# Looking for info that reflects negativly on U.N.

• News
devil-fire
i cant recall from who or where but iv read several posts in these forms where people say something like 'UN is vary currupt' and that the organization should be reformed or disband or something. i think the UN dose a lot of good so evidently im missing out on some information. what im looking for are events and opinions that reflect negativly on the UN so i can do some research with a bit of a head start.

thanks for input

## Answers and Replies

Basically the argument goes something like this:

America should rule the world

The UN is a world wide organization

America does not own it

America should rule the world

The UN is corrupt and should be disbanded or reformed (so that it's completely controlled by the US)

Edit: Of course, they won't be as honest as that.

It's kind of like asking if there are any Bush quotes where he says something stupid.
For starters see "oil for food programme".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-food
Personally I think that successful international government is a pipedream.

russ_watters
Mentor
Smurf, that has nothing to do with the question asked. Sure, this can lead to an argument, but the OP was just asking for information. No need to be the one to start the OT.

devil-fire, you have two separate questions there. First, the corruption is best illustrated with the oil-for-food program, as linked above. Arguments for reform would center on things that are part of the UN's mission, but the UN does badly. Examples would include things like humanitarian aid that went badly, peace negotiations that failed, failures of the UN to step in in a crisis, etc. All of those are covered by what happened in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and the Sudan.

Smurf said:
Basically the argument goes something like this:
America should rule the world
The UN is a world wide organization
America does not own it
America should rule the world
The UN is corrupt and should be disbanded or reformed (so that it's completely controlled by the US)
Edit: Of course, they won't be as honest as that.

LOL :rofl:

Skyhunter
The biggest problem with the UN is that it is used as a scapegoat and a front. Like in Sudan
Many will say it is the UN's fault for this and that, ignoring the fact that the UN has no authority other than that given it by the 5 permanent members.

If the UN is a failure it is because the permanent members have failed.

Oil for food is good prime example of this.

Despite everything, oil for food actually helped keep many Iraqi people from starving to death.
The Oil-for-Food Programme started in October 1997, and the first shipments of food arrived in March 1998. Some 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people were solely dependent on rations from the oil-for-food plan.

Yeh I aggree Skyhunter, the UN is as good as its parts.. The Ideal is great, and gives a platform for all Countries in the world to voice concerns.. Communication and understanding of one another is the best way to world peace... The UN is this platform

PerennialII
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
If the UN is a failure it is because the permanent members have failed.

Yeah, a conflict with the ideals the UN is supposed to represent.

Smurf said:
Basically the argument goes something like this:
America should rule the world
The UN is a world wide organization
America does not own it
America should rule the world
The UN is corrupt and should be disbanded or reformed (so that it's completely controlled by the US)
Edit: Of course, they won't be as honest as that.

Actually the UN really IS corrupt - if they had some real integrity as a NEUTRAL and INTERNATIONAL organization, the UN would have taken action to stop U.S. aggression into Iraq, just as it took action to stop Iraqi aggression into Kuwait.

russ_watters said:
Smurf, that has nothing to do with the question asked. Sure, this can lead to an argument, but the OP was just asking for information. No need to be the one to start the OT.
devil-fire, you have two separate questions there. First, the corruption is best illustrated with the oil-for-food program, as linked above. Arguments for reform would center on things that are part of the UN's mission, but the UN does badly. Examples would include things like humanitarian aid that went badly, peace negotiations that failed, failures of the UN to step in in a crisis, etc. All of those are covered by what happened in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and the Sudan.
Of course, to be fair and balanced ... you must look at the American abuse of the http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html" ...

Last edited by a moderator:
An interesting http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051102/wl_asia_afp/myanmarundrugs_051102083006&printer=1;_ylt=AqP8D3h6lJg_HNITcWMJQCHuOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-" [Broken] also not in line with the OP:
Myanmar slashes opium production: UN
Wed Nov 2, 3:30 AM ET

Military-ruled Myanmar, the world's second-largest grower of opium after Afghanistan, has again slashed its production of opium, the United Nations said.

The amount of land growing poppies used to make the drug fell by 26 percent from last year, to 32,800 hectares (81,052 acres) in 2005, while production of opium this year is estimated at 312 tonnes (tons), down 16 percent, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said in its annual survey.

Poppy cultivation has steadily fallen since 1996, when 163,000 hectares was used to grow the illicit crop.

Although Myanmar says it plans to eradicate poppy production by 2014, the government restricted the movement of investigators, meaning they physically inspected less land than last year, the survey said. In some regions, the team relied on satellite images instead.

Myanmar grew a slightly smaller share of the world's opium poppies this year, 21 percent of the global total down from 23 percent, which still makes it the second-largest grower after Afghanistan, the report said.

That's right, Myanmar has dropped in production of opium with UN help while Afghanistan has resumed it's place as #1 since the USA 'freed' it from Shariah Law which had curbed production under the Taliban regime.

To paraphrase Robin Williams ... You give us freedom, we give you monkey for your back.

Last edited by a moderator:
Pengwuino
Gold Member
devil-fire said:
i cant recall from who or where but iv read several posts in these forms where people say something like 'UN is vary currupt' and that the organization should be reformed or disband or something. i think the UN dose a lot of good so evidently im missing out on some information. what im looking for are events and opinions that reflect negativly on the UN so i can do some research with a bit of a head start.
thanks for input

Look up Rwanda... nearly a million people died and the UN felt it had more important things to do.

Last year, he had warned that Myanmar's poppy farmers faced a "humanitarian disaster" because too little was being done to help them after they stopped growing the illicit crop.

Yah that UN sure does a good job. Oh wait but let me guess, all the good was the UN's fault even though they didn't do anthing... but all the bad isn't the UN's fault even though they were suppose to do something.

Last edited:
Mercator
Skyhunter said:
The biggest problem with the UN is that it is used as a scapegoat and a front. Like in Sudan
Many will say it is the UN's fault for this and that, ignoring the fact that the UN has no authority other than that given it by the 5 permanent members.
If the UN is a failure it is because the permanent members have failed.
Oil for food is good prime example of this.
Despite everything, oil for food actually helped keep many Iraqi people from starving to death.
Right, there is no point in acting as if the UN is some kind of alien organization beyond control of the countries. And right also that the permanent members of the safety comission have the biggest responsibility in it's functioning. As always, the failures are the most apparent and they should be.
But can someone explain me the reaction of the American right on failures in an organization where the US have de facto the most influence on? Can someone explain me the excitement of these individuals and their outrage at the malfunctioning of UN in general and the oil for food program in general? How can a member of the UN, the most powerfull nation, with supposedly the best intel condemn a UN program long after the facts when they were in fact the biggest player in it? Where did Iraqi oil go? The number one user, with a bullet, was the good old US.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0504.html
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/merquery/mer_data.asp?table=T11.01a

You will notice that for the years 99, 2000, 2001 fe, the US imported about 1/3 of the total Iraqi oil prodcution!
(For the France bashers among you; France imported about 1/5 of that in the same period, or exactly respectively 148,148 and 96 bpd)
And this is not including the "unofficial oil" through set-ups with straw men like the following:
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051027/3/29o5b.html [Broken]

So to be fair:
OIl for food scandal UN= Oil for food scandal (US+USSR+FR+...)

Last edited by a moderator:
Mercator
Pengwuino said:
Look up Rwanda... nearly a million people died and the UN felt it had more important things to do.

Yah that UN sure does a good job. Oh wait but let me guess, all the good was the UN's fault even though they didn't do anthing... but all the bad isn't the UN's fault even though they were suppose to do something.
Or maybe more direct: you're an American. The US is a member of the UN, so MAKE YOUR GOVERNMENT DO THEIR WORK TO LET THE UN DO THEIR WORK, instead of critisizing and whining what your govt. is in a great part responsible for!

Pengwuino said:
Yah that UN sure does a good job. Oh wait but let me guess, all the good was the UN's fault even though they didn't do anthing... but all the bad isn't the UN's fault even though they were suppose to do something.
Very good Pengwuino ... now you are receiving messages from the future.

The report says there is a drop.

The reports says they should do some additional work to aid the people.

Now you are condemning what might happen ... next year is it Pengwuino? Two years? When?

And to think, we all thought you were just a mere mortal like ourselves.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Mercator said:
Or maybe more direct: you're an American. The US is a member of the UN, so MAKE YOUR GOVERNMENT DO THEIR WORK TO LET THE UN DO THEIR WORK, instead of critisizing and whining what your govt. is in a great part responsible for!

Except of course whne the equally footed French and Russians are taking bribes to get Iraqi oil to sell it. Kickbacks kickbacks kickbacks. We want to reform the UN but the liberals in this country are completely aggainst it. Bolton is going in and kicking ass but the liberals were scared because they openly said they didn't want any change in the UN.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
And to think, we all thought you were just a mere mortal like ourselves.

Can't read the article for yourself? Did you not notice the part where the UN was suppose to help but didn't? Ok Ok i lie, i am omnipotent.

Pengwuino said:
Can't read the article for yourself? Did you not notice the part where the UN was suppose to help but didn't? Ok Ok i lie, i am omnipotent.
Oh, I see it's just a reading defficiency ...

The international community had a duty to help poppy farmers in Myanmar and Laos, Fujino said, adding he hoped foreign donors would not follow the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

The fund in August said it was pulling out of Myanmar because the junta had imposed too many restrictions on relief efforts.

Or do you suppose that since you now maintain the oil rights by refusing to sell Unocal you somehow have some serious 'sway' with the Junta?

In case you're not familiar with the function of the UN ... it supplies aid when requested and does not interfere with internal politics.

Since the Junta was interfering, they pulled out as a veiled threat.

The Junta has now reconsidered and the UN is back and Myanmar itself is now requesting additinal aid from other member states so they may meet their target before 2014.

Mercator
Pengwuino said:
Except of course whne the equally footed French and Russians are taking bribes to get Iraqi oil to sell it. Kickbacks kickbacks kickbacks. We want to reform the UN but the liberals in this country are completely aggainst it. Bolton is going in and kicking ass but the liberals were scared because they openly said they didn't want any change in the UN.
Kickbacks? You better read my previous post again. Where did the oil go? And the only conviction in the OFF scandal sofar is an American.
Or do you believe the AMERICAN branch of BNP Parisbas is investigated because the French prefer to hide their dirty laundry in the US because intelligence there is too incompetent to reckognize a bribe when they see one? Could it be that the AMREICAN branch of that bank with AMERICAN management and AMERICAN customers was handling AMERICAN kickbacks?
But even in the light of the strongest evidence, you will still blame it on "the alien UN and other French" don't you. You prefer to put your head in the sand, don't you?

Last edited by a moderator:
Pengwuino
Gold Member
Mercator said:
Kickbacks? You better read my previous post again. Where did the oil go? And the only conviction in the OFF scandal sofar is an American. Or do you believe the AMERICAN branch of BNP Parisbas is investigated because the French prefer to hide their dirty laundry in the US because intelligence there is too incompetent to reckognize a bribe when they see one? Could it be that the AMREICAN branch of that bank with AMERICAN management and AMERICAN customers was handling AMERICAN kickbacks?
But even in the light of the strongest evidence, you will still blame it on "the alien UN and other French" don't you.

How bout you look at all the people, french diplomats, russian companies, french companies, UN officials, all giving and recieving kickbacks, $2 billion to be exact. You fail to realize it does not matter where the oil goes, it's who recieved the contracts and what they did (ie who they payed off) to get those contracts at a cheaper cost then they should have. Last edited by a moderator: Mercator Pengwuino said: How bout you look at all the people, french diplomats, russian companies, french companies, UN officials, all giving and recieving kickbacks,$2 billion to be exact. You fail to realize it does not matter where the oil goes, it's who recieved the contracts and what they did (ie who they payed off) to get those contracts at a cheaper cost then they should have.
Should read like this:
Look at all the people, American companies and their straw men,french diplomats, russian companies, french companies, UN officials(of all nationalities), all giving and receiving kickbacks.
And of course only one of these countries decided that that was not enough and invaded.

Last edited by a moderator:
GENIERE
Anyone who runs for president on a “dump the UN” platform gets my vote.

GENIERE said:
Anyone who runs for president on a “dump the UN” platform gets my vote.
Wasn't that on Hitler's platform? Dump the LoN? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

that was my point but I guess i was being a bit too assertive for the moderators =\

MaxS said:
that was my point but I guess i was being a bit too assertive for the moderators =\
ooooh. I totally didn't get the reference. Nice one, too subtle though. Mabe the mods didn't get it either.