Because The Un

[Burncycle360]

When you ooze competence, you ooze competence (@ 2:30)

Edited January 2, 2020 by Burncycle360

[Panzermann]

More "because Bangladesh."

 

With the British Indian Army this would not have happened. What the Fuck are bangladeshi soldiers doing all day, when they cannot stand straight on a parade ground?

[Ssnake]

Earning money for their country, mostly. Bangladesh has turned its army into a profit center.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I would say 'if you pay peanuts' but I don't want it misconstrued as a racial epithet. But you take my point. If the UN wants the first team, they gotta pay for it.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

Except that the UN doesn't pay peanuts. They are paying considerably more than it costs countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia to deploy soldiers, which is one of the reasons that they are among the largest troop donors to the UN.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So why are first world nations not doing it?

[Panzermann]

Except that the UN doesn't pay peanuts. They are paying considerably more than it costs countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia to deploy soldiers, which is one of the reasons that they are among the largest troop donors to the UN.

 

 

So why are first world nations not doing it?

 

The UN pays not enough and the countries are obviously often not interested in the jobs.

[Nobu]

They are standing on parade in what can only be described as a "group."

 

It could be an indication of elite status, however.

[Burncycle360]

Theyre so confused about their task and purpose... they kept saying conflicting things.

[Jeff]

75 years of making the League of Nations look like a principled example of courage.

 

UN Geneva
@UNGeneva
UN #HumanRights experts express profound concern over a recent statement by the US Attorney-General describing #Antifa and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country.

11:55 AM · Jun 19, 2020

https://twitter.com/UNGeneva/status/1274007783864627201

 

[Burncycle360]

Yikes. Yet when San Franciscos city council declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization. Not a peep.

[NickM]

Yikes. Yet when San Franciscos city council declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization. Not a peep.

The SF 'Board of Stupid-visors'? The last time that bunch of virtue signalling putzes did anything Dan White shot Moscone and Milk--I'm almost proud to say Dan White was my district's supervisor and at least he got off his ass and did something.

[Sardaukar]

UN is such enigma as an organization. Some parts of it (e.g. human rights council) are run by people who would not know "human rights" in any shape or form.

 

Finland has nowadays steered away from most of the UN operations (apart from UNIFIL), we used to be somewhat "superpower" of UN peacekeeping when it made sense. Now it's more NATO etc. driven "crises control" (read semi-war/war).

 

Still, in few less public functions, UN is still useful...but that is lot below media horizon.

[Murph]

A completely worthless organization, we would be better off without it.

[Sardaukar]

A completely worthless organization, we would be better off without it.

 

Most likely.

 

But it's only place for "worldwide" debate...what it's worth...

[RETAC21]

A completely worthless organization, we would be better off without it.

 

There are parts that are salvageable, inmunization programs, for example: https://www.unicef.org/immunization

 

But 'murricans confuse it with Congress, when it's just a soapbox to make noise if there's no agreement between the parts.

[Nobu]

I am a supporter of it until something better comes along. The victors of WW2 wanted the responsibility of leading the new world order. They should put in the effort required to make its administrative mechanism run, or step aside for other major powers that can.

[RETAC21]

I am a supporter of it until something better comes along. The victors of WW2 wanted the responsibility of leading the new world order. They should put in the effort required to make its administrative mechanism run, or step aside for other major powers that can.

 

 

It was to be the forum where the victors discussed and split the World among them, in the vein of the Congress of Vienna or the Congress of Berlin, but permament, because WW1 was mostly sparked partially by lack of that forum to discuss and agree, but it was not intended to be the World Government

[Murph]

The US needs to leave the UN, and kick their sorry butts off our continent. Let them go to Europe where they are wanted.

[Ivanhoe]

 

A completely worthless organization, we would be better off without it.

 

Most likely.

 

But it's only place for "worldwide" debate...what it's worth...

 

 

The UN spends a farcical amount of time on the Jew Problem. Meanwhile ignoring massive problems elsewhere.

[Nobu]

Ironically, the U.S. abdicating its Congress of the Victors responsibility would result in political fear and dismay... in Israel.

 

The administrative mechanism is imperfect, but it still runs. Taking the power vested in its P5 seat and harnessing the daylights out of it would be an alternative to channeling Matsuoka in 1933.

 

The UN spends a farcical amount of time on the Jew Problem™. Meanwhile ignoring massive problems elsewhere.

 

It probably spends a similarly silly amount of time on things like stamp show representation and the bureaucracy of garbage. I think it is worth fixing, and had Donald been younger, I think he would have embraced that challenge.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Nobu

[Ssnake]

Maybe the UN are a failure, like the League of Nations before it. But eff me, I know no better alternative. Abandoning it won't make the problems go away. The UN gives the US a lot of leverage to influence things by non-military means. Throw it away and you are still going to be challenged on more fronts than you can handle. Going fully Isolationist is going to bite you eventually. You can take down with you all your allies and then bask in a well-deserved "told you so" which may be emotionally satisfying, but it's not going to solve a single problem.

 

Then what?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I used a crude analogy a long ago about public toilets in the UK. Around the time of the financial crash, the Government cut the funding to local councils, who then suddenly short of funds, figured they may as well shut public toilets, some of them long established edifices since the victorian period, to save money. Some of them even were converted into houses (Can you imagine living in that? Well at least the plumbing is already done for you...) Well, the inevitable happened. People were caught short coming out of pubs, and they were urinating in the street.

 

The UN is like that. Its nasty and smelly inside, nobody spends the upkeep on it when it does. But get rid of it, everyone is going to be urinating in the street again.

 

OK, so its an appalling analogy, but you get my point. Somehow, I dont think we are going to be satisfied by handling all our global security and healthcare infrastructure over to China. That is less showing independence than capitulating to forces that mean us ill.

 

Its funny to me that the first thing Americans did after gaining independence was build alliances. Clearly the founding fathers knew something modern politicians didnt.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Rick]

Maybe the UN are a failure, like the League of Nations before it. But eff me, I know no better alternative. Abandoning it won't make the problems go away. The UN gives the US a lot of leverage to influence things by non-military means. Throw it away and you are still going to be challenged on more fronts than you can handle. Going fully Isolationist is going to bite you eventually. You can take down with you all your allies and then bask in a well-deserved "told you so" which may be emotionally satisfying, but it's not going to solve a single problem.

 

Then what?

A much better substitute for the U.N. would be churches. Many denominations have "world hq" such as Baptists and Methodists. A loose confederation if you will to handle the number one world wide problem of secular liberalism. Second would be natural disasters.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And how would you deal with people that (as Kanye would put it) dont believe in anything? The Chinese Government have no belief other than in the primacy of the Communist Party. How then can any church reconcile itself to dealing with something that is at best agnosticism, or at worst outright athiesm? It just doesnt work. Better by far we all practice that method in foreign relations, then there is a relatively common bedrock of dealing with relations.

 

I dont think any confederation of churches is going to get far ignoring 1.4 billion people. Would that we could of course, but if China hasnt gone anywhere in about 4000 years, its probably in for the long haul im guessing.