Journal Chacham's Journal: The UN (And I despise them) 4
If anyone cares, the United Nations has resolutions online. Probably had them there for a long time, but I just noticed it this morning. Also, while the link *should* be www.un.int, that just links to www.un.org. How stupid.
Anyway, the UN has two types of resolutions. They are the General Assembly resolutions, which mean absolutely nothing except that they probably just wasted a few million dollars in translations, paper, and electricity. The head of that useless group is Kofi Annan, a man known for shielding terrorists and obfuscation help in capturing them.
But there more important of the two is the Security Council. Their resolution are binding. The Security Council has permanent members and temporary members. The permamnent ones are the all-powerful US, the snotty French, Mother Russia, the stuck up British, and belligerent China. The permanent members can veto anything, and it dies there, so if you're a fledgling country you always want at least one permanent member to like you. But, with so much ego there, it's kept them from doing too much damage.
The presidency of the Security Council switches around monthly. Note who had it in June. How a terrorist country heads the "Security" Council would be baffling, had this not been the UN. Oh well.
The Resolution that you may hear most from them is Resolution 242. The only important thing that it actually says is Paragraph 1 sub-paragraph ii, "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Although, being in between he words "from" and "territories" it doesn't say "all" or "the", so discussions abound in the newsgroups.
Being diplomats often fight over single words, the inclusion or omission of a word is often used to make a resolution unenforcable. So, true or not, it doesn't even matter.
Wendy McEllroy an "ifeminist" and an excellent writer (even when I disagree with her, I think the presents her point very well) wrote an article about UN snactioned rape, amongst other things. The Israeli army recently shot a senior UN worker who later died from his wounds. Why? They say because the UNRWA which runs refugee camps is a hotbed for terror, and actualy aids them. (Though the UNRWA themselves vehemently deny that.)
Anything good ever come out of the UN?
In the end, the UN is useless, and I think Bush should bomb them after Iraq.
Get bunch of politicians (Score:1)
Re:Get bunch of politicians (Score:1)
But everything to do with money and rhetoric.
The question is, why doesn't anyone notice it? Or if they do, why not do anything about it? A UN type place would be nice, but it shouldn't cost much, and should do things everyone agrees upon rather than stupid things to force each other around.
The World Health Organization is a goods idea. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, it too has been killed with politics and other ridiculosities.
Do you think the UN has ever done anything useful, that was acvtually carried forth in a useful form and not DOA because of silly bickering and wastage by politicians?
the UN for what it can be, and what it is (Score:1)
I think you are on to something.
The UN represents people getting along, and peacefully ending arguements. Its what it can be at least.
What it is, however, is a "best" attempt in my book, and better then nothing at all. When we say that a government is a mirror of the people, that is unfortunately very true for the UN.
Re:the UN for what it can be, and what it is (Score:1)
/me laughs for there are no more tears left.