The U.N.'s rape and torture of the innocents

see here is the thing...

#1- soldiers are people who are not much different then any one else... they have a sex drive and so on... but one major difference is that they have a lot more power... not to say that all people with power and a sex drive will abuse said power, but it does leave for a bad combination. esp when you factor in that the persons mate is usually thousands of miles away...

#2- in situations were soldiers take things too far and abuse people and such... again, this is because these are people. i do not condone any of the actions but since they are not machines, i can also see where they may get carried away... the only way to stop it would be replacing them with machines OR brain washing them even more...

#3- the UN is niether terribly useless nor terribly useful. in many cases it can be useful to help in situations.; it also gives a forum were member nations can discuss things and put out opinions and so on. it fosters collaboration among much of the world, a collaboration that may not exist otherwise. it has its problems and it doesn't always do the right thing, but nothing is perfect... until we can come up with a better way to unify the nations of the worlds, this one is definitely better then nothing. and it is definitely better then a one world government....

My issue with the UN is a typical stereotype. Politics: it does provide a forum for countries to wag about, they pass all kinds of resolutions that last decades. But they rarely enforce anything and they lack internal controls to prevent corruption.

If the Un rarely enforce any thing important it is normally because one of the permanent members votes against it. What that means is that the UN has been hamstrung from its very conception. To be totally honest I get the impression that most of the opposition to the UN coming from the US today is extremely recent in its origin. Once the UN stopped acting more or less like an extension of US forgine policy the slander campaign started.
As has been pointed out the UN has no army of its own and as such it depends on the different countries to supply the troops and administrative personnel it deploies around the world. There will always be a few bad apples when you are talking about tens of thousands of people. That doesnt mean the organisation should be condemned. To finish just too little qoutes most americains should recongise but probably they mean nothing today.

Quote:

---

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom —

---

Quote:

---

"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run."

---

John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961

Maracu, even when they PASS a resolution they do nothing. Let's take current world affairs. THe UN has voted to go into the Sudan and bring those people resonsible for mass genocide to justice. No one has vetoed the action.

It's one thing to support one's view, its another to be repeatedly stabbed in the back. And then use the mechanism of the United Nations to stand against someone on principle, and then find out it was not based on principle at all, but of greed. Especially with history behind their faux stance on politics.

Thanks for reminding us of the wisdom of Kennedy. For the record he had his own battles within the United Nations. It didn't just start, however learning of continuous corruption within the body does fuel it today. Kennedy made good decisions during a crisis both at home and with the soviet union. You may remember the crisis that could have brought world war upon the west? Our agressive action against Cuba and ALL foreign ships in the vicinity had some reprecussions within the UN Security Council.

But like I said, it's one thing to speak out... it's another to be corrupt.

I've avoided this debate simply because I don't know enough about the UN or how it operates to have an opinion either way...I'll let you guys debate the practical usefulness of the UN in today's world.

But I will say that Canada has served on and has deployed more peacekeeping troops than any other nation through the UN including the US...125,000 up to 2003 stats...out of a total of 750,000...1,457 have died, 107 of then Canadians...and Lester B. Person, who would go on to become prime minister actually was responsible for the calling them peace-keeping missions in 1956....before then they weren't known as such.

Criminals can be found in every walk of life...and should be punished accordingly! But, for the record, even though Canada has deployed the most troops in the most diverse circumstances through the UN, it has had the least amount of criminal activity...in fact, statistically, total criminal activity as mentioned has been substantialy less than the number of Canadians that have died...I'd say that's a pretty good record and something to be proud of.

A toast to the Canadians. elkgrin

You HAVE to [try] to read this linked post.

Some more sh1te that the UN gets up to
I was trolling looking for details on UN payments [countries are suppose to PAY to belong .........] specifically the head tosser kofi / koffee anan, and his country Ghana.

Fell into this page, spent two HOURS reading it, totally APPALLED at the state and size of incompetance throughout the entire heap..........

one in particular - Great Rant from the USS Abraham Lincoln - roughly a third of the way down, REALLY got to me. TOTAL WANK3R5

Maybe the NEXT war we'll be allowed to hose these filth ?

[edit]

Quote:

---

Let me insist again on one point. Who profits from the existence of the UN? Let's take the five member of its Security Council.

The US? Hardly. It pays the bills while the UN has become an mechanism to try and contain its power.

Russia? It doesn't care much for it, nor does China.

The Brits? They, probably, least of all. The UK being a honest country, follows the rules, doesn't use nor abuse of its position which is frequently used by its internal and external enemies to actually reduce its legitimate influence.

Thus we're back to the usual suspect: France. The UN is an institution the function of which nowadays is to potentialize France's declining influence in the world. They know how to deal with bureaucrats in general and with Third World bureaucrats in particular, the French. They also know how to set up and how to manipulate already established NGOs. They know how to make rules that are advantageous to themselves and how to bend them when needed. The UN is basically France's megaphone nowadays.

---

The bloody FRENCH, I KNEW they would be in there somehow :)
This : from October 2004

Quote:

---

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace. But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which comprises fifty-six of the UN's 191 members, defends terrorism as a right

---