Saudi Arabia elected to UN's Women's rights agency

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=8867219

Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran

New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.

"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.

UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.

UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.

**filbert**

I have to admit it's a bit of a head scratcher this one. Kind of like asking China for tips on preserving human rights...

**whatwhat**

Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

**Ahtman**

whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

**BearersOfSalvation**

That pretty much sums up the UN for me; they put countries like China and Libya in charge of human rights, and countries like Saudi Arabia in charge of women's issues. I really don't see how anyone can take an organization like that seriously.

**whatwhat**

Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

**Frazzled**

The resolutions of dictators mean less than nothing.

**whatwhat**

I'm not making a comment on who is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out where most of the clashes between the UN and Us come from.

**Ma55ter_fett**

I suppose the US could go back to not paying their member dues...

**Grakmar**

whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...

**Monster Rain**

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I suppose the US could go back to not paying their member dues...

And for practically everything else.

**whatwhat**

Grakmar wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...

Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?

However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

**Catyrpelius**

Damn straight, how effective would the UN become if the US pulled the majority of its military support?

**whatwhat**

Catyrpelius wrote:Damn straight, how effective would the UN become if the US pulled the majority of its military support?

More importantly how effective would the US become by cutting off it's involvement in the most effective dialogue forum in the world?

**avantgarde**

I like how Westerners throw around terms like human rights and womens' rights like they're some kind of universal laws.

It's amazingly arrogant to masquerade what are basically western morals as "human" rights.

Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?

**Frazzled**

avantgarde wrote:I like how Westerners throw around terms like human rights and womens' rights like they're some kind of universal laws.

It's amazingly arrogant to masquerade what are basically western morals as "human" rights.

Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?

Thats fine, but then Western Democracies shouldn't be a part of it.

**Monster Rain**

avantgarde wrote:I like how Westerners throw around terms like human rights and womens' rights like they're some kind of universal laws.

It's amazingly arrogant to masquerade what are basically western morals as "human" rights.

Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?

I feel that it is demanded of civilized countries to call out barbarians on their horrendous practices.

Rationalize that, hippies.

**Frazzled**

whatwhat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...

Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?

However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.

**MeanGreenStompa**

avantgarde wrote:Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?

We are the people who have a judao-christian morality which is offended by the actions of these countries, that's why we speak out, because it is offensive and we believe, morally wrong to inflict these actions upon other human beings.

To a lesser extent there are certain guidelines that are universal, playing tennis with newborn infants and cattleprods would be considered barbaric across the world.

And perhaps most importantly, in the case of less developed countries, we are the fethers with the big guns and cash. That's the only reason China is allowed to get away with acting like the world's stinkiest scrotum and certain arabic nations are also spoilt in their vile actions, they got more cash or guns.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=8867219

Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran

New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.

"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.

UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.

UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.

This story seems to only really be telling half the truth of the situation, especially considering it's from a human rights group that campaigned to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from entering this exact position and doesn't say anything beyond "they did it!". One would wonder why they were elected to this office, the story itself certainly seems to be little more then an exclamatory hitpiece. It could be an attempt at being inclusive to as to attempt to influence Saudi Arabias treatment of women for the better. Who knows, this article is too gakky to say.

But hey, it's not like We just sold them sixty billion dollars worth of weapons and have implicitly supported their bloody regime for 30 years. Clearly the U.N. is something we would be doing so much better without. I mean, really, it's not like we've ever done anything alone in that area that could be considered in poor taste.

Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.

Which resolutions exactly?

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=8867219

Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran

New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.

"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.

UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.

UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.

This story seems to only really be telling half the truth of the situation, especially considering it's from a human rights group that campaigned to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from entering this exact position and doesn't say anything beyond "they did it!". One would wonder why they were elected to this office, the story itself certainly seems to be little more then an exclamatory hitpiece. It could be an attempt at being inclusive to as to attempt to influence Saudi Arabias treatment of women for the better. Who knows, this article is too gakky to say.

But hey, it's not like We just sold them sixty billion dollars worth of weapons and have implicitly supported their bloody regime for 30 years. Clearly the U.N. is something we would be doing so much better without.

So you support Saudi Arabia on the agency? A simple yes or no will suffice.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=8867219

Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran

New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.

"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.

UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.

UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.

This story seems to only really be telling half the truth of the situation, especially considering it's from a human rights group that campaigned to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from entering this exact position and doesn't say anything beyond "they did it!". One would wonder why they were elected to this office, the story itself certainly seems to be little more then an exclamatory hitpiece. It could be an attempt at being inclusive to as to attempt to influence Saudi Arabias treatment of women for the better. Who knows, this article is too gakky to say.

But hey, it's not like We just sold them sixty billion dollars worth of weapons and have implicitly supported their bloody regime for 30 years. Clearly the U.N. is something we would be doing so much better without.

So you support Saudi Arabia on the agency? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Much like you, I don't know enough about the situation to actually have an informed and useful opinion. Unlike you I know enough not to scream about it like a child. You don't know the reasons behind their election, you don't care. You just hate the UN and you'll take anything at face value that makes them even the littlest bit less legitimate.

**whatwhat**

Frazzled wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...

Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?

However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.

Kosovo: As part of the Nato force the US attacked a fellow UN member without evidence of immediate thread.
Afghanistan: Kind of a big one really: "no member nation can use military force except in self-defense" The Un did not sanction the war, they felt it didn't meet those terms.

**Frazzled**

whatwhat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...

Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?

However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.

Kosovo: As part of the Nato force the US attacked a fellow UN member without evidence of immediate thread.
Afghanistan: Kind of a big one really: "no member nation can use military force except in self-defense" The Un did not sanction the war, they felt it didn't meet those terms.

So in other words you just blew smoke out your ass because there are NO resolutions from the UN. gotcha.

Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!

**whatwhat**

When did I say the word resolution?

Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!

What has that got to do with anything I have said?

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Grakmar wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.

And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.

Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...

Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?

However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.

Kosovo: As part of the Nato force the US attacked a fellow UN member without evidence of immediate thread.
Afghanistan: Kind of a big one really: "no member nation can use military force except in self-defense" The Un did not sanction the war, they felt it didn't meet those terms.

So in other words you just blew smoke out your ass because there are NO resolutions from the UN. gotcha.
Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!

I'm pretty sure he typed regulation, not resolution. I know, they both start with R's. We all make mistakes like this, it's ok. Also wasn't the falklands war defensive on the part of the UK since the islands were their territory?

**LordofHats**

whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...

The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.

EDIT: That's why people make fun of the UN. Because it's a joke. At it's best, it's the largest humanitarian aid organization in history, but somehow it even manages to fail in that regard pretty often.

Back on topic: Yeah. Saudai Arabia on the women's rights agency thing. That's not ironic at all.

**ShumaGorath**

LordofHats wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...

The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.

The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.

Seriously, it's weird how people keep doing that.

**whatwhat**

LordofHats wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...

The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.

Did I say they did have a monoploy.

Is it possible to make an observation about America without one of you thinking It's a you vs them thing?

**Monster Rain**

ShumaGorath wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!

What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...

The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.

The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.

They aren't. They're saying that many of the countries that make up the UN are gak holes that we shouldn't bother consulting about anything other than witch-doctory and how to mistreat women.

That's my understanding of their position anyway.