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.

It's pretty much a travesty to have any state that is, Shiiite based or under sharia law, as anything "defending" human rights. But alas that is one of the problems with the UN.

GG

p.s. Lord of hats proved he has a bigger penis and can pee farther than what what...just saying.

This thread is full of lulz

I'm sorry, but this is just fething hilarious.

generalgrog wrote:It's pretty much a travesty to have any state that is, Shiiite based or under sharia law, as anything "defending" human rights. But alas that is one of the problems with the UN.

GG

I don't see how being a Shiite is a UN problem.

p.s. Lord of hats proved he has a bigger penis and can pee farther than what what...just saying.

Roight. *insert complimentary wall of text that thoroughly deconstructs and disproves GG's above statement*

awe bless, they're trying...

Women not being able to drive is fair enough. I mean the young males of Saudi show a maturity beyond their female counterparts when it comes to motor vehicles...

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh? Did it say why it was put on the panel? Did it say what the panel did? I mean, honestly, unless this panel is led by a fething wizard who can wave his hand and make womens rights happen then I think you don't have ANY of the relevant information here. All you know is that A: it's a panel that has something to do with womens rights, and B: it has saudi arabia as an elected member of the panel (member not leader, but then I can't expect people to actually read the article, can I?).

I know more than that, but just what you posted is enough to condemn it. SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel. You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh? Did it say why it was put on the panel? Did it say what the panel did? I mean, honestly, unless this panel is led by a fething wizard who can wave his hand and make womens rights happen then I think you don't have ANY of the relevant information here. All you know is that A: it's a panel that has something to do with womens rights, and B: it has saudi arabia as an elected member of the panel (member not leader, but then I can't expect people to actually read the article, can I?).

I know more than that, but just what you posted is enough to condemn it. SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel. You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.

Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel.

And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?

You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.

Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.

Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.

How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel.

And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?

You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.

Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.

Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.

How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.

How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel.

And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?

You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.

Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.

Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.

How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.

How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?

Yeah, I'm also in good shape and I don't run into as many internet tough guys in person so it's less of an issue. I have no more issue telling people when they're flat out wrong in reality then I do here. I enjoy it.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

No, it's really not. You think a panel composed of half of the planets population is some sort of flawless magic judicating body that makes up rules on womens rights just so that it can ignore them since it has a flawless record? The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.

Can you seriously not comprehend that concept?

Stormrider wrote:
How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?

Try using the ignore button it's worked wonders for me. Sure some threads have him responding every other post, so you have to see "post ignored" a lot but it's better than the alternative.

GG

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

No, it's really not. The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.

Can you seriously not comprehend that concept?

Yes it really is.

Can you seriously not comprehend the concept that the Saudis aren't going to change their Religion-based human rights policies, and will most likely work within that panel to make its policies more accepting of their savagery?

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I know more than that,

I highly doubt that.

but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

No, it's really not. The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.

Can you seriously not comprehend that concept?

Yes it really is.

Can you seriously not comprehend the concept that the Saudis aren't going to change their policies, and will most likely work within that panel to make its policies more accepting of their savagery?

How the feth are they going to do that on a panel with no power to do anything but call for voluntary promises by member states? What, are they going to work hard to ensure that no one else makes any promises because saudi arabia doesn't want to be near other countries in a room making non binding promise that it doesn't even have to make?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?

Try using the ignore button it's worked wonders for me. Sure some threads have him responding every other post, so you have to see "post ignored" a lot but it's better than the alternative.

GG

Yeah, not being denser then a star is tough.

Here’s the thing, the UN was originally built as an organisation to facilitate discussion between nation states, to reduce the risk of another world war. This was a pretty sensible approach given the context at the time.

The world since then has changed a lot, increasing inter-connectedness has required the UN to take on all kinds of administrative and regulatory positions, and we’ve come to value the rights of the individual regardless of their nation of origin.

This has left the UN somewhat at mixed purposes. The original goal is inclusive, as it seeks to include all countries in international dialogue. But this latter goal is exclusive to a large extent, if you , then some nations will not meet those standards and must be excluded from the dialogue.

These crossed purposes are what produces silly results like Saudi Arabia being placed on the council for women’s rights. By the initial scope of the UN no such body should exist, by the latter it should only feature those nations with excellent records on women’s rights. But the UN is somewhere in between, so it gets a result somewhere in between.

Meanwhile, it’s very funny that the US would wig out at Iran being included, but be alright with Saudi Arabian inclusion. It seems you can be a horrible to women as you want, as long as you keep saying you’re their ally.

We should just chasticize them for what they're doing, instead of making them a part of an organization that deals with those problems. Eventually they'd sort it out while we'd do the better part of ignoring it.

How am I dense, oh benveolent master of everything? Please educate me on how awesome the UN is and why it's such a shining example of humanity?

Stormrider wrote:How am I dense, oh benveolent master of everything? Please educate me on how awesome the UN is and why it's such a shining example of humanity?

I'm not posting on a toy forum to give you an education you don't even want. You go out, take some classes, read some news, maybe do some research, then come back here. We'll see if you've managed to learn anything. Sound good?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Destrado wrote:We should just chasticize them for what they're doing, instead of making them a part of an organization that deals with those problems. Eventually they'd sort it out while we'd do the better part of ignoring it.

Yeah, that's really worked out well so far hasn't it? They sure do seem to be changing quick so that all dem westerners don't make angry faces at them. I mean, really, all the west does is give them billions upon billions every year for oil. They'll cave soon, all they really want is our approval.

ShumaGorath wrote:How the feth are they going to do that on a panel with no power to do anything but call for voluntary promises by member states? What, are they going to work hard to ensure that no one else makes any promises because saudi arabia doesn't want to be near other countries in a room making non binding promise that it doesn't even have to make?

It gives their practices an air of legitimacy, which the International Community should not be doing. This is also not the only reason that I think the UN is a joke, so let's not make it seem like this one act is what made me change my mind about them.

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, it’s very funny that the US would wig out at Iran being included, but be alright with Saudi Arabian inclusion. It seems you can be a horrible to women as you want, as long as you keep saying you’re their ally.

I have huge problems with the Saudi Inclusion. Isn't that what this thread is about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm not posting on a toy forum to give you an education you don't even want. You go out, take some classes, read some news, maybe do some research, then come back here. We'll see if you've managed to learn anything. Sound good?

Oh boy.

I suppose there's no one who's educated that has a different opinion than you then?

It gives their practices an air of legitimacy, which the International Community should not be doing.

You mean rather then the legitimacy they gain when we sell them 60 billion worth of weapons? Trillions for oil? Tacitly aprove of every act of their government for half a century while ignoring the fact that they are a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship?

Yeah, being on the panel. Thats whats giving them legitimacy. Yep. Thats the thing. Thats the whoooooole thing. Clearly if they weren't on that panel they'd collapse and the women would be driving the next day.

This is also not the only reason that I think the UN is a joke, so let's not make it seem like this one act is what made me change my mind about them.

Yeah, I bet all your reasons are just as rock solid.

Oh boy.

I suppose there's no one who's educated that has a different opinion than you then?

There aren't many on this forum. I know a good number, they give me a better run for my money then I get here.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that's really worked out well so far hasn't it? They sure do seem to be changing quick so that all dem westerners don't make angry faces at them. I mean, really, all the west does is give them billions upon billions every year for oil. They'll cave soon, all they really want is our approval.

I was being sarcastic, honest. Their religion never was any good towards women, and the kind of reforms it takes for centuries of that won't magically disappear, but it has to start somewhere. Keep on being intolerant doesn't make us better than them, but most people don't even try to think like them before voicing their opinions.

I think it's atrocious what's happening regarding women's rights, and everyone here thinks so too, but they don't stop buying Nikes made in China (or miniatures for that matter). So people will only complain when it's not something that directly "hurts" them. If it is, they'll either be hypocrites about it, or ignore it completely, twiddle their thumbs, and pretend it's not there. At least something was done, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It gives their practices an air of legitimacy, which the International Community should not be doing.

You mean rather then the legitimacy they gain when we sell them 60 billion worth of weapons? Trillions oil? Tacitly aprove of every act of their government for half a century while ignoring the fact that they are a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship?

Yeah, being on the panel. Thats whats giving them legitimacy. Yep. Thats the thing. Thats the whoooooole thing. Clearly if they weren't on that panel they'd collapse and the women would be driving the next day.

Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent. You have no inkling of what my position on that particular subject is; this couldn't be any more apparent.

ShumaGorath wrote:

This is also not the only reason that I think the UN is a joke, so let's not make it seem like this one act is what made me change my mind about them.

Yeah, I bet all you're reasons are just as rock solid.

Just like my tasty abs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Oh boy.

I suppose there's no one who's educated that has a different opinion than you then?

There aren't many on this forum. I know a good number, they give me a better run for my money then I get here.

How do you get them to be around you for that long irl? You must have a pool.

Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent.

Legitimacy is a social construct within peer groups, being on the panel gives no legitimacy to Saudi Arabia because it has none to give and Saudi Arabia asks for none. You don't like it how that panel somehow gives their acts legitimacy, but thats a non issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or the nations involved, it's just a feel good issue for you personally since in the end thats all that "legitimacy" in this context can mean.

Just like my tasty abs.

*drool*

How do you get them to be around you for that long irl? You must have a pool.

Soothing voice and I'm cute.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent.

Legitimacy is a social construct within peer groups, being on the panel gives no legitimacy to Saudi Arabia because it has none to give and Saudi Arabia asks for none. You don't like it how that panel somehow gives their acts legitimacy, but thats a non issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or the nations involved, it's just a feel good issue for you personally since in the end thats all that "legitimacy" in this context can mean.

Ah. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the point in the thread where we begin arguing semantics.

Also, my problem with Saudi Arabia's record on womens rights has nothing to do with womens rights according to Mr. Gorath. What he lacks in knowledge and social grace he makes up for in sheer gall.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:How am I dense, oh benveolent master of everything? Please educate me on how awesome the UN is and why it's such a shining example of humanity?

I'm not posting on a toy forum to give you an education you don't even want. You go out, take some classes, read some news, maybe do some research, then come back here. We'll see if you've managed to learn anything. Sound good?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Destrado wrote:We should just chasticize them for what they're doing, instead of making them a part of an organization that deals with those problems. Eventually they'd sort it out while we'd do the better part of ignoring it.

Yeah, that's really worked out well so far hasn't it? They sure do seem to be changing quick so that all dem westerners don't make angry faces at them.

I do read news, I know a hell of a lot more than you give me credit for. Maybe it conlficts with your narrow view of the world, doesn't mean I am wrong. It means we disagree. I don't need lectures from supposed geniuses that are so utterly dependent on collectivism and the tenents thereof. International Policing agencies and "peacekeeping" operations are a Band-Aid over cancer.

The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems. Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.

The countries that had just finished WWII were members of the League of Nations, an experiment in international government that was an abject failure in preventing dictatorships from forming, or having any teeth to deal with breaches of treaties or agreements (1932–34 World Disarmament Conference, which did not stop Germany from arming themselves for WWII), they condemned Italy's invasion of Abyssinia but did nothing tangible to stop it, the Mukden Incident in 1932 was met with much condemnation and scorn of Imperial Japan, but not military interdiction, and would have been completely legal to invade Japan for their unwarranted invasion of Manchuria and China, but they sat on their hands and decided against it after Japan left the LON in 1933. They didn't want to break an abitrary law that prevented them from using force unless it was in self defense. It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity" There is goodness, but not nearly enough to outweigh all of the vile gak that has happened throughout history.

Since the League of Nations was a dismal failure at preventing wars, why would the UN be any better? It follows much of the same international rules and procedures, but has more members now.

Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil. It's noble to let your enemies voice their opinions, but they don't percieve it as noble. Ahmedinejhad thinks of us as a bunch of cowards who are so bound up in political correctness and "rules" that prevent us from really being able to change anything.

The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.

Don't lecture me anymore, you're a child who's been lied to so long and you believe it. The UN is a modern Potemkin village.

Stormrider wrote:Don't lecture me anymore, you're a child who's been lied to so long and you believe it.

Oh snap.

I do read news, I know a hell of a lot more than you give me credit for. Maybe it conlficts with your narrow view of the world, doesn't mean I am wrong. It means we disagree. I don't need lectures from supposed geniuses that are so utterly dependent on collectivism and the tenents thereof. International Policing agencies and "peacekeeping" operations are a Band-Aid over cancer.

The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems. Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.

Yep, it also helps that a majority of the worlds wealth and military power is within the security council, and with Indias test sponsorship on it almost half the worlds population too. You'd be hard pressed to set up an international body with preconditions that can force major economic or military powers to take disadvantaged positions. The security council exists because there are a few nations with the means to hold power over the rest, it's a formalized version of economic and military clout. I mean, I know you dislike how russia and china can say "No", but then they aren't our slaves, so they're going to do that anyway.

The countries that had just finished WWII were members of the League of Nations, an experiment in international government that was an abject failure in preventing dictatorships from forming, or having any teeth to deal with breaches of treaties or agreements (1932–34 World Disarmament Conference, which did not stop Germany from arming themselves for WWII), they condemned Italy's invasion of Abyssinia but did nothing tangible to stop it, the Mukden Incident in 1932 was met with much condemnation and scorn of Imperial Japan, but not military interdiction, and would have been completely legal to invade Japan for their unwarranted invasion of Manchuria and China, but they sat on their hands and decided against it after Japan left the LON in 1933. They didn't want to break an abitrary law that prevented them from using force unless it was in self defense. It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity" There is goodness, but not nearly enough to outweigh all of the vile gak that has happened throughout history.

It's as if it wasn't a proactive military peacekeeping army in the first place!

Since the League of Nations was a dismal failure at preventing wars, why would the UN be any better? It follows much of the same international rules and procedures, but has more members now.

It's ability to impose meaningful economic sanctions gives it some teeth in regards to dealing with minor dictatorial powers, though again, it's job isn't to forcibly prevent war. That has never been it's job. It never will be.

Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil. It's noble to let your enemies voice their opinions, but they don't percieve it as noble. Ahmedinejhad thinks of us as a bunch of cowards who are so bound up in political correctness and "rules" that prevent us from really being able to change anything.

He's also the democratic leader of a country that we hate because he's the result of a coup against the previous dictatorial government that we supported. Not that any of this has to do with the U.N. anyway. Besides, we spend just as much time there railing against Iran, and they are under numerous sanctions that wouldn't exist were it not for the U.N.

Yeah, it makes total sense to hate an organization because a guy can complain about us ten minutes after we ban half of all international trade to his country. I mean, really, it's so against our interests to suffer his thorny words for the small ability to massively effect international political trade and discourse without ever putting a soldier on the ground. Honestly, what were we thinking? Why would we want disproportionate control over world economics when we have to hear our enemies say bad things about us.

The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.

Because that corruption wouldn't just be open and legal black market trade without the U.N.? Yeah, oil for food is so much worse then the billions funneled to dictators around the world by the U.S., China, and Russia just to keep security tabs in all regions. Are you saying that corruption would cease without the U.N.? That issues of repressive governments would disappear if the people no longer had a skyscraper they could whine in?

Don't lecture me anymore, you're a child who's been lied to so long and you believe it. The UN is a modern Potemkin village.

I'm gonna lecture you until the sun burns down or you stop needing it. I'm not holding out much hope that I won't see the sky go black though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent.

Legitimacy is a social construct within peer groups, being on the panel gives no legitimacy to Saudi Arabia because it has none to give and Saudi Arabia asks for none. You don't like it how that panel somehow gives their acts legitimacy, but thats a non issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or the nations involved, it's just a feel good issue for you personally since in the end thats all that "legitimacy" in this context can mean.

Ah. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the point in the thread where we begin arguing semantics.

Also, my problem with Saudi Arabia's record on womens rights has nothing to do with womens rights according to Mr. Gorath. What he lacks in knowledge and social grace he makes up for in sheer gall.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimacy?&qsrc=

Here, look up what legitimacy is, when you come back I'll expect my apology in a formal letter. I like the Didot font, though if you hand write it I'll be especially pleased.

sebster wrote:These crossed purposes are what produces silly results like Saudi Arabia being placed on the council for women’s rights. By the initial scope of the UN no such body should exist, by the latter it should only feature those nations with excellent records on women’s rights.

You see, I agree with Shuma on this. By including Saudi Arabia on the panel it could be a move to try and encourage a country with a poor women's rights track record to take steps to improve (or at least promise to). GHowever, given that Saudi Arabia was accepted and Iran was denied shows that this a more likely to be political showboating. As you said, the track record may not matter, but whether you're buddies with the US probably does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:
The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems. Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.

Wait. The People's Republic of China were actually refused recognition for years, and certainly weren't given their veto power for being on the winning side of WWII.

According to the news report, two Islamic Middle Eastern nations were proposed for the panel, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The USA opposed Iranian membership of the Agency, and did not oppose Saudi Arabian membership.


Iran has quite a good women's rights record compared to Saudi Arabia, though far from good by our standards.

Iran is on the USA's gak list while Saudi Arabia is a close ally.

Draw your own conclusions.

Stormrider wrote:The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems.

It’s important to remember the General Assembly is just one part of the UN.

Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.

Umm, no. Just no. The purpose of the UN has never been, and will never be, a club of approved democracies. It works on the idea that you need include every nation in international debate to avoid war.

Second up, China was included because at the time of inclusion it was controlled by the US aligned KMT, and it was felt a powerful China could work as another bloc against the Soviets. Unfortunately, the KMT were grossly corrupt and lost control of China to the communists, which embarrassed the hell out of the US (who’d been backing the KMT), who then continued to argue the KMT was the rightful government of China, despite having fled to Taiwan and having no presence on the mainland.. As a result, for a decade or two Taiwan had veto power in the UN. When they actually used it, this embarrassed the hell out of everyone and forced the US to admit that the communists were really in control of China.

It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity"

Umm, no. There’s a long held idea that it’s best for a nation to look after it’s own affairs. It’s very weird that you wouldn’t understand this, given the US was the champion of this idea through most of the 20th C.

The idea that one should invade sovereign powers to prevent human rights abuses is a very recent phenomenon, born out of the growing dominance of power of the

Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil.

Sworn enemies? Your understanding of international affairs sounds like a fifth rate fantasy novel.

And 22% is an interesting number, as each nation’s dues are based on it’s proportion of world GPD, capped at 22% maximum. The US comes in at around 25% of GDP, and is the only country to exceed the cap. That’s right, the US is the only country to receive a reduced rate on it’s dues to the UN.

You wouldn’t know it from hearing Americans complain, though.

The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.

This is an almost ridiculous level of generalisation. Do you even know the major branches of the UN?