The Reality of the United Nations

[You Can Call Me Ray]

It was finally time for a thread on this train wreck that only grows larger and more bloated.

U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

Wow, that UN certainly has become a model for the rest of the world...of what NOT TO DO!

Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states

Yes, the UN hates messy procedures like voting. They would much rather rule by decree. It gives them the power to make excellent choices just like this one!

Ray

[Zep Tepi]

That is f---- unbelievable. Are they mad?! Wait, stupid question.

[ryguy]

The United Nations represents everything that's wrong with the world today. Political-correctness and "inclusiveness" to the nth degree of stupidity. What a corrupt and idiotic organization.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

The United Nations represents everything that's wrong with the world today. Political-correctness and "inclusiveness" to the nth degree of stupidity. What a corrupt and idiotic organization.

Not to mention uber-corruption with no accountability. In fact, IMO, the very fact that there is no way to hold UN bureaucrats accountable is precisely why there is so much corruption!

My suggestion for this thread is people chime in and describe those aspects of the UN that allow it to be such a failed and dysfunctional organization. I will start with my "favorite" bad idea:

Singe country veto of resolutions of the Security Council.

As I understand it, this was meant to "act" similar to our US presidential veto power. However, one big problem with this idea is that the Security Council is not a single, accountable person like the President who can be thrown out of office by the electorate. It is much more like the House or the Senate because it is a body of individuals, each with different perspectives on an issue. Therefore, any sort of veto power should be similar to Congressional power to override a Presidential veto: A majority of members should be able to override a minority's wish to kill a resolution.

The USA has used its veto power to put a stop to a lot of things, most ostensibly resolutions against Israel. While some of those attempted resolutions I did not agree with, it is my belief that they should have lived or died by a majority, and if Israel got sanctioned, so be it. Because, what we see now is Russia and China using their threat of veto power against any meaningful punishment of Iran. They are giving us a dose of our own medicine, and who can say we don't deserve it? Of course when you look at the history of vetoes, the former Soviet Union has the highest tally, with almost half of all vetoes cast.

The single-state veto has done more to allow the UN Security Council to DO NOTHING when SOMETHING really needed to be done, and that is exactly what is going on with Iran right now. It never should have been setup this way, and I think it has to change if we ever hope the UN to be an actual representative body for world affairs.

Ray

[gunter]

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women

Maybe the UN is simply trying to prevent earthquakes.

[Chorlton]

Not to mention uber-corruption with no accountability. In fact, IMO, the very fact that there is no way to hold UN bureaucrats accountable is precisely why there is so much corruption!

Wow, that UN certainly has become a model for the rest of the world...of what NOT TO DO!
Ray

OK Devils advocate here.

Firstly, whilst you or I might not agree with Irans Womens rights, they have the right to make those laws. They are a sovereign state and can make all the laws they want. Its also worthy to point out that many other countries have similar laws. Some of China's Laws are so archaic its hilarious, but do I see posts about the UN's treatment of them?.
I conside the death penalty used in some US states and China to be the lowest form of barbarity, far worse than Iran's laws, but those states/countries have the right to do it. Now as for archaic Womens rights laws, as many countries actually have those laws, then its only right that one of the countries that has them is actually part of the Commision on Womens rights. In that way the UN might atcually start a dialogue about changing Iran's and other countries laws without invading or attacking them?. If they are outside the Commision it will be impossible to get them into the discussion. Inside the Commision they may have to see some truths. I actually think the UN's decision could have been a good one. Think Laterally Ray

NOW ! on 'holding people to account' and being a 'model for the rest of the world' ?????
I think theres a little selectivity in your posting.
One should lead by example, Yes ? Is it a good example to the world that the US decides to wade into many countries, yet their leaders, generals and soldiers refuse to accept any jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and completely ignores it?
Is it a good example and right that US airmen can kill friendly troops and unarmed civilians yet refuse to be interviewed in UK courts or the ICJ about their actions whilst at the same time demanding extradiction of 3 businessmen on alleged fraud charges?.

Lead by example ? Hmmmmmmmmm.

[gunter]

Now as for archaic Womens rights laws, as many countries actually have those laws, then its only right that one of the countries that has them is actually part of the Commission on Womens rights. In that way the UN might actually start a dialogue about changing Iran's and other countries laws without invading or attacking them?.

Holy jesus- that's way to reasonable. You would make a really crappy American, Chorlton. Americans are supposed to hate the UN and train killers to teach the bad guys lessons in Democracy. What the hell is wrong with you? You Brits obviously have a ways to go before you can claim any modicum of enlightenment. But let me help you out. Repeat after Princess Sarah and Professor Youcancallmeray: "Drill, baby, drill!/ Kill, baby, kill!" And try not to say it in that effete accent of yours. OK?

[Rintendo]

OK Devils advocate here.

Firstly, whilst you or I might not agree with Irans Womens rights, they have the right to make those laws.

Iran has the death penalty and uses it upon homosexuals and female adulterers.

[Chorlton]

OK Devils advocate here.

Firstly, whilst you or I might not agree with Irans Womens rights, they have the right to make those laws.

Iran has the death penalty and uses it upon homosexuals and female adulterers.

And ?
Where are your comments about N Korea or China or probably half the countries in Africa as well as most Arab states?, who murder or stone or torture gays and adulterous females?

Any country that has the death Penalty for anything is below contempt.
You dont justify anything by state sponsored murder. Murder is Murder wether state sponsored or by an Individual.
It cannot be justified.

[Access Denied]

It cannot be justified.

Even for murder? Tell that to the victim's survivors...



[@ 3:19]

[gunter]

Even for murder? Tell that to the victim's survivors...

This profound consideration of ethics ought not be answered by some insipid youtube. The 'eye for an eye' chain is not a solution, but rather the problem- as Chorlton rightly asserts. The human race needs to advance beyond this narrow paradigm if it is ever to truly evolve into an ethical and compassionate race. It's not easy to escape the circle of redemption-by-'revenge'- even as Jesus himself pointed out.

[Rintendo]

And ?
Where are your comments about N Korea or China or probably half the countries in Africa as well as most Arab states?, who murder or stone or torture gays and adulterous females?

Any country that has the death Penalty for anything is below contempt.
You dont justify anything by state sponsored murder. Murder is Murder wether state sponsored or by an Individual.
It cannot be justified.

You didn't ask my opinion on China or N. Korea or I would have said that they ought not be on any ethics panel or committee, either. I'm saying that Iran has no right to make those laws. We are born free. Those women are born without any infringements and no government has a right to tell them what to wear or what they can't wear. The ability to even do so is an illusion that I wish we would all cast off.

[gunter]

Those women are born without any infringements and no government has a right to tell them what to wear or what they can't wear.

Belgium just passed a law banning burqas as will France shortly. Does that disqualify those two countries from serving on the ethics commission?

[Access Denied]

This profound consideration of ethics ought not be answered by some insipid youtube.

Chorlton’s a musician, so am I… if I have to explain you probably wouldn’t understand.

The 'eye for an eye' chain is not a solution, but rather the problem- as Chorlton rightly asserts. The human race needs to advance beyond this narrow paradigm if it is ever to truly evolve into an ethical and compassionate race. It's not easy to escape the circle of redemption-by-'revenge'- even as Jesus himself pointed out.

And that will solve the “problem” of our predatory nature how? I think you’ll be more successful in your desire to “evolve” the human race by proposing something more “ethical” like genetic modification…

[Chorlton]

I understand your video.

But I still must argue the point.
One murder does not justify or legitimise another, whether state sanctioned or not.
You cannot tell someone that Murder is wrong, then set about murdering him. Its a total contradiction
I realise that alternatives are difficult, But execution is nothing but revenge, and surely mankind has come a bit further than that?

I suspect in the distant future we will find an acceptable alternative and I realise that its an emotive subject.