What the hell has U.N. been doing?

[furt]

This person, while a bit overemotional, has a point. Where has the UN been in all this? Did I miss something? Has the UN done anything other than the perfunctory “it’s a darn shame” resolution. I mean, geez, they’re in New York.

[Stuffy]

She doesn’t have a point, she’s a nut with a podium. Is she a regular contributor?

[december]

*Originally posted by stuffinb *
**She doesn’t have a point, she’s a nut with a podium. Is she a regular contributor? **

Peyser’s a regular columnist for the NY Post.

Another columnist (attempting wit) wrote that the terrorists didn’t attack the US Building because the UN in on their side.

For me, the lack of a UN resolution is disturbing and so was their awful, anti-American conference in Durban, just concluded. One could make a case that the UN isn’t even neutral, it’s counter-productive.

I really do think it’s time for the UN to do something useful in battle against terrorism. If they’re not capable of doing so, maybe it’s time to deep-six this international organization and created a new one.

stuffinb, the tone of Peyser’s article was obviously provocative. Do you have any specific objections to her statements, beyond just calling her names?

[Stuffy]

I should no better than giving glib responses.

Well since the UNs function is to promote cooperation and peace by maintaining dialogues between nations, then it sems to be fulfilling it’s role, including their latest snubs against the US. As far as I know, they’re not some kind of Pro America functionaries.

I’d assumed that the UN was still closed (ISTR - that it was closed the afternoon of 9/11). If it’s not then the lack of a resolution of some kind is a little disheartening. Can anyone verify the UN situ?

On Bill Maher -

1. The show is called politically incorrect.

2. I happen to think he’s right. I mean I’m not going to fly a plane into a building. In addition our Nintendo warfare has caused a significant portion of Americans to believe warfare should be bloodless or with no casualties to our side.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

I don’t agree with her, but if they kick out the UN, alot of badly needed office space and residences might become available to displaced New Yorkers.

[clairobscur]

December, apart the parking ticket thing, what exactly isn’t objectionable?

It isn’t provocative, it’s nonsense…

[rjung]

*Originally posted by december *
For me, the lack of a UN resolution is disturbing and so was their awful, anti-American conference in Durban, just concluded.

Just outta curiousity, december, enlighten me – since the US didn’t bother to attend the “awful, anti-American” UN conference on racism in any significant capacity, did they actually spent the entire week bashing the US (as you are suggesting)? Or did they maintain their sham by spending the time actually talking about racism?

(Sorry for the hijack, but this is the second time in so many weeks that I’ve seen you handwave the racism conference as a thinly-veiled attempt to bash the US, and I have to keep wondering where you dream that up from…)

[stuyguy]

Hey. I live right near the UN. I’ve got a car and a motorcycle. I need more parking. I say throw the bastards out.

(If you think I’m being glib with a serious topic you’ve obviously never tried to find a valid alternate side of the street parking space in my neighborhood between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Ho boy, don’t get me started!)

[december]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *
**

*Originally posted by december *

(Sorry for the hijack, but this is the second time in so many weeks that I’ve seen you handwave the racism conference as a thinly-veiled attempt to bash the US, and I have to keep wondering where you dream that up from…) **

rjung, I assume your “US” was a typo and should have been “UN”. I was having the same problem.

My comments on the Durban conference were actually a blatant attempt to bash the Durban conference.

If you want to assert that the Durban conference was a positive contribution, please start another thread and I’ll research my POV. Based on the articles we all read in the popular press, this conference was a failure. Even the NY Times took that POV.

The WTC attack showed that all this bashing of the US is actually quite harmful. It helps to inspire fanatics…

[MEBuckner]

For me, the lack of a UN resolution is disturbing

If it’s not then the lack of a resolution of some kind is a little disheartening.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution, dated September 12, 2001:

*The General Assembly,

Guided* by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

l. Strongly condemns the heinous acts of terrorism which have caused enormous loss of human life, destruction and damage in the cities of New York, host city of the United Nations, Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania;

2. Expresses its condolences and solidarity with the people and Government of the United States of America in these sad and tragic circumstances;

3. Urgently calls for international cooperation to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the outrages of 11 September 2001;

4. Urgently calls for international cooperation to prevent and eradicate acts of terrorism, and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting, or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of such acts will be held accountable.

The Security Council also unanimously adopted a resolution condeming the attack; here’s a UN press release which also contains the full text of the resolution, #1368.

Hey, folks, that’s pretty much what the UN does. The paranoid notions of the black helicopters set notwithstanding, there is no “UN Army” to swing in to action and hunt down the perpetrators. As far as actual military action goes, the main bodies (especially the Security Council) pass resolutions, which can then be put into effect by the member states. In some specialized areas (like the World Health Organization), the UN actually “exists” and can take action; but at the level of military action, it’s simply a public forum for diplomacy and talk.

[Kimstu]

december replied to rjung: *"(Sorry for the hijack, but this is the second time in so many weeks that I’ve seen you handwave the racism conference as a thinly-veiled attempt to bash the US, and I have to keep wondering where you dream that up from…)"

rjung, I assume your “US” was a typo and should have been “UN”. I was having the same problem. *

Actually, just to throw in what I hope is a clarification here, I read rjung’s remark as meaning “december thinks the Durban conference is an attempt to bash the US under the guise of combating racism”. So no, if my interpretation is correct, that wasn’t a typo.

If you want to assert that the Durban conference was a positive contribution, please start another thread and I’ll research my POV. Based on the articles we all read in the popular press, this conference was a failure.

Well, it’s a very touchy subject of course, but based on what I read at the conference’s official website, they seem to have made some valuable points:

On the Middle East, the Conference called for the end of violence and the swift resumption of peace negotiations; respect for international human rights and humanitarian law; and respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom.

Expressing concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation, the Conference, in its Declaration, recognized the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent state. It also recognized the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and called upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.

On the question of slavery, the Conference agreed on text that acknowledges and profoundly regrets the massive human sufferings and the tragic plight of millions of men, women and children as a result of slavery, slave trade, transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide. Acknowledging that these were appalling tragedies in the history of humanity, the Conference further acknowledged that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially the transatlantic slave trade. […] the Conference recognizes that those historical injustices have undeniably contributed to poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion, economic disparities, instability and insecurity that affect many people in different parts of the world, particularly in developing countries. The Conference recognized the need to develop programmes for the social and economic development of those societies and the diaspora within the framework of a new partnership based on the spirit of solidarity and mutual respect in the following areas: debt relief, poverty eradication, building or strengthening democratic institutions, promotion of foreign direct investment and market access.

The Conference, recognizing the efforts of African leaders to address the challenges of poverty, calls on developed countries, as well as the United Nations system, to support the New African Initiative and other innovative mechanisms, such as the World Solidarity Fund for the Eradication of
Poverty.

[december]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Well, it’s a very touchy subject of course, but based on what I read at the conference’s official website, they seem to have made some valuable points: **

Yes, Kimstu, your interpretation of “US” is probably correct.

I appreciate your facts about the conference report. Of course, their own report isn’t an unbiased source, but you didn’t claim that it was. You simply offered some information.

I’m willing to debate that conference on another thread, if you want to start it. I’d rather not hijack this one.

[Monty]

To state flat out that the U.S. did not attend the Durban conference is nothing short of a damn lie. It is incredibly dishonest.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. did have a low-level representation there at the start of the conference and attempted to get the tone of the expected resolution watered down to reality. Sadly, the fanatics carried the day and the U.S. representation (low-level, remember) left, as they rightly should’ve.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by december *
If you want to assert that the Durban conference was a positive contribution, please start another thread and I’ll research my POV. Based on the articles we all read in the popular press, this conference was a failure. Even the NY Times took that POV.

I won’t argue that the Durban conference was useful; I’m of the opinion that it was largely a lot of posturing and little real effect. On the other hand, I dispute the claim that the primary point of the conference was as an elaborate trap to snare the US and Israel into attending so everyone else could “bash” them, as you seem to have suggested. E.g., the conference was not an unsuccessful US-bashfest, it was an unsuccessful racism conference.

The WTC attack showed that all this bashing of the US is actually quite harmful. It helps to inspire fanatics…

Aren’t you greatly oversimplifying the situation? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say, if US foreign policy wasn’t as blatantly manipulative as it was in the past, then we wouldn’t piss off the terrorists who’d proceed to bash us and start terrorist campaigns?