Log in

View Full Version : The U.N.



che-Rabbi
15th April 2006, 01:06
Ok well anytime the U.N. is mentioned in school the teachers talk about it as if its curing all of the worlds problems however, the impression i get of the U.N. is its just a big debate club for a bunch of third world nations to go to and think they have authority and power.

The reason i think this is because the U.N. has alot of resources but they can never accomplish anything, all they do is give commmentary on situations. Also no one ever obeys them so, if anyone has something to say, please because its an interesting topic.

Gryphon
15th April 2006, 05:22
The U.N. lost much of its reputation since its creation as a 'watch-dog' since the Americans are the real regulators. The U.S. and its allies were also successful in alienating the U.N. on important foreign issues. But personally, I think the U.N. purpose in delivering humanitarian aid to war-stricken and impoverished countries to be necessary and it gives also third and fourth world countries a 'voice' on the international platform. :ph34r:

perdido
15th April 2006, 05:26
I think the U.N. is a great idea. Unfortunently the major players in it have too much power. They spend too much time arguing over things and not enough time taking action. It would probably work much better if they kicked out the U.S. and Russia.

redstar2000
15th April 2006, 05:32
Originally posted by che-Rabbi
The U.N., the timeless question..does it suck?

YES!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

JC1
15th April 2006, 05:57
The UN is nothing more then a forum of states.

Nothing more.

BobKKKindle$
16th April 2006, 15:05
The idea of a forum of discusion and an international organisation for solving problems is all well and good, but there are simple too many absurdities within the Un that make it..suck. For example, the fact that a 2/3 majority is required to pass a revolution, and every state has but one vote, regardless of size, means that 8% of the population of the world can technichally pass a resolution

Andy Bowden
16th April 2006, 15:27
The UN is only as good as its member states. So it's shit.

The best example is how many white, western nations have the right of veto on the Security Council, and how they got that veto.

Rawthentic
16th April 2006, 22:31
yeah, it has no power whatsoever. Look at Iraq, it did nothing to stop Bush. It is controlled by the imperialist countries and provides no real alternative. Look at the current genocide in Darfur. What the fuck have they done?

What about NATO? Yeah, sure it was a historic "liberating" force :D from "communism", yet they resulted to be another imperialist army who's aims were those of the capitalists and their interests. But when it comes to something like Darfur, where the fuck are they?

The sick nature of the capitalist-imperialist system is revealed thorugh this and the solution it wil never bring for the world.

Severian
17th April 2006, 00:22
Originally posted by che-[email protected] 14 2006, 06:15 PM
Ok well anytime the U.N. is mentioned in school the teachers talk about it as if its curing all of the worlds problems however, the impression i get of the U.N. is its just a big debate club for a bunch of third world nations to go to and think they have authority and power.
That's the General Assembly.

Then there's this massive bureaucratic machine that administers various programs, usually not very well. WHO, FAO, and so forth.

The Security Council has real power - that is, its 5 permanent members do. When they agree on something...the UN acts as a cover for imperialist intervention, generally by the U.S.

So basically, you have it backwards: it's a place for the U.S. and other imperialist powers to cloak their real authority and power.

LSD
17th April 2006, 01:06
I think the U.N. is a great idea.

There are no "great ideas" in politics, only beneficiaries.

In this case, the US, UK, PRC, France, and Russia. They also "happen" to be the victors of World War II.

Oh, the other 200 odd members get to "speak their mind", but actual decisions get made by either the Security Council (controlled by the 5 countries listed above) or by the various sub-organizations (whos leaderships are overwhelmingly staffed by individuals from those countries).

Basically, just a colonialist "summit" with cell-phones; a bunch of imperialists sitting down for tea and cocktails and dividing up the world between them.

Don't let Roosevelt's propaganda fool you, there was no "grand vision" behind the creation of the UN; just greed.

Janus
17th April 2006, 17:09
The Security Council has real power - that is, its 5 permanent members do. When they agree on something...the UN acts as a cover for imperialist intervention, generally by the U.S.
Right, but each permanent member has veto power so it's pretty hard to get anything done.


So basically, you have it backwards: it's a place for the U.S. and other imperialist powers to cloak their real authority and power.
I agree. The US even acts without UN agreement as they did with the Iraq invasion.

Guerrilla22
18th April 2006, 00:09
The UN is worthless, what has it ever accomplished?

YSR
18th April 2006, 01:35
I'm going to see Kofi Annan speak on Saturday. I suspect there will be an enormous amount of bullshit coming from him.

(At least it's free)

Delirium
18th April 2006, 02:35
The UN exists to promote capitalistic democracies. Any rational leftist would come to the conclusion that it works counter to working class interests.

edit; idiocy

bezdomni
18th April 2006, 02:38
It would be better if they were revolutionary.

More Fire for the People
18th April 2006, 02:38
The United Nations is a failure as an international government. The UN serves only the bourgeoisie and their imperialistic adventures. The most immediate reform needed within the UN is equal represenation for all countries not just the "big five".

Martin Blank
18th April 2006, 03:32
Does the UN suck? Of course! It's an attempt at a bourgeois deliberative body that more often than not fails at its mission.

But that's not the real question, from my perspective. For me, the question is whether or not a working people's republic would participate in the UN -- would take the seats that the old bourgeois government held before the revolution.

Miles

phragit
19th April 2006, 02:11
The UN has become nothing more than a catalyst for the means of bourgeoisie hegemony over the world.

piet11111
19th April 2006, 19:33
as a political negotiator and for aid it works poorly but it does get things sometimes done.

as an actual "world government" it fails horribly and is completely castrated by bureacratics and the lack of support from its member nations.
if the UN actually had an army and independant means of getting things done (as in not having to ask nations to arrange transport for aid etc.) then it might actually be better.

as it is now its a waste of money and time.

MurderInc
20th April 2006, 19:16
it has a lovely gift shop

MurderInc
20th April 2006, 19:18
p.s. re; what someone wrote, if the UN had a army and enforcement, no one would join. That is, everyone would leave.

armedpoet
20th April 2006, 19:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:26 AM
The UN has become nothing more than a catalyst for the means of bourgeoisie hegemony over the world.
I concur.

As it appears most people do.

The real question is: was it ever meant to work and could it ever?

Ideally we must replace the global hegemony with a global alternative. I don't think that the UN could ever be a part of such an alternative as by its nature it is a part of the problem.

It is like the G8.. What a joke. In order for the G8 to solve global poverty they would need to disolve the G8 governments and the system that they represent.

I don't think that will happen any time soon.



Edit: early morning typo shit.

backwardsbulldozer
20th April 2006, 23:29
Even if it had the right intentions, there's the fact that it doesn't really do all that much, and many of the countries are heavily controlled by the U.S. government. But the sanctions on Iraq and the things that MINUSTAH has done in Haiti are two examples that it's not only useless but equally damaging as the countries in it,

Tupac-Amaru
21st April 2006, 00:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 11:24 PM
The UN is worthless, what has it ever accomplished?
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections

4. Development - The system's annual disbursements, including loans and grants, amount to more than $10 billion.

5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.

7. UN Conference eon Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, resulted in treaties on bio-diversity and climate change.

8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 countries.

9. Over 300 international treaties, on topics as varied as human rights conventions to agreements on the use of outer space and seabed.

10. The International Court of Justice has helped settle international disputes involving territorial issues, diplomatic relations, hostage-taking, and economic rights.

11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.

12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.

14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.

15. The Africa Project Development Facility has helped entrepreneurs in 25 countries to find financing for new enterprises. The Facility has completed 130 projects which represent investments of $233 million and the creation of 13,000 new jobs, saving some $131 million in foreign exchange annually.

16. Promoting Women's Rights *have supported programs and projects to improve the quality of life for women in over 100 countries, including credit and training, marketing opportunities, etc.

17. Providing Safe Drinking Water * Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

18. Eradicating Smallpox * through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere, with global eradication expected soon.

19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis * has a 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.

20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960, increasing the average life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.

21. Fighting parasitic diseases, such as saving the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness and rescued many others from guinea worm and other tropical diseases.

22. Promoting investment in developing countries *promoting entrepreneurship and self-reliance, industrial cooperation and technology transfer and cost-effective, ecologically-sensitive industry.

23. Reducing the effects of natural disasters *early warning system, which utilizes thousands of surface monitors as well as satellites, has provided information for the dispersal of oil spills and has predicted long-term droughts.

24. Providing food to victims of emergencies * Over two million tons of food each year. 30 million people facing acute food shortages in 36 countries benefited from this assistance last year.

25. Clearing land mines - The United Nations is leading an international effort to clear land minds from Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Rwanda and Somalia.

26. Protecting the ozone layer & global warming*highlighting the damage caused to the earth's ozone layer. As a result there has been a global effort to reduce chemical emissions of substances that have caused the depletion of the ozone.

27. Preventing over-fishing

28. Limiting deforestation and promoting sustainable forestry development *in 90 countries.

29. Cleaning up pollution *encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, and Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50% of the previously polluted beaches are now usable.

30. Protecting consumers' health *have established standards for over 200 food commodities and safety limits for more than 3,000 food contaminants.

31. Reducing fertility rates * Family planning programs. Women in developing countries are having fewer children * from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today. In the 1960s, only 10% of the world's families were using effective methods of family planning. The number now stands at 55 percent.

32. Fighting drug abuse *Reduce demand for illicit drugs, suppress drug trafficking, and has helped farmers to reduce their economic reliance on growing narcotic crops by shifting farm production toward other dependable sources of income.

33. Improving global trade relations * The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has worked to obtain special trade preferences for developing countries to export their products to developed countries with fair prices.

34. Promoting economic reform * Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations has helped many countries improve their economic management, offered training for government finance officials, and provided financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment difficulties.

35. Promoting worker rights *worked to guarantee freedom of the right to association, the right to organize, collective bargaining, setting worker safety standards, the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, promote employment and equal remuneration and has sought to eliminate discrimination and child labor.

36. Introducing improved agricultural techniques and reducing costs *Resulted in improved crop yields, Asian rice farmers have saved $12 million on pesticides and governments over $150 a year in pesticide subsidies.

37. Promoting stability and order in the world's oceans *global agreement for the protection, preservation and peaceful development of the oceans.

38. Improving air and sea travel *Setting safety standards for sea and air travel, making air travel the safest mode of transportation.

39. Protecting intellectual property *Protection for new inventions and maintains a register of nearly 3 million national trademarks. artists, composers and authors worldwide.

40. Promoting the free flow of information *free of censorship and culturally unbiased, aid to develop and strengthen communication systems, established news agencies and supported an independent press.

41. Improving global communications * Regulated international mail delivery, coordinated use of the radio spectrum, promoted cooperation in assigning positions for stationary satellites, and established international standards for communications, thereby ensuring the unfettered flow of information around the globe.

42. Empowering the voiceless *recognize the needs and contributions of groups usually excluded from decision-making such as the aging, children, youth, homeless, indigenous an disabled people.

43. Establishing "children as a zone of peace" * From El Salvador to Lebanon, Sudan to former Yugoslavia, provide vaccines and other assistance desperately needed by children caught in armed conflict.

44. Generating worldwide commitment in support of the needs of children *more than 150 governments have committed to reaching over 20 specific measurable goals to radically improve children's lives by the year 2000.

45. Improving education in developing countries *60% of adults in developing countries can now read and write, and 80 percent of children in these countries attend school.

46. Improving literacy for women *Raise the female literacy rate in developing countries from 36 percent in 1970 to 56 percent in 1990.

47. Safeguarding and preserving historic cultural and architectural sites *protected through the efforts of UNESCO, and international conventions have been adopted to preserve cultural property.

48. Facilitating academic and cultural exchanges encouraged scholarly and scientific cooperation, networking of institutions and promotion of cultural expressions, including those of minorities and indigenous people.

LSD
21st April 2006, 01:05
Tupac-Amaru, in the future providing a link is sufficient (http://www.una-usadanecounty.org/about/index.php?category_id=1550). We like to keep the regurgitated material to a minimum.

Regardless, there's no way in hell that I'm going to respond to every one of those claims. But a couple of them really caught my eye.


1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

16, eh? Let's see, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Hey, if the US invades another four countries, we can get that number up to twenty. Imagine what a great advertising bump that'd give you! :o :lol:


2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

Really? "Credited" is it? Well, "credited" by whom?

I sure as fuck don't "credit" the UN with doing anything but serving its imperialist masters. I'm sure its "ended" plenty of wars, but it's done so only to the benefit of the "west".

When ending bloodshed doesn't serve any imperialist interests, the UN is remarkably silent. Tell me, can anyone spell Rwanda???


5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

Yeah, that's called charity. If the UN didn't do it, someone else would.

But the world isn't in desperate need for more fucking NPOs, its in need for real change. And that's not going to come from "$800 million" in charity. It's going to come from popular revolution.


8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 countries.

The "threat of nuclear war" was pretty much miniscule from the get go. No government wants to risk self-destruction.

Besides, what does "inspecting reactors" have to do weith stopping nuclear wars? All it does is maintain the hegemony of the current nuclear powers and, coincidently, permanent members of the UN security council.

It seems that this "accomplishment" may have more to do with who's running the UN then it does with "world peace".


11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.

:lol:

Wow, "major factor" was it?

That's realy funny considering that I thought it was the South African people who brought down Appartheid. But I guess the ANC didn't really do anything after all, it was really the white bureaucrats in New York who "brough about the downfall of the apartheid system". :rolleyes:

Additionaly, I imagine that all those times the Security Council failed to condemn South Africa, it was just ...what... pretending??? :huh:

The UN's "contribution" to South Africa was deplorable and any attempt to shoehorn in a "role" for the UN in the South African people's victory is revisionist history of the worst kind.


13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption.

Oh, it provides "relief assistance" does it?

I guess that makes up for the theft of their land and the destruction of their nation. :angry:


19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio

As long as it's "pressing", how about it "presses" for something else urgently needed in the third world: freedom.

Honestly, if the UN is doing good medical work, that's great, but we hardly need a massive international bureaucracy to handle immunezation. So let's scrap the Security Council, shut down the "economic" agencies, and triple the WHO's budget.

Deal?


22. Promoting investment in developing countries promoting entrepreneurship and self-reliance, industrial cooperation and technology transfer and cost-effective, ecologically-sensitive industry.

AKA promoting capitalism.


32. Fighting drug abuse Reduce demand for illicit drugs, suppress drug trafficking, and has helped farmers to reduce their economic reliance on growing narcotic crops by shifting farm production toward other dependable sources of income.

So we're supposed to be "thankful" that the UN is helping the bourgeoisie carry out its violently anti-worker "war on drugs"?

Not only do all people have an inalienable right to consume whatever chemicals they want to, but farmers have the absolute right to grow whatever the fuck they want to.

The UN's version of "helping farmers" has resulted in mass misery and poverty. Just look at what's going on in Colombia.

None of these farmers asked to "reduce their economic reliance on narcotics", so how about the UN buts the fuck out?


34. Promoting economic reform Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations has helped many countries improve their economic management, offered training for government finance officials, and provided financial assistance to countries experiencing temporary balance of payment difficulties.

Notice the phrase "Together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund"?

In that context, I think we all know what "economic reform" means. :angry:


39. Protecting intellectual property

And that's supposed to be a good thing? :lol:

Clearly this link was not written with communists in mind, because no sane Marxist in the world considers the "protection of intellectual property" to be beneficial.

Although it does point out quite nicely just how much a tool of the bourgeoisie the UN is.


42. Empowering the voiceless recognize the needs and contributions of groups usually excluded from decision-making

What, you mean the proletariat?

Strange, cause I don't remember workers having a voice in UN deliberations. Last I checked all security council decisions were made by the victorious bourgeoisie of World War II.

Where exactly do the "voiceless" fit into that?


35. Promoting worker rights

:lol: :blink: :lol:

armedpoet
21st April 2006, 03:28
Ha!

Well said LSD.

Tupac-Amaru
21st April 2006, 13:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:20 AM
16, eh? Let's see, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq...

Hey, if the US invades another four countries, we can get that number up to twenty. Imagine what a great advertising bump that'd give you! :o :lol:

Im sorry...but if you looked, you would see that the US is not involved in ALL of those operations. And fyi NATO operations in Yugoslavia were done without the consent of the UN. As was the American invasion of Iraq.

Claming that america is involved and responsible for all those operations is incredibly naive. Besides...why are you opposed to peace-keeping operations?


Really? "Credited" is it? Well, "credited" by whom?

I sure as fuck don't "credit" the UN with doing anything but serving its imperialist masters. I'm sure its "ended" plenty of wars, but it's done so only to the benefit of the "west".

Well, for one thing its credited by the people who owe their lives to the UN for solving these peace settlements. Also credited by many governments around the world aswell as newspapers and NGOs.

Do you have any proof that it has ended conflicts only "for the benefit of the west"? How is it helping the West if the UN solves the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea? There's nothing there...not oil...no minerals....just SAND!!!


When ending bloodshed doesn't serve any imperialist interests, the UN is remarkably silent. Tell me, can anyone spell Rwanda???

Yes, a sad example of failure, not only on the part of the UN, but the rest of the world. But just because it failed this time does it immediately rule out the UN for ever? come on!!!


that's not going to come from "$800 million" in charity. It's going to come from popular revolution.

We both know that is never going to happen!


Besides, what does "inspecting reactors" have to do weith stopping nuclear wars? All it does is maintain the hegemony of the current nuclear powers and, coincidently, permanent members of the UN security council.

Point taken...but imagine how the world would be if other countries, like North Korea, Iran, or Burma had the bomb....it'd be even worse: something is better than nothing!


That's realy funny considering that I thought it was the South African people who brought down Appartheid. But I guess the ANC didn't really do anything after all, it was really the white bureaucrats in New York who "brough about the downfall of the apartheid system".

Don't put words into my mouth dude! I never said the UN should have full credit for destroying appartheid. It was a major factor, and that's undeniable. The UN imposing measures on Apartheid ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events, the United Nations was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system. When South Africa finaly got free elections, they were observed by 2,527 staff of the United Nations Observer Mission in South Africa (UNOMSA).


Additionaly, I imagine that all those times the Security Council failed to condemn South Africa, it was just ...what... pretending???

The Security Council, adopted resolution 134 (1960) deploring the policies and actions of the South African Government, and called upon that Government to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination.

Im sorry....I think it was just YOU pretending!!!!
If you can give me an example that proves your point...it would be well appreciated.


The UN's "contribution" to South Africa was deplorable and any attempt to shoehorn in a "role" for the UN in the South African people's victory is revisionist history of the worst kind.

I think ive given you enough examples proving that that statement is comepletely false and baseless and came from the mind of a confused and brainwashed individual.


I guess that makes up for the theft of their land and the destruction of their nation[/b

I assume you are refering the UN's work in founding the State of Israel. Well I must remind you that the Jews did not "steal" anything...that land has been theirs for thousands of years.


As long as it's "pressing", how about it "presses" for something else urgently needed in the third world: [b]freedom.

It is doing that!


Honestly, if the UN is doing good medical work, that's great, but we hardly need a massive international bureaucracy to handle immunezation. So let's scrap the Security Council, shut down the "economic" agencies, and triple the WHO's budget.Deal?

Not necessary, the WHO is the most well-funded UN agency.

Nope...no deal.


AKA promoting capitalism.

Sure, its pretty much been proven that that's the only system that works.


So we're supposed to be "thankful" that the UN is helping the bourgeoisie carry out its violently anti-worker "war on drugs"?

Not only do all people have an inalienable right to consume whatever chemicals they want to, but farmers have the absolute right to grow whatever the fuck they want to.

The UN's version of "helping farmers" has resulted in mass misery and poverty. Just look at what's going on in Colombia.

None of these farmers asked to "reduce their economic reliance on narcotics", so how about the UN buts the fuck out?


Well that may be your opinion on drugs...but from someone who's cousin died last year of a heroine overdose.....i beg to differ!!!



What, you mean the proletariat?

Strange, cause I don't remember workers having a voice in UN deliberations. Last I checked all security council decisions were made by the victorious bourgeoisie of World War II.

Where exactly do the "voiceless" fit into that?
35. Promoting worker rights

:lol: :blink: :lol:

Are you familiar with the ILO? It's the UN's specialised agency for Labour stadards and worker's rights.

www.ILO.org

Founded at the end of WWI, the ILO laid down the guidelines for international socio-political cooperation using a tripartite system which unites workers, employers and governments. Much of the resolutions submitted by the ILO’s Governing Body have become customary law in many countries especially in the specific area of labour law.

THAT's where the workers fit in! They have a say in matters and they have a vote (just like any government)!

Tupac-Amaru
21st April 2006, 13:10
Im also curious to hear your thoughts on what i said about the UN on this other thread. (It's in desperate need of new posts!!)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48955

LSD
21st April 2006, 17:59
Im sorry...but if you looked, you would see that the US is not involved in ALL of those operations.

Oh, you mean some UN operations aren't cleaning up the US' mess.

How phenomenal. :rolleyes:


Besides...why are you opposed to peace-keeping operations?

Because they serve the international bourgeoisie in maintaining their hegemony and preventing any sovereign resistance.

"Peace keeping" is a euphemism for order-keeping. And as revolutioanries we have absolutely no interest in the perpetuation of the present bourgeois order!


Do you have any proof that it has ended conflicts only "for the benefit of the west"?

The facts speak for themselves.


We both know that is never going to happen!

Of course, it's going to happen. It is the inevitable result of capitalism.

If you honestly think that revolution is "impossible", however, I would invite you to reconsider your member status on this board. This is a revolutionary leftist board. We have no tolerance for reformist liberals!


Point taken...but imagine how the world would be if other countries, like North Korea, Iran, or Burma had the bomb

North Korea already has it and Iran's probably less than a decade away.

The world hasn't ended yet.


Don't put words into my mouth dude! I never said the UN should have full credit for destroying appartheid. It was a major factor, and that's undeniable.

Well, I deny it.


he UN imposing measures on Apartheid ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events

:lol:

"Arms embargos"? "sporting conventions"?

Sorry, but that is not a "major" contribution. Cuba has had an embargo against her for 40 years, she's still standing. Saddam Hussein managed to survive against a full embargo for over a decade.

To imagine that a pathetically enforced blockade and a decision on sports constitutes anything more than lip-service is pure naivite.


The Security Council, adopted resolution 134 (1960) deploring the policies and actions of the South African Government, and called upon that Government to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination.

Oh, they "deplored" it in 1960, did they?

Well what else did they do? Did they ever support military intervention? Or offer material aid to the ANC? Or condemn the government at all over the next thirty years???

The UN managed to get involved in dozens of conflicts and support the invasions of several sovereign countries, and yet somehow never managed to do one practical thing to help the people of South Africa.

Giving the UN even one iota of credit for the eventual collapse of Appartheid is insulting and revisionist. It denigrates the actual people who fought and died for their rights to assert that the "UN" was a "major factor" in their victory.


I assume you are refering the UN's work in founding the State of Israel. Well I must remind you that the Jews did not "steal" anything...that land has been theirs for thousands of years.

Land does not "belong" to anyone. The "Jews" who founded the State of Isreal were overwhelmingly from Europe and eastern Asia and based their "claim" on the land on "divine scripture".

The Palestinian people, however, were actually on the ground, and had their entire nation and identity ripped away from them so that a bunch of Europeans could establish their "homeland".

The UN's role in tacitly allowing this theft is deplorably and its failure to remedy this situation in the half century since it began is a clear sign of its inefficacy and usefullness.

The UN serves at the pleasure of its masters. And not one of them has our interests in mind.


Sure, its pretty much been proven that that's the only system that works.

:blink:

Allow me to familiarize you with the RevLeft Guidelines (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=boardrules):


Originally posted by RevLeft [email protected] General Board
What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.


Well that may be your opinion on drugs...but from someone who's cousin died last year of a heroine overdose.....i beg to differ!!!

You can "differ" all you want, but your annectodal moralism is irrelevent.

People have the right to consume drugs if they want to and farmers have the right to grow drugs if they want to.

The UN's role in opposing fundamental freedoms is inherently oppressive and anti-proletarian.


Are you familiar with the ILO?

Quite. I'm also remarkably unimpressed.

The ILO is nothing but bourgeois reformism. It serves to keep the rulling class rulling and the workers docile.

Not, that it actually does much, of course, considering that its decisions are nonbinding and unenforcably.

"Voice of the workers"? :rolleyes: Ha!

armedpoet
21st April 2006, 18:57
The UN imposing measures on Apartheid ranging from an arms embargo to a convention against segregated sporting events, the United Nations was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system. When South Africa finaly got free elections, they were observed by 2,527 staff of the United Nations Observer Mission in South Africa (UNOMSA).

And now the gap between rich and poor in South Africa is greater than what it was under Apartheid. The UN, Mandela and the ANC sold South Africa to the corporations - that have ensured that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

Make no mistake the UN represent the interests of big business. Everything else is just collateral.

peaccenicked
21st April 2006, 18:59
The UN is a battleground, it sucks for that very reason, another reason is that is undemocratic and the US is dominant and its henchmen but yet the non aligned have to stand up against imperialism.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6258

вор в законе
21st April 2006, 23:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:21 AM

I think the U.N. is a great idea.

In this case, the US, UK, PRC, France, and Russia. They also "happen" to be the victors of World War II.



You mean Soviet Union.


Strange, cause I don't remember workers having a voice in UN deliberations. Last I checked all security council decisions were made by the victorious bourgeoisie of World II


Soviet Union was not a bourgeois state as you are vigorously trying to imply my fellow leftist.

As for the UN...

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/RedBrigade/Imperialists/6_globaldemocracy.jpg

bayano
9th June 2006, 12:06
i definitely credit those who say the UN is pretty much a masturbation fiesta. i think the greatest thing it could do to actually mean something is expel the United States entirely, but of course it wont do that, so i guess thats just one of those whimsical ideas ill have to wish for. but for anyone who thinks its so great, tell me why it hasnt stopped the US in any way from interventions and invasions during its existance? meanwhile, its 'peacekeepers' are well known by many of the countries they operate in for looting, rape, and looking the other way during wholesale massacres (ill give you an example faster than you can say 'Srebrenica'. oh wait, theres your example!)

not a huge fan of the Nation, in fact i think it sucks, but they have some good stuff occasionally. here's their piece on the 'gutsy' but not far enough recent speech by the deputy secretary of the UN that set Bolton in a huff. (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/iwilliams)

by the way, bolton is one of the strangest looking of men. he looks to me like some animated character.

Comrade-Z
9th June 2006, 20:16
Founded at the end of WWI, the ILO laid down the guidelines for international socio-political cooperation using a tripartite system which unites workers, employers and governments.

Oh great, a corporativist fascist labor union that tries to suppress class struggle in the interest of the ruling class and its exploitative system!

What a boon that is for the international working class!

Hooray! :angry: