Quote:ilw:
...basically agree, I think as it stands the UN is useless in many ways, but its better than the alternative of not having it. It also suffers from the petty machinations of its member states' politicians who sometimes use it as a pawn in their domestic political struggles.
How is a "useless" U.N. better than none at all?
A U.N. which presumes to speak as the voice of reason, spewing platitudes from a mouth with no teeth?
The U.N. needs to be freed of politics.
This cannot be done, absent a scratch start.
QUOTE
This is, to my way of thinking, a very big story, one I have been aware of for over a month, and I posted about it, in a "details to come" fashion, when I first heard it.
It garnered no attention whatsoever at the time, and, given the overall favorable opinion of the U.N. held by the majority of board members, I didn't waste any time wondering why.
I think we have different ways of thinking, clearly this situation casts aspersions on the work of the UN, but it seems to me to have been an almost non-story in England and this may be part of the reason you haven't heard from us UN fanboys as much as you'd like. I think if you wanted to demonstrate that the UN is no good then i think you could have picked a better scandal to run it under, there are quite a few of them eg Rwanda and Kosovo.
True enough, but Rwanda and Kosovo weren't problems created, fomented, or complicated by countries which were taking kickback money from backdoor deals; countries which would deny even the appearance of impropriety given their Security Council votes and their heretofore unknown actions.
See the difference?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks