Peter, he wasn't making any connection between the U.N. and the WTC. The analogy was merely you being helpless on an island, and those in the WTC being in the same predicament.

Ain't that what I said?

[Parallax]

Ain't that what I said?

Yes, but look at at the time stamps. we were posting at the same time. Do you really want to piss me off, too?

[Peter Zack]

Got it sorry i misread that one. Easy to do with these head butting threads.

Yes, but look at at the time stamps. we were posting at the same time. Do you really want to piss me off, too?

Yep.

1011221

Got it sorry i misread that one. Easy to do with these head butting threads.

Not a problem Peter. As long as no one gets their shorts in a bunch no harm, no foul. (Or is that Fowl?)

[Ratmagiclady]

Not a problem Peter. As long as no one gets their shorts in a bunch no harm, no foul. (Or is that Fowl?)

I dunno. Shall I dust off the 'Chicken Little' analogy? Or are you too busy being a great co---- nservative?




"The Dow is falling, the Dow is falling! Jobs! Commies! " *head in the sand*

[Mallee Boy]

HAHA-*snort* Oh, you're being serious.

Actually the question is serious. And yes, I am interested in the opinions expressed.

I dunno. Shall I dust off the 'Chicken Little' analogy? Or are you too busy being a great co---- nservative?




"The Dow is falling, the Dow is falling! Jobs! Commies! " *head in the sand*

Was anyone talking to you?

[Mike L]

Is the Climate Change debate and the debacle that is Copenhagen the last stand for the United Nations?

Should the UN go the way of the League of Nations? has it passed its use by date?

The more I look at the UN the more I question its value and contribution to mankind....what has it actually achieved in the last 10 years...ok....20 years? that is widely respected as a universal achievement?

The more I look at the climate debate I can not help but wonder if this is not the UN's "Little Big Horn". If the UN can convince the world to go with it and committ to trillions of dollars of "compensation" does it not by default then guarantee its existence into the forseeable future?

And we would give these trillions of dollars over to an un-elected forum to do with as it pleases.

No Thankyou.

(I do not intend to offend or inflame...but these questions need to be asked)

If it's a serious question, then I'll give my serious answer.

The UN isn't an unelected forum it is made up of all the member states - there is no UNistan, no UN City, no UN dollars the decisions that come out of it come from the member states via the General Assembly or the Security Council etc.

Has it had it's day - sure certain organs of the UN need reform, the first one that comes to mind is the security council and it's permanent members (USA, UK, France, Russia and China) having veto powers on security council resolutions. The fear of one of the WWII era powers wielding their veto power always leads to security council resolutions being watered down to the point where they are ineffectual. For some reason the permanent members are not to keen on reliquishing some of their power and making the security council more representative of the 21st century world.

Apart from the UN agencies like UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, that are keeping people alive, peace keeping operations, and UN missions in places recovering from conflicts like Timor Leste, Kosovo and DRC taking the place of civilian governments I can't think of anything the UN is doing .

It's not the UN that is convincing anyone to enter into any form of global agreement on climate changes it's governments from around the world. The UN itself is unlikely to benefit from any global trade in carbon emissions, it has no territory so it's got no capacity to create carbon credits. Any compensation paid by countries for exceeding their carbons quotas would go to countries that are below their quotas e.g. under the Kyoto Protocal NZ had to pay compensation for exceeding its carbon emission limits to Russia who because of the collaspe of industry in the former USSR had dramatically reduced its carbon emissions compared to 1990 levels.

Mankind being what it is there will be no shortage of war and conflict in the future so I think the UN will be in business for years to come. If sea levels continue to rise and climate change does happen then there will only be an increase in war and conflict.

[RawheaD]

Actually the question is serious. And yes, I am interested in the opinions expressed.

I'm just going to ignore idiots and ask you the question again, since you're serious. You do know that the UN isn't just the security council, but also organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, etc? If so, are you saying that you don't see any utility in what these organizations are doing every single day around the world?

It's not a rhetorical question. You can say no. Some people do, people who don't give a rat's ass how crappy people have it in other parts of the world, as long as he doesn't have the shorter end of the stick :-P

[Mallee Boy]

I'm just going to ignore idiots and ask you the question again, since you're serious. You do know that the UN isn't just the security council, but also organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, WHO, etc? If so, are you saying that you don't see any utility in what these organizations are doing every single day around the world?

It's not a rhetorical question. You can say no. Some people do, people who don't give a rat's ass how crappy people have it in other parts of the world, as long as he doesn't have the shorter end of the stick :-P

Yes, I am aware of the organisations you refer to operate under the UN banner.
No doubt some of them do good, even a lot of good.

I have had the privelege of visiting the UN in New York. I even know a few people that work for the UN (& their attitude to spending other peoples money is cavalier at best and wasteful at worst).

And I understand Peter's point that in certain situations the Blue Beret would be a welcome sight.

But despite all that the question still stands.

[deadwolfbones]

Mike L gave the best answer, above.

[Peter Zack]

It's certainly a valid question. I agree that they spend money without any visible system to regulate spending. But that is true of all government large and small. Waste is somehow common practice in government.

The real issue is power. The idea of a UN makes perfect sense. One of the huge issues globally is, seperate countries. You're all going to think I've taken just one two many hits to the head but here goes.

Consider that your region/country had an elected (in some cases appointed - China etc) government that was your representative at the UN. From those leaders, a global leader is elected. That leader and the government created, has the same power over every country just as if they were the president or Prime minister of your country directly. So in effect, the leader you elect has to take direction from the UN. That way all countries follow the same constitution and federal laws (local laws would vary as they do now).

The military's of all countries would be more of a National Guard. Smaller and at the overall control of the UN. Unable to attack any other country. The country could use that national guard for internal issues but not against another country. If something like Afghanistan or Iraq needs to be addressed, the UN would organize and direct those military operations.

Now that's the basis of an equal world of nations. Your leadership can control your economy etc as they do now but the UN has real teeth to stop a country from waging war and can actually apply laws to country governments.

But there in lies the rub. It's fine to suggest that Robert Mugabe should be in jail, but what about George Bush or Tony Blair or Vladimir Putin, Chairman Hu Jintao? It will never happen where the big powers allow some body to say that there is one law for all and that leaders all have to be held to the same standard.

But consider Iraq. Saddam was a little Hitler. He had nothing to do with 911 but GWB just wanted to finish Dad's war. 911 was an excuse. GWB and Tony Blair had no right what so ever to invade a foreign country, no matter how egregious the leadership was. If the world were run in the fashion above, the UN would have the power to totally isolate such a country and send in troops/police or whatever to arrest and try a leader like Saddam.

But right now the organization is toothless. There's no way it couldn't be. Moral suasion is easily ignored.

[Mallee Boy]

I guess it boils down to the old saying Peter,
"absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Your (lets call it a) "model" has merit in a world where people do the right thing and put greed and personal gain second to the common good of mankind....unfortuneatley we live in a very different world that is incapable of that sort of thought process.

John Lennon probably had the blue print in the words of Imagine.

Unfortuneatly bloated beauracracies are all to common regardless of nation, govt or organisation and self interest reins supreme. Not wanting to get to down on it, but the same question could be asked of our modern civilisation...are we going the way of the romans? Have we had our day?

History can be a great teacher.

[Mike L]

I agree that they spend money without any visible system to regulate spending. But that is true of all government large and small. Waste is somehow common practice in government.

Perhaps the system is not visible because you've never looked into it?

I can't speak on all UN programs, agencies and funds but I can say generally there are many mechanisms in place to control how money is spent and make sure that what was spent was used for its intended purpose.

There are very detailed financial rules (UN general ones and often agency specific ones too), then you have internal and external auditors auditing away plus you have reports going to donors all the time spelling out how money was spent. Of course there is the human element, people can be corrupt, greedy, lazy or just plain stupid so there is no 100% guarantee but it's not a big black hole.

As part of the UN reform process all agencies are being required to change their accounting to IPSAS.