't that the UN doesn't have the power for sanctions, it's that the US has the power of veto.

It's like a single Senator from New York getting veto on every single bill for no reason other than his district makes a lot of money. Get rid of veto, and say hello to new no-worse-than-any-others government.
 
2006-03-04 07:29:27 PM
Does anyone still take the UN seriously? This is a real question.

No, I think everyone realizes by now just how useless the UN really has become.
 
2006-03-04 07:29:29 PM
Bypassing the U.S. Senate,
President George W. Bush sent Bolton to the United Nations last August with instructions to shake up the world body after findings of mismanagement and corruption in the $64 billion oil-for-food program for
Iraq.


Speaking of ineptitude......

Bush is criticizing the UN??? WTF? Maybe somebody should remind him of his "great" handling of the war in Iraq or the US economy.

The UN turned out to be right about Iraq, didn't it, Bush lovers?
 
2006-03-04 07:31:27 PM
Weaver95: No, I think everyone realizes by now just how useless the UN really has become.


Why would ANYONE take the Bush administration seriously, though?

/Except for extremist "hangers-on", of course.
 
2006-03-04 07:32:01 PM
it's that the US has the power of veto.

Yeah, I fail to see why US politicians and talking point spouters expect so much from the UN when the US has taken so many opportunities to take power away from the UN. Every time the US ignore UN rules, it undermines the UN.
 
2006-03-04 07:34:24 PM
7of7: I think the problem with the UN is that it doesn't have any power because the governments that form it don't give it any. The US does things that the UN doesn't want all the time but the UN doesn't have any power to sanction (yeah, it's a contronym) the US so the US just keep doing stupid things.

Yup, the whole veto thing was done simply so that the USSR would participate in the UN. Without the veto powers on the Security Council held by certain countries the USSR figured the US, UK, France, and the rest of the western world would simply gang up on the USSR. So the veto powers sort of served their purpose during the Cold War by keeping everyone at the table, of course nothing conclusive could ever be done because of the veto powers.

Removal of veto and a few other reforms would make the UN much more effective, but you better believe the US would probably pull out if this happened, and a few other countries. So it ends up looking like a catch 22 situation.
 
2006-03-04 07:34:58 PM
It's not just the US, it's everyone with veto, and everyone else with a vested interest tied to people with veto. Veto only works in Security Council resolutions, but if any of the big guys argue it in the hall, everyone knows they'll veto it in Council so there's no point.

It's all stupid. It's pap for the farking punters, is what it is. "They won't understand that we're just keeping the status quo, and it will make us look good. Let's do it!"
 
2006-03-04 07:35:38 PM
Why would ANYONE take the Bush administration seriously, though?

Because unlike the UN, the Bush adminstration has an actual military and real power to affect things. The UN is mostly just a place to mark time between trying it's third world membership for various and sundry war crimes.
 
2006-03-04 07:36:55 PM
entropic_existence: Global ineffective government should be the goal, not something we avoid. But it should at least be able to be effectively ineffective instead of the multi-billion dollar circle jerk it is now.
 
2006-03-04 07:37:38 PM
ZipBeep: The UN turned out to be right about Iraq, didn't it, Bush lovers?

*chirpchirp*
*chirpchirp*
*chirpchirp*
 
2006-03-04 07:39:37 PM
Actually - anyone looking for the UN to save the world is delusional. They couldn't even save Rwanda. However, if you think of the UN as kind of an international DMV, it's a much better perspective. The UN takes care of a lot of the flotsam and jetsam of international affairs. Very important, incredibly boring crap that has to get done and that we all don't want to be bothered hearing about.

I mean... do YOU want to immerse yourself in ECOSOC hearings during your spare time?
 
2006-03-04 07:40:05 PM
The UN turned out to be right about Iraq, didn't it, Bush lovers?


Before or after we found out Saddam was bribing them?
 
2006-03-04 07:41:59 PM
Take your pick, it doesn't change the facts.
 
2006-03-04 07:42:33 PM
bakarocket: Global ineffective government should be the goal, not something we avoid. But it should at least be able to be effectively ineffective instead of the multi-billion dollar circle jerk it is now.

Oh I agree with you, just pointing out the flaws in the UN as it stands and the liklihood of what will happen should a push for change happen because too many governments are composed entirely of asshats.
 
2006-03-04 07:44:21 PM
KazamaSmokers: Actually - anyone looking for the UN to save the world is delusional. They couldn't even save Rwanda. However, if you think of the UN as kind of an international DMV, it's a much better perspective. The UN takes care of a lot of the flotsam and jetsam of international affairs. Very important, incredibly boring crap that has to get done and that we all don't want to be bothered hearing about.

Alot of mistakes were made in Rwanda, but all parties involved. Just like mistakes are being made now in Darfur. Participating governments don't care enough about Africa to really do anything there other than token gestures.

I'd like to see alot of reform done in the UN to be made it a much better forum for getting global affairs handled and for taking care of international disputes.
 
2006-03-04 07:46:23 PM
Take your pick, it doesn't change the facts

I disagree - the bribery scandals over at the UN marked the point where the UN moved from being a mere annoyance to being actively dangerous to world peace. Had Saddam not been bribing UN officals, it is very likely that the UN sanctions would have worked and a second gulf war would have been avoided.
 
2006-03-04 07:47:46 PM
I'd like to see alot of reform done in the UN to be made it a much better forum for getting global affairs handled and for taking care of international disputes.


Just bribe the UN Secretary General - that's the current means of getting the UN on your side.
 
2006-03-04 07:47:56 PM
KazamaSmokers

Actually - anyone looking for the UN to save the world is delusional.

I don't think any of us think it can save the world, we're just sure that single countries can't either. I'd rather an ineffective world government than an effective national government any day.

They couldn't even save Rwanda.

I think you better look at who the people were who decided that Rwanda was not a problem. Regardless of which nations were at fault, yes, the UN failed to save them.
 
2006-03-04 07:48:17 PM
Had the planes not hit their targets it is very likely that the unicorns on the top floors would have escaped, bringing rainbow peace to the world.
 
2006-03-04 07:49:18 PM
2006-03-04 07:46:23 PM Weaver95
I disagree - the bribery scandals over at the UN marked the point where the UN moved from being a mere annoyance to being actively dangerous to world peace.


Except that there was only one case of bribery against a UN official that had any solid evidence. The vast majority of the bribes were between the Iraqi Governmenta nd the corporations involved in the OFF program itself.


Had Saddam not been bribing UN officals, it is very likely that the UN sanctions would have worked and a second gulf war would have been avoided.

Saddam's attampts at bribery were an effort to get the existing sanctions eased. The bribery attempts concerned the French and the Russians... all of it useless, as the US possessed veto power in the SC anyways.
 
2006-03-04 07:49:54 PM
entropic_existence: I agree, a lot of countries would quit, including the US. Good news is that most of the countries would stick it out, they'd just need to get a new HQ. It's not like they'd miss the money the US pays every year.
 
2006-03-04 07:50:08 PM
BTW - The sanctions DID work, Weaver.
 
2006-03-04 07:50:12 PM
Except that there was only one case of bribery against a UN official that had any solid evidence. The vast majority of the bribes were between the Iraqi Governmenta nd the corporations involved in the OFF program itself.


Nice dodge. How's the koolaid tonight?
 
2006-03-04 07:51:42 PM
Nice dodge???

Who's the person who initially deflected the topic from the UN being right about Iraq to the bribery scandal??

Jeezusss... don't go all GA on me, dude.
 
2006-03-04 07:53:38 PM
Weaver95: Because unlike the UN, the Bush adminstration has an actual military and real power to affect things. The UN is mostly just a place to mark time between trying it's third world membership for various and sundry war crimes.


And still, with all that might behind them, NOBODY takes them seriously. Everybody thinks they are a bunch of buffoons (with nukes)

/Which is extremely scary
 
2006-03-04 07:54:50 PM
Weaver: If a US senator gets convicted of accepting bribes, or Heaven Forbid, the President gets convicted of say, illegal wiretapping, do you automatically condemn the entire government?
 
2006-03-04 07:55:24 PM
Who's the person who initially deflected the topic from the UN being right about Iraq to the bribery scandal??


Hmm...gee. Now - why would ANYONE possibly think the bribery scandal had anything to do with Iraq?

'tis quite the quandry, one must admit....
 
2006-03-04 07:55:58 PM
Weaver95: Just bribe the UN Secretary General - that's the current means of getting the UN on your side.


Or be an oil man and get the Bush administration on your side.
 
2006-03-04 07:56:23 PM
ZipBeep: Everybody thinks they are a bunch of buffoons (with nukes)

Anyone who thinks that is an idiot if they don't take them seriously. Regardless of one's views of the USG, you HAVE to take them seriously.
 
2006-03-04 07:56:33 PM
More to the point, do you think the US would have gotten it's war resolution without bribing the signatory nations??
$14 Billion in debt forgiveness gets you Egypt's vote. A billion in arms for Syria to use in Lebanon will get you their vote too.
 
2006-03-04 07:57:37 PM
Weaver95: Hmm...gee. Now - why would ANYONE possibly think the bribery scandal had anything to do with Iraq?

'tis quite the quandry, one must admit....



Wasn't it a Texas oil man would got the best deals out of the Iraqi oil for food deal anyway?

Name of Benson, IIRC. "Tex" Benson???
 
2006-03-04 07:58:12 PM
W learned very well from his dad.
 
2006-03-04 07:59:07 PM
bakarocket: Anyone who thinks that is an idiot if they don't take them seriously. Regardless of one's views of the USG, you HAVE to take them seriously.


Like I said, "Buffoons (with nukes)"
 
2006-03-04 07:59:31 PM
Anyways... is the UN corrupt? YES. Absolutely.

So do you throw out the baby with the bathwater?

I like to think we learned our lesson with the League of Nations, but I'm not so sure.
 
2006-03-04 08:02:44 PM
bakarocket: It's like a single Senator from New York getting veto on every single bill for no reason other than his district makes a lot of money. Get rid of veto, and say hello to new no-worse-than-any-others government.


I say we GIVE Hillary that veto power!!!

/Or were you talking about Schumer???

:D

LOL
 
2006-03-04 08:08:12 PM
ZipBeep:

Like I said, "Buffoons (with nukes)"

I officially don't have any clue what you're trying to say. Should you take the strongest nation in the world seriously? Yes.
What if they have really nice people leading them? Yeah, still pretty seriously.
What about if they have an Eggplant governing them? HELL YES.
 
2006-03-04 08:14:41 PM
I think you better look at who the people were who decided that Rwanda was not a problem. Regardless of which nations were at fault, yes, the UN failed to save them.

The problem there was, Rwanda just so happened to be on the Security Council at the time, represented by the side doing the killing. They somehow wound up strongarming everyone into pulling out of Rwanda.
 
2006-03-04 08:21:06 PM
Does every farking thread have to be about Iraq and Bush-hatred? Even anti-war and anti-Bush folks should think it's cool that Bolton made those meetings start on time.
 
2006-03-04 08:21:59 PM
Gosling: I don't know that a tiny powerless African country could "strong-arm" the five most powerful countries in the world. Any of them who listened to Rwanda did so for their own reasons, methinks.
 
2006-03-04 08:22:52 PM
parkthebus: I didn't even know we were talking about Bush.
 
2006-03-04 08:29:35 PM
It's up there if you look around a little.
 
2006-03-04 09:16:17 PM
parkthebus: Does every farking thread have to be about Iraq and Bush-hatred?

Until The Daily Show tells them to do something else.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report