The UN is becoming more stupid by the day.

[Dinner]

Some people live to blame the US for everything they don't like and neither evidience nor the truth matter to them.

[RGBVideo]

Great conclusions, guys.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The UN is a wasteful, bureaucratic, anti-semitic, corrupt, undemocratic, unaccountable, debating society.

Anti-semetic? Huh? How so?

[C0ckney]

i really don't understand how the 'if they're against america they're good' mentality which the UN shows with this kind of thing benefits anyone...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The Templar
Anti-semetic? Huh? How so?

I wouldn't say the UN is inherently anti-semetic, but, it is certainly full of a bunch of muslim states which consistently attack Isreal for even the most minor cases while totally ignore far, far more grevious cases in muslim countries.

It's a clear double standard but as long as there's around 45 muslim countries attacking one country and working as a block to prevent examination of their own short falls then I don't see how the UN can be fair and balanced in this matter.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Great conclusions, guys.

I'd really like an answer to my question, Tuom.

[Sandman]

In an astoundingly stupid move the UN has announced they will suspend and censor the organization “Reporters without Borders” (RwB) for daring to pass out a leaflet pointing out that Libya wasn’t a very good choice to head the UN’s Commission on Human Rights. Libya was elected, over the US and Costa Rica who were also candidates, by Arab and European members of the UN during the run up to the Iraq war as a way to piss off the Americans. The current Libyan dictator is one of the most brutal and repressive regimes in the world plus he has a history of executing political rivals as well as financing terrorist attacks upon civilian airliners.

The suspension is for one year, not permanent, as you imply. There's no mention of the censorship, either.

The article clearly states that the RSF was singled out because they took their protest directly into the debating chamber. Now, I think that they should simply have been removed and given some small punishment, a month's suspension or something. You were complaining a lot about disruptive anti-war protestors, why the sudden change of heart?

Libya is not a good choice to head the commission on human rights, but it is not 'one of the most brutal repressive regimes in the world'. It's an average tinpot dictatorship, like any other. The conviction of the Libyans for the Lockerbie bombing was based on the testimony of a Maltese tailor, some years after the event. I think it was the Iranians, myself.

Every mistake the UN makes is used as a justification to withdraw from/abolish it. Usually by Americans who probably mutter 'screw the UN' in their sleep. Every success is ignored.

The UN is vital to global security and development. We should reform and strengthen it, not seek to undermine it at every opportunity.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by C0ckney
i really don't understand how the 'if they're against america they're good' mentality which the UN shows with this kind of thing benefits anyone...

It's not "the UN", it's all those countries that we pissed off voting against us. And given our record on human rights (the Native Americans, among the last 3 countries to end slavery, Jim Crow, the death penalty, and so on) I can see why other countries might be just a little suspicious of us.

And now with Bush cooperating with every little tinhorn dictator in all these little ****youastans and pushing Christian fanatic reproductive mores on NGOs, why the hell should they listen to us when we pay lip service to human rights?

Still, they could have filled the commission with nations that actually do care about human rights.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by The Templar
Anti-semetic? Huh? How so?

I just mean that the UN resolutions that are passed are often grossly unfair and anti-Israel.

[Az]

I am sure the arab countries have esp. great reasons to be suspicious about the US' human rights, esp. considering the fact that they are great bastions of human rights themselves.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sandman


The suspension is for one year, not permanent, as you imply. There's no mention of the censorship, either.

The article clearly states that the RSF was singled out because they took their protest directly into the debating chamber. Now, I think that they should simply have been removed and given some small punishment, a month's suspension or something. You were complaining a lot about disruptive anti-war protestors, why the sudden change of heart?

Libya is not a good choice to head the commission on human rights, but it is not 'one of the most brutal repressive regimes in the world'. It's an average tinpot dictatorship, like any other. The conviction of the Libyans for the Lockerbie bombing was based on the testimony of a Maltese tailor, some years after the event. I think it was the Iranians, myself.

Every mistake the UN makes is used as a justification to withdraw from/abolish it. Usually by Americans who probably mutter 'screw the UN' in their sleep. Every success is ignored.

The UN is vital to global security and development. We should reform and strengthen it, not seek to undermine it at every opportunity.

the US is vital to global security. the UN couldn't secure a honda civic in a parking lot at 2 am.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
The diplomat--if it weren't for *****es who voted for LIBYA (or whatever) then the UN would be great...unfortunately, some people will politicize any small ****.

Well, I doubt that the US voted for Libya to be on the Human Rights committee.

And who is politicizing it? When I say that the UN is a bureaucratic, wasteful mess, I am simply stating fact. SG Kofi Annan has himself admitted to the UN's ineficient and wasteful bureaucracy.

Do you think it makes sense for a country like Libya, with its utter contempt for human rights to be sitting on a committee on human rights? Does that make sense to you?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by The diplomat


I just mean that the UN resolutions that are passed are often grossly unfair and anti-Israel.

Not all Israelis are Jews, and not all Jews are Israelis.

Of course, every nation in that region needs to be spanked. I'd almost say the middle east needs a return to British colonial rule given that no regime over there seems capable of acting in anything resembling a civilized manner.

[Sandman]

Truly sparkling counter-argument there, Yavoon.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sandman
The suspension is for one year, not permanent, as you imply. There's no mention of the censorship, either.

So you don't consider not being able to testify or give evidience nor to submite papers for consideration to ba a form of censorship? It's a blanket gag order and that's censorship if I ever saw it.

The article clearly states that the RSF was singled out because they took their protest directly into the debating chamber. Now, I think that they should simply have been removed and given some small punishment, a month's suspension or something. You were complaining a lot about disruptive anti-war protestors, why the sudden change of heart?

A few members did this and the organization punished those members according to an LA Times article I read today. The guilty we punished and the dictators used this as an excuse to eliminate a watch dog organization. As for changes of heart; I have hand none. It is one thing for an organization which has been invaited to give testimony to be censored for that testimony and a TOTALLY different one for protesters to block public streets and prevent emergency vehicles from reaching their destinations. One of these actions puts the public in danger while the other does not thus one is allowable while the other is not.

Libya is not a good choice to head the commission on human rights, but it is not 'one of the most brutal repressive regimes in the world'. It's an average tinpot dictatorship, like any other. The conviction of the Libyans for the Lockerbie bombing was based on the testimony of a Maltese tailor, some years after the event. I think it was the Iranians, myself.

I trust the trail and the information which the judge didn't allow to be admited based up the, extraordinarially favorable, extradition treaty the Libyans negotiated.

Every mistake the UN makes is used as a justification to withdraw from/abolish it. Usually by Americans who probably mutter 'screw the UN' in their sleep. Every success is ignored.

I have never advicated leaving the UN nor would I. I have repeatedly pointed out that the current struction of the UN is completely nonfunction and should be massively over hauled. Until that over haul is completed the UN should only be window dressing with no real power or else it will be hijacked by worthless P.O.S. countries as the Human Rights Commission has been.