Event in my Sig

[John Uskglass]

Yes, you have that right, it's just not logical. It's nor logical to say that UNESCO sucks because the Security Council sucks, you need to look at the parts of the UN and evaluate them seperately, not as a whole.

Hell yes I can.

Let's take that logic (that you can't judge the UN as a whole) to something else...say the Leauge of Nations. It worked with some things, but with the equivilent of the security council it was entirely impotent.

Yep, a bit silly. However, as Kharn has said, we notice the failures more than the successes.

Yes, of course. But those are two of it's latest actions, and both of them have either been near misses or misses.

 

[Sander]

Let's take that logic (that you can't judge the UN as a whole) to something else...say the Leauge of Nations. It worked with some things, but with the equivilent of the security council it was entirely impotent.

So? it didn't have to require the entire thing to be reworked, even though that was what happened.

You do not fix what is not broken. UNESCO, for instance, isn't broken. So don't fix it! Instead, fix the security council and then see whether the rest of the UN really needs to be redesigned.

Yes, of course. But those are two of it's latest actions, and both of them have either been near misses or misses.

True. Although I do think that those were both security council activities, so again, I see no need to rework the rest of the UN.

Let's just drag that weird analogy of the high-altitude thingie:
If that thing crashes because of a faulty part, you do not redesign the entire thing, but merely the faulty part so that it does work. Only when you have no other option left do you start off with a clean slate.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

It's nor logical to say that UNESCO sucks because the Security Council sucks

Ehrm... Wake up! UNESCO does suck!

we notice the failures more than the successes

Woo, woo! Here comes the clue train, last stop is you! Pretty much all of UN activity in the past 15 years makes for one long list of failures, most of them quite catastrophic. It's pretty hard not to notice failures when little else exists.

 

[Brother None]

we notice the failures more than the successes

Woo, woo! Here comes the clue train, last stop is you! Pretty much all of UN activity in the past 15 years makes for one long list of failures, most of them quite catastrophic. It's pretty hard not to notice failures when little else exists.

I thought I just listed a list of successes, including a large number in the past 15 years.

Again, the problem here is you often don't notice if the UN succeeds in keeping the peace, because you're none the wiser. The peace is kept, and if its not big or exiting enough it doesn't make the headlines

Every failure reaches the headlines, and stays there for eons.

You're simply not being objective, Ratty.

Plus you're not talking of the UN, as welsh poined out, just of the security council.

 

[Sander]

Ehrm... Wake up! UNESCO does suck!

Why?
Plus: I didn't say it didn't suck. I said that it's illogical to judge it by the actions of another organ.

You keep on sayign that the entirety of the UN sucks based on your experiences with the security council in Croatia. That would be the same as me saying that some school sucks because they have one bad teacher. It.is.not.logical.

Woo, woo! Here comes the clue train, last stop is you! Pretty much all of UN activity in the past 15 years makes for one long list of failures, most of them quite catastrophic. It's pretty hard not to notice failures when little else exists.

Methinks Kharn just answered this quite sufficiently.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

UN performs massive amounts of humanitarian duties, no shit, but it is in times of crisis that efficiency of their performance is put to trial, and UN, for the most part, fails completely.

they should have at least done something to protect innocent civilians and refugees, supply them with food and water, provide them with shelters and save UNESCO-protected cities, monuments and nature preserves.

Majority of UN-associated organizations, be it UNPROFOR (abbrevation for "UN protection force", armed UN force established in Croatia with mandate to disarm Serbian separatists in Croatian-Serbian conflict), UNESCO, UNHCR, UNICEF or whatever other, are utterly inept and ineffective in times of crisis

Even those few UN organizations that serve a purpose, such as FAO, are too underfunded to make any real difference.

All of UN's agencies failed utterly in Yugoslavia crisis. UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO, and every other organization that took part in UN mission in former Yugoslavia, accomplished precisely jack. If you want proof, watch the footage of Dubrovnik (a UNESCO-protected city!) get bombed into submission. And that's just one of many examples.

The problem of UN isn't solely Security Council, and I don't understand why you constantly insist on that. UN's problems are gargantuan, inefficient bureaucratic machinery, lack of funding (do you know that major countries such as USA owe hundreds of millions of dollars to OUN?), lack of coordination between agencies, heavy corruption (yes, believe it or not, UN officials are often corrupted and quite amoral) and overpoliticking in various councils that are supposed to be running this mastodont. If you didn't spend so much time waving their weak list of successes into everyone's face, maybe you would notice that UN is an entirely inefficient and broken organization that desperately needs an overhaul.

 

[Sander]

The problem of UN isn't solely Security Council, and I don't understand why you constantly insist on that. UN's problems are gargantuan, inefficient bureaucratic machinery, lack of funding (do you know that major countries such as USA owe hundreds of millions of dollars to OUN?), lack of coordination between agencies, heavy corruption (yes, believe it or not, UN officials are often corrupted and quite amoral) and overpoliticking in various councils that are supposed to be running this mastodont. If you didn't spend so much time waving their weak list of successes into everyone's face, maybe you would notice that UN is an entirely inefficient and broken organization that desperately needs an overhaul.

...
Have you heard of the concept of proof, Ratty? The burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one making a statement.

All of UN's agencies failed utterly in Yugoslavia crisis. UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO, and every other organization that took part in UN mission in former Yugoslavia, accomplished precisely jack. If you want proof, watch the footage of Dubrovnik (a UNESCO-protected city!) get bombed into submission. And that's just one of many examples.

Wow. Maybe that's because there was a war. UNESCO can scream murder if it wants to, but that can't stop the security council from dropping bombs because the security could just as well not have been a part of the UN.
That's the point. THe security council decides about troop action, and none of the other parts of the UN can do anything whatsoever about it.

And, it must be said again, you are pissed at the UN because they failed in Croatia, and that uis understandable. But it is not a valid reason to write the UN off. YOu are not only judging them by the actions of the security council alone (yes, Ratty, that's what you're doing. The security council is the only power with actual authority for other countries, and the only power which can decide about troops), you're also judging them solely by the actions in Croatia. That small little list is larger than the list of failures.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Have you heard of the concept of proof, Ratty? The burden of proof lies with you, since you are the one making a statement.

Corruption at the UN. Read about the food for oil scandal, involving Saddam as well as a number of high ranking UN officials, and more. There are indication that UN corruption reaches all the way to the Secretary General himself.
Here's another link regarding the food for oil scandal. I can also tell you from my personal knowledge that UN field officials are often corrupted, as they were known to trade gasoline to Serbian rebels during the conflict in Croatia, which is strictly prohibited.
As for the US debt to UN, I thought everyone knew about it already: link! It's also worth noting that main reason why US is always stalling its payments to the UN is because the organization has become a bloated bureaucratic mastodont, a bottomless sack taking more and more money and accomplishing less and less with it. Just look at the amounts of money spent on maintaining the peacekeeping missions in Timor and Kosovo. The latter mission is having such poor results as of late that its tremendous cost is completely unjustified. A few weeks ago there was a firefight between US and Jordanese peacekeeping units deployed in Kosovo, triggered by "disagreements" regarding the Iraqi situation. What kind of an example are these incompetent morons setting for the locals if they can't even maintain peace amongst themselves?

UNESCO can scream murder if it wants to

But they didn't, and that's the point. How many times will I have to explain to you that the whole world chose to turn the blind eye to Serbian war crimes in Croatia. By not making an effort to save Dubrovnik (and other UNESCO-protected monuments), UNESCO presented itself as a political organization incapable of performing its duty. So did every other UN organization, and that's the whole bloody point of this discussion. Croatia screamed for help as it was being brutally invaded and bombed into oblivion by a stronger aggressor, but foreign powers ignored it because it was more convenient for them to do so. Consequently, UN didn't react even though it was their duty to do so. And I'm not talking about a military intervention here - I'm talking about the fact that thousands of people were killed or forced into exodus without a single word of protest from any of the world's humanitarian organizations. Croatia was acknowledged as a sovereign country and accepted into full membership of United Nations in May 22, 1992, 13 months after the war began and long after the worst attrocities had been committed. But as far as UN is concerned, none of that happened.

Am I getting through here? Croatia and Bosnia were failures of UN as a whole, not just the goddamn Security Council!

you're also judging them solely by the actions in Croatia. That small little list is larger than the list of failures.

Yes, their list of failures is really small compared to list of successes, hell, it's trivial and it would be best to simply ignore it. After all, it contains only Croatia (23,500 people killed), Bosnia (278,000 people killed), Kosovo (13,000 people killed), Rwanda (800,000 people killed), Burundi (200,000 people killed), Chechenya (30,000 people killed), Angola (122,000 people killed), Sri Lanka (27,000 people killed), Sudan (estimated 1,000,000 people killed), Afghanistan (150,000 people killed), Biafra (100,000 people killed), Zimbabwe (30,000 people killed), Laos (184,000 people killed), Indonesia-East Timor (600,000 people killed), Peru (69,000 people killed), El Salvador (100,000 people killed), Somalia (550,000 people killed), Congo (800,000 people killed), Ethiopia (1,000,000 people killed), Kurdistan (180,000 people killed), Cambodia (1,700,000 people killed)... Yep, a trivial and insignificant list of trivial and insignificant failures, definitely not worth mentioning, let alone bitching about.

 

[Sander]

Corruption at the UN. Read about the food for oil scandal, involving Saddam as well as a number of high ranking UN officials, and more. There are indication that UN corruption reaches all the way to the Secretary General himself.
Here's another link regarding the food for oil scandal. I can also tell you from my personal knowledge that UN field officials are often corrupted, as they were known to trade gasoline to Serbian rebels during the conflict in Croatia, which is strictly prohibited.

Well, as I've said before, the Oil-For-Food programme is the security council's initative, and therefore the security council's failure.
This, however, does not mean that the rest of the UN (including Kofi Annan) is free from guilt here, as these articles (biased as they may seem) seem to be indicating. However, one of the facts that is ignored (by you as well) is that the oil-for-food programme did some good. This does not mean that it is suddenly okay, though.
Here's some more about the oil-for-food programme, and the US's part in it.

But they didn't, and that's the point. How many times will I have to explain to you that the whole world chose to turn the blind eye to Serbian war crimes in Croatia. By not making an effort to save Dubrovnik (and other UNESCO-protected monuments), UNESCO presented itself as a political organization incapable of performing its duty. So did every other UN organization, and that's the whole bloody point of this discussion.

Yes, and I do know that. But you also have to realise that things change when countries are at war. If UNESCO had tried to stop the UN from bombing those monuments, then it could very well have stood in the way of peace, and that is always worse than a monument getting destroyed.
However, I do knot know much about this, so I can't really say much about these monumental(sic) incidents.

Croatia screamed for help as it was being brutally invaded and bombed into oblivion by a stronger aggressor, but foreign powers ignored it because it was more convenient for them to do so.

Security Council.
Plus, you're now acting as if Croatia was the all-good innocent party who did nothing wrong. That's bad.

Consequently, UN didn't react even though it was their duty to do so. And I'm not talking about a military intervention here - I'm talking about the fact that thousands of people were killed or forced into exodus without a single word of protest from any of the world's humanitarian organizations. Croatia was acknowledged as a sovereign country and accepted into full membership of United Nations in May 22, 1992, 13 months after the war began and long after the worst attrocities had been committed. But as far as UN is concerned, none of that happened.

And yet again, that was the security council. NOT the entire UN.

Am I getting through here? Croatia and Bosnia were failures of UN as a whole, not just the goddamn Security Council!

Apparently, you are not. I hope you can understand that I am not about to support your view point when all you have given me is one incident (Dubrovnik). I am well aware that the UN failed miserably there, I am, however, not convinced that this was the fault of more than just the security council.

Yes, their list of failures is really small compared to list of successes, hell, it's trivial and it would be best to simply ignore it. After all, it contains only Croatia (23,500 people killed), Bosnia (278,000 people killed), Kosovo (13,000 people killed), Rwanda (800,000 people killed), Burundi (200,000 people killed), Chechenya (30,000 people killed), Angola (122,000 people killed), Sri Lanka (27,000 people killed), Sudan (estimated 1,000,000 people killed), Afghanistan (150,000 people killed), Biafra (100,000 people killed), Zimbabwe (30,000 people killed), Laos (184,000 people killed), Indonesia-East Timor (600,000 people killed), Peru (69,000 people killed), El Salvador (100,000 people killed), Somalia (550,000 people killed), Congo (800,000 people killed), Ethiopia (1,000,000 people killed), Kurdistan (180,000 people killed), Cambodia (1,700,000 people killed)... Yep, a trivial and insignificant list of trivial and insignificant failures, definitely not worth mentioning, let alone bitching about.

Yes, I know the numbers, I also know that the successes outnumber the failures, and that you cannot see how many people were saved by those successes, because they were saved. Perhaps you are right here, though, I do not have enough knowledge about the UN to properly judge the successes vs. failures list. Which is the reason why I was going by Kharn's list.

As for the US debt to UN, I thought everyone knew about it already: link! It's also worth noting that main reason why US is always stalling its payments to the UN is because the organization has become a bloated bureaucratic mastodont, a bottomless sack taking more and more money and accomplishing less and less with it.

Now you're mixing fact with speculation:
Fact: The US owes the UN money.
Speculation: The US is not paying because the UN is a bloated bureaucratic mastodont.

Just look at the amounts of money spent on maintaining the peacekeeping missions in Timor and Kosovo. The latter mission is having such poor results as of late that its tremendous cost is completely unjustified.

A few weeks ago there was a firefight between US and Jordanese peacekeeping units deployed in Kosovo, triggered by "disagreements" regarding the Iraqi situation. What kind of an example are these incompetent morons setting for the locals if they can't even maintain peace amongst themselves?

Heh. I did not know about that. INteresting, but not really important, since it speaks about the nature of the UN: it's a league of nations, and it does not have a private army. Therefore it is forced to use armies of other countries, and that can always cause friction. There is not much the UN can do about that besides creating a standing army.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Plus, you're now acting as if Croatia was the all-good innocent party who did nothing wrong.

Of course Croatia is guilty of war crimes just like any other party in the Homeland War. And I already pointed out on several occasions that Croatian Army attempted to invade Bosnia in period from 1992 to 1994, something I am definitely not proud of. But that doesn't change the following facts:
a) Croatia, a country without a standing army, was invaded by a powerful force of several hundred thousand men, armed with state-of-the-art weaponry, hundreds of armored units and several hundred war planes.
b) Buildings and other objects destroyed on Croatian territory by invading troops number in thousands. I have yet to see a single house in Yugoslavia that was destroyed by our army.

Apparently, you are not. I hope you can understand that I am not about to support your view point when all you have given me is one incident (Dubrovnik). I am well aware that the UN failed miserably there, I am, however, not convinced that this was the fault of more than just the security council.

*sigh* Let's see. There were 550,000 homeless refugees in Croatia by 1992, and what did UNHCR do? Nothing. 300 children were killed in the war by 1992, and what did UNICEF do? Nothing. JNA brutally attacked the medieval core of Dubrovnik and threatened to obliterate Plitvice Lakes (a very beautiful national park under protection of UNESCO), and what did UNESCO do? That's right, nothing. None of these agencies fall under Security Council's jurisdiction.

Yes, I know the numbers, I also know that the successes outnumber the failures, and that you cannot see how many people were saved by those successes, because they were saved.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You claim you know that successes outnumber the failures, yet you admit you cannot know how many people were saved. And even if your initial presumption (that successes outnumber the failures) was correct, ratio of, say, one executed civilian on every three saved civilians would hardly strike me as "successful".

Now you're mixing fact with speculation:
Fact: The US owes the UN money.
Speculation: The US is not paying because the UN is a bloated bureaucratic mastodont.

Speculation? The reason for USA's cheapskateness is pretty obvious. Nobody wants to throw their money away on something that quite obviously doesn't work.

Heh. I did not know about that. INteresting, but not really important, since it speaks about the nature of the UN: it's a league of nations, and it does not have a private army. Therefore it is forced to use armies of other countries, and that can always cause friction. There is not much the UN can do about that besides creating a standing army.

You just basically confirmed what CCR and I have been saying throughout the whole thread, duh. UN sucks in its present form and organization, and needs to undergo some serious changes.

 

[Paladin Solo]

The U.S. owes the UN? What the hell about all the war debts the world owes us? Or the money we constantly give away?

 

[Sander]

Of course Croatia is guilty of war crimes just like any other party in the Homeland War. And I already pointed out on several occasions that Croatian Army attempted to invade Bosnia in period from 1992 to 1994, something I am definitely not proud of. But that doesn't change the following facts:
a) Croatia, a country without a standing army, was invaded by a powerful force of several hundred thousand men, armed with state-of-the-art weaponry, hundreds of armored units and several hundred war planes.
b) Buildings and other objects destroyed on Croatian territory by invading troops number in thousands. I have yet to see a single house in Yugoslavia that was destroyed by our army.

*nods*

*sigh* Let's see. There were 550,000 homeless refugees in Croatia by 1992, and what did UNHCR do? Nothing. 300 children were killed in the war by 1992, and what did UNICEF do? Nothing. JNA brutally attacked the medieval core of Dubrovnik and threatened to obliterate Plitvice Lakes (a very beautiful national park under protection of UNESCO), and what did UNESCO do? That's right, nothing. None of these agencies fall under Security Council's jurisdiction.

Then what should they have done? 'Twas a war zone, as I've said before, and you can't expect a purely humanitarian organisation to step in and risk its people in a war zone.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? You claim you know that successes outnumber the failures, yet you admit you cannot know how many people were saved. And even if your initial presumption (that successes outnumber the failures) was correct, ratio of, say, one executed civilian on every three saved civilians would hardly strike me as "successful".

No, I'm not contradicting myself. Because I cannot know how many people were saved, I can only rely on one thing: the number of succesful incidents vs. the number of failed incidents. And thusly, successes win.

Speculation? The reason for USA's cheapskateness is pretty obvious. Nobody wants to throw their money away on something that quite obviously doesn't work.

It still is speculation. Usually, you provide some proof for a statement, or at least a reasoning. You just said what was happening (according to you) instead of providing any reasoning.
Plus, I'd say that it has more to do with the fact that the US is the world's main power, and they simply don't want to pay. They like their money, you know.

You just basically confirmed what CCR and I have been saying throughout the whole thread, duh. UN sucks in its present form and organization, and needs to undergo some serious changes.

And I agree. But only on the part of the security council (which I've said before) and an army is in the sphere of the security council. So I'm not confirming what both you and CCR have said.

You still haven't given me good enough reason to believe that the entire UN need to be thrown around, since it's probable (IMO) that just the security council needs to be reformed, and possibly the all-encompassing bureacracy. But at the very least, methinks that the organisations within the UN itself need no improvement.

The U.S. owes the UN? What the hell about all the war debts the world owes us? Or the money we constantly give away?

What about the billions you spend on wars?
Here's a lesson in economy:
Alsmost every single country owes money to other countries, and these debts are constantly repaid, but debts are also constantly made. It's the problem with not being able to predict the exact way the economy is going to grow, zo countries have to base their budget on predictions, and those may be faulty.
On a small note: The Netherlands is one of the that has actually paid off their debts in part. Sadly, we're now having trouble with the economy, so we're not doing that right now. Hrmph.

 

[Brother None]

Yes, I know the numbers, I also know that the successes outnumber the failures, and that you cannot see how many people were saved by those successes, because they were saved. Perhaps you are right here, though, I do not have enough knowledge about the UN to properly judge the successes vs. failures list. Which is the reason why I was going by Kharn's list.

My list is incomplete. It only lists the most well-known and prolly the largest of the UN successes, and doesn't even skim over the heaps and heaps of smaller successes. Like, for example, Slovenia or Kumonavia, both of which the UN had some influence in.

However, the successes I listed are *huge*. Cambodia, Mozambique, Namibia and the whole Pakistan case was a matter of saving hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions whole. But it is impossible to prove this. That, however, doesn't mean it isn't true.

*sigh* Let's see. There were 550,000 homeless refugees in Croatia by 1992, and what did UNHCR do? Nothing. 300 children were killed in the war by 1992, and what did UNICEF do? Nothing. JNA brutally attacked the medieval core of Dubrovnik and threatened to obliterate Plitvice Lakes (a very beautiful national park under protection of UNESCO), and what did UNESCO do? That's right, nothing. None of these agencies fall under Security Council's jurisdiction.

None of these agencies had an influence or even authority in a warzone, nor do they now. All they can do is act as advisories to the Security Council, whose bussiness ís war, to do something about it.

Next thing we know you're going to stand on your head shouting childcare organisations should've done something about the deplorable situation of the kiddies in nazi Germany.