Are you as tired of the UN as I am ?

The UN Human Rights Council contains some of the worst human rights abusers, it's unfair in the fact that communist china is keeping out countries like Taiwan(ROC), the Oil for Food Scandal, the overstuffed bureaucracy, the inaction on Darfur and Rwanda, and the growing movement to eliminate UN sponsored Combat roles.

I believe the USA even suspended their dues out of dissatisfaction with the UN


What do you think of the UN these days ?

 

like communism in its pure form, its a good idea but man kind is to greedy. not trying to sound boastful, if you look at it America is one of the best world powers of all history when it comes to humane treatment and such. Think of every other super power before? they exploited there powers to take out the poor and uneducated. Its not the American peoples or ways its democracy.

 

The UN Human Right Council is a joke. It was created in stead of the former human rights council, which was just as bad, because the UN finally got fed up with it.

No decent states wish to be a member, because it's inherently futile. The council has no power either, as they can't pass anything themselves, and all their suggestions are usually voted down by the UN assembly.

As a result, the only ones who benefits from the UN Human Rights Council are the officials in the council, who eat and drink on the expense of taxpayers.

 

Another 'extemist' opinion.

In the past I would have liked to go head on with CSP and say that he's wrong, end of story. Then again, I don't know much about current affairs. I'm guessing the UN Human Rights Council isn't 100% buls***, but I could be very wrong.

 

Blaster, what's so extremist about CSP's post?

The UNHRC has previously voted for the banning of 'religious defamation', essentially making it illegal to criticise religion, thus impeding free speech. Hardly a proper act of a council which has been set up to guard human rights.

Furthermore, the UNHRC's member countries includes the following:

• Nigeria (homosexual intercourse punishable by death, suspected of torturing prisoners)
• Egypt (suspected of torturing prisoners, freedom of religion limited to Islam, Christianity and Judaism, critisism of the president is punishable by prison)
• Saudia Arabia (homosexuality punishable by death, religious items from other religions than Islam are illegal)
• Azerbaijan (demonstrations of opposing political parties de facto illegal)
• Cuba (Cuban citisens are not free to leave Cuba, political freedom is limited to the communist party, only one trade union is allowed)

Hardly the countries best suited to guard the best interests of human rights.

 

True, but does it really have enough sway in those countries in order to change things (short of invading and enforcing the changes with troops, which we all know would make a lot of people mad)

I can't exactly see somebody like Fidel (merely a name I picked out of ahat....) re-thinking some of their laws 'just because it's not humane"

 

Suspected, yes, but not comfirmed. And hey-everyone needs a chance.

However, extremist may not be the best word to use.

But I still disagree, despite my lack of knowledge and inability to back my opinions with anything.

 

That's something completely different. This is not about those countries humans rights, but about their ability to safeguard other countries human rights. Something which they have proven completely incapable of.

You are only adressing torture here - what about the points about executing homosexuals, limiting freedom of speech and banning demonstrations?

A chance to do what? Limit other countries freedoms?

So you disagree with factual information, but does not present any facts yourself?

 

Do you support homosexuals? They are strange and abnormal. Besides, the UN is here for a reason. And I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I may be proven wrong.

 

I dislike homosexuality very much; I consider it unnatural and sinful. However, I do not support killing someone just because he is a homosexual. Yes, God takes a very dim view of homosexuality, but He also takes a very dim view of murder.

 

I agree.

 

I support equal rights for all (equal as in the same), if that's what you mean.

Abnormal? Yes, obviously, as is any genetic defect. This shouldn't void their rights any more than red-haired or handicapped people.

Obviously - but what does that has to do with this matter?

Everyone certainly has the right to their own oppinion, but they don't have the right to impose their oppinion on others or take other's rights away.

 

I wasn't trying to take your rights away or impose anything. I'm just saying what I think, and that is the UN has some problems, but they can be fixed. And you can't condemn a country just because it has a bad overall reputation. I'll bet there are some good people in those countries.

 

Blaster;
It is very true that there are good people in all countries. Unfortunately, the good people are not running Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc.

 

Well, perhaps the majority might be bad, but there will always be a few good seeds.

 

I put down option 3... however ineffective the UN may be at times, there is no denying that it has done SOME good in the world... A late peacekeeping response is better than no peacekeeping response...

For those of you who have a very poor opinion of the UN, what reason do you have for this? Is it because they are not nearly effective as they could potentially be? Or is it because they effectively limit US international power?

 

Blaster
This is not about the population of those countries. This is not about other problems with the UN. The problem here is very simple:

The UN has accepted, that countries which openly violates the rights set forth by the UN, are put in charge of administrating those rights.

You are trying to evade my arguments by presenting straw man arguments, or simply ignoring them. Why not address the specific problem above, which is also the subject of this thread?

 

I agree, Christian. I have long thought that the UN needs a thorough overhaul very badly. When they let nations like Cuba or North Korea be in charge of enforcing human rights, then something needs to be done. And it's not just that, either. Corruption is rampant, the UN bureaucracy makes the US Government look like a well-oiled, efficient machine, and the body flatly refuses to take action in situations where it's clear that action, especially immediate action, is necessary. A case in point is Darfur. Troops should have been sent in long ago to end this ongoing atrocity, but the UN has time and again failed to do so, or to even suggest doing so. What really gets me are those who have criticized Bush for sending troops into Iraq (and sometimes even Afghanistan...), then have the unmitigated gall to demand why he hasn't sent any to Darfur. Having said all of that, however, I doubt very highly that anything will be done to fix what's wrong at the UN. Too many people have strongly vested interests in maintaining the status quo for that to happen.

 

Well I support smeghead's statement. Is it because they limit US international power that you have a poor opinion of the UN? Or something else? As smeghead said, the UN has done the world some good, which I don't think has been addressed.

Overall, do you think the UN should be dismantled, Christian?

 

The UN is anti-american?