This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

That proves it all, the UN is a political circus

AFter Israels assasination of HAmas leader Yassin, the UN has voted forward a Arab backed resolution condemming the atack. The UN previously failed to vote forward a resolution condemming atacks on Israeli children.

If this does not show what a political circus the UN is then I dont know what. The UN has now officially stated that it is not ready to condem atacks on israeli civilian children, but it is ready to condem an assasination of a terrorist leader responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians. The UN has once again proved to be a politically biased organisation based on political corectness and convenience rather than common sense and justice.

Reply 1

Howard

5

Jonatan

AFter Israels assasination of HAmas leader Yassin, the UN has voted forward a Arab backed resolution condemming the atack. The UN previously failed to vote forward a resolution condemming atacks on Israeli children.

If this does not show what a political circus the UN is then I dont know what. The UN has now officially stated that it is not ready to condem atacks on israeli civilian children, but it is ready to condem an assasination of a terrorist leader responsible for the death of hundreds of civilians. The UN has once again proved to be a politically biased organisation based on political corectness and convenience rather than common sense and justice.

I agree. Death to the UN I say.

Reply 2

Jonatan

OP

13

Howard

I agree. Death to the UN I say.

Death is uneccessary. The UN will be reduced to an organisation of irrelevant opinions if they do not change to an objective policy.

Reply 3

llama boy

7

No...this proves that the UN does things that you don't agree with...

Reply 4

Jonatan

OP

13

llama boy

No...this proves that the UN does things that you don't agree with...

So you do not agree with me then , that th fact that the UN uses different rules for Israel than for otehr countries is a major problem for their credibility?

Reply 5

MuniE

Jonatan

So you do not agree with me then , that th fact that the UN uses different rules for Israel than for otehr countries is a major problem for their credibility?

The UN would be better if they re-organized the veto power and the voting structure.

Reply 6

Jonatan

OP

13

MuniE

The UN would be better if they re-organized the veto power and the voting structure.

A major problem of teh Un, the way I see it, is that a majority of the members does not have any freedom of speech or democracy. I never really understood the point of having Libya in the human rights commision and Syria in the security council. Surely if teh UN is to have any crediability the governments entiteled to vote should represent their population. Having a dictator like Saddam Husein voting in human rights and security issues is just rediculous.

Reply 7

llama boy

7

Jonatan

So you do not agree with me then , that th fact that the UN uses different rules for Israel than for otehr countries is a major problem for their credibility?

Credibility with whom? The General Assembly at least attempts to represent the world. I know with dictatorships etc this is flawed, but for powerful countries to dismiss it as lacking credibility when it takes positions that they disapprove of is contemptuous of democracy in the extreme.

As for the individual case, I'm not really sure what you mean. What are these "different rules"? What "other countries" are you referring to? I struggle to think of another country or situation that is analogous to Israel/Palestine at the moment.

If by that you mean that they're treating Israel and Palestine differently, then I don't really see that, either. I'm not getting into another moral comparison of the Israeli/Palestinian tactics. Suffice to say, there is much more to the situation than the particular tactics employed.

If you really were to contend that it is only tactics not cause that matters, then you'd have to accept that for example, that the Nazis bombing military installations in WW2 was morally better than the French Resistance bombing cities.

Reply 8

riffraff

1

llama boy

If you really were to contend that it is only tactics not cause that matters, then you'd have to accept that for example, that the Nazis bombing military installations in WW2 was morally better than the French Resistance bombing cities.

or the carpet bombing of dresden by the british. so many works of art lost to the world in those attacks :frown:

Reply 9

Pearly

The UN = league of nations

they have no power, the US is the country in charge now. But the UN shouldn't be destroyed as they're the only organisation representing the opinions of the international community. They're the only counterbalance against the US's now overwelming power (However little tiny weeny)

As for the murder of the hamas leader and the resolution condeming the attacks and no condeming of the israel dead children... well I don't give a fuck about what the UN fucking said and whether its right or wrong, cos no fuking country cares. The resolutions are just fucking words...they don't mean nothing.

Nobody gives a DAMN these days. Nobody gives a damn about the stupid peace process. They all go "How awful, all these people dead, lets have a UN resolution.", but at the end of the day, they'll just continue killing each other in the Middle east because the only country who can actually stop the killing, stop the fucking violence is America. and they don't even want peace. They want Israel and Palestine to continue fighting each other so that they could sell shitloads of weapons and shitloads of money. The peace process is fucking DOOMED

As for the resolutions...they do fuck all, whether you have them all not.

Reply 10

Howard

5

llama boy

If you really were to contend that it is only tactics not cause that matters, then you'd have to accept that for example, that the Nazis bombing military installations in WW2 was morally better than the French Resistance bombing cities.

That's interesting.

I thought the Nazis gave up on bombing military installations and switched to the civilian population.

And by contrast I thought le marquis and similar organizations throughout occupied Europe concentrated on military targets/personnel etc.

So, although I'll agree that bombing military installations is morally superior to bombing residential areas I think your example is a bit topsy-turvey.

Reply 11

Howard

5

riffraff

or the carpet bombing of dresden by the british. so many works of art lost to the world in those attacks :frown:

Odd thing to say.

I'd understand, (though wouldn't agree) if your objection to the Dresdon bombings was based on loss of life, but bringing the loss of oil paintings etc to the forefront of your objections, I find odd.

Reply 12

Apollo

11

Howard

Odd thing to say.

I'd understand, (though wouldn't agree) if your objection to the Dresdon bombings was based on loss of life, but bringing the loss of oil paintings etc to the forefront of your objections, I find odd.