The UN help is accepted by Bush (1 Viewer)

[epr64]

In the aftermath of the deadly news we got from our american friends, the UN proposed its help. It was accepted by the Bush administration.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Bush administration, long critical of the United Nations, has accepted a U.N. offer of help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a U.N. team has gone to Washington to see how it can complement American efforts.

The United Nations on Sunday announced the United States had accepted its aid offer and said its staff will be based at the USAID Hurricane Operations Center, where international assistance is being coordinated.

Link is here for the full article.

The UN is unvaluable for all on this planet.

CU
Y

 

[brassmonkey621]

Just because Bush has been critical of the UN doesnt mean he will deny free relief from it.

 

[epr64]

Just because Bush has been critical of the UN doesnt mean he will deny free relief from it.

Of course not. But the UN is there to help everyone in cases of extreme disasters, and that's just what they did.
My point here is that, apart of some points (like the veto rights), the UN is quite usefull.
Not that it shouldn't be reformed (every institution created more than 50 years ago should), but it's goal and functions are OK.

That's all I wanted to state.

CU
Y

 

[Navy Pride]

Since the USA provides about 40% of the funding the UN gets it looks like this may cost us a little bit.........

 

[epr64]

Since the USA provides about 40% of the funding the UN gets it looks like this may cost us a little bit.........

Well, about 40% of what the UN is going to provide, if your figures are right.

Isn't it good?

Y

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, about 40% of what the UN is going to provide, if your figures are right.

Isn't it good?

Y

Sorry I have no use for the UN....I am with John Bolton on this one..........

U.S. out of the UN...........UN out of the U.S.

 

[epr64]

Sorry I have no use for the UN....I am with John Bolton on this one..........

U.S. out of the UN...........UN out of the U.S.

Well, we'll be glad to host the UN. We already have quite a few international organisations in Brussels.

But..

WHY don't you say so to your beloved president? That would cost us a LOT less money.. And your president seems to be SO dilligent to help his own people, we wouldn't want to disturb..

You're not very gratefull are you?

Thought so.

Y

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, we'll be glad to host the UN. We already have quite a few international organisations in Brussels.

But..

WHY don't you say so to your beloved president? That would cost us a LOT less money.. And your president seems to be SO dilligent to help his own people, we wouldn't want to disturb..

You're not very gratefull are you?

Thought so.

Y

So let me understand this..........You speak for the Belgium government huh?

 

[epr64]

BTW, we see what's going on the extreme-right wing sites concerning this awfull tragedy.

I didn't want to start Bush a thread, but I'm just disgusted at what some dare to post....

The source? Freerepublic, of course. The leaders of the free and blind world..

To: MNJohnnie


This twaddle is only intended to help the Eurabians sleep better at night.

To: Pokey78

.....crickets......

They're too busy trying to maintain cradle-to-grave welfare. We'll get exactly the help we expect from Europe. Nothing.

To: Pokey78

To the rest of the world:

Take your aid and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Keep your aid efforts and $$$ enriching African despots and tin-pot third-world strongmen while your "target" demographic of your aid $$$ starve and continue to die.

WE DO NOT NEED YOU AT ALL!
God save our Republic!

You wonder why I have a problem with the Bush backers? Here it is..

I KNOW all americans are NOT like this. I KNOW other posts are quite different. Now, YOU know why, when I meet a Bush backer visiting my city, I DON'T invite him for a drink.

He will probably not even see the difference. The others do.

Why do we have to behave like this?

Y

 

[epr64]

So let me understand this..........You speak for the Belgium government huh?

As much as you're speaking for the Bush admin.

But be sure that we would LOVE the UN to be in Brussels. It's just the thousands of american people working for it that wouldn't like it. But that's not you, I suppose?


Y

 

[Navy Pride]

As much as you're speaking for the Bush admin.

But be sure that we would LOVE the UN to be in Brussels. It's just the thousands of american people working for it that wouldn't like it. But that's not you, I suppose?


Y

I am not speaking for the Bush Administation..........I am speaking for myself.....

I can bet you if you took a poll in this country the majority of the respondents would agree with me...........The UN is a corrupt organization all the way from the top the the bottom............If the food for oil scandal does not prove that nothing will........

 

[epr64]

I am not speaking for the Bush Administation..........I am speaking for myself.....

I can bet you if you took a poll in this country the majority of the respondents would agree with me...........The UN is a corrupt organization all the way from the top the the bottom............If the food for oil scandal does not prove that nothing will........

Once again, please do make us a favor.

We would be glad to have the UN here.

You're too politically blinded to see what it did for you, and you will never accept it. The same goes with the french.

Too bad for you. If YOU lived in the flooded zones of New Orleans, maybe you would see it. As long as it doesn't affect you directly, you don't care.

I do.

That's all that counts.

Does "egoist" mean something in your world?

Y

 

[brassmonkey621]

EPR, you are making absurd statements. I think the UN is a great concept and could work much, much better. But, as of right now, the UN is corrupt. Lets change the UN to make it more of what it was intended to be. Nevertheless, I think its great the UN has stepped in to help out with Katrina relief. We need it, and if we can get other nations to donate, everyone should be all for it! I think someone should start a thread about the UN, there would definately be some debate there.

 

[epr64]

EPR, you are making absurd statements.

It definitely happens

I think the UN is a great concept and could work much, much better. But, as of right now, the UN is corrupt. Lets change the UN to make it more of what it was intended to be.

Corrupt? I don't think so. It's more a question of "works as designed". But there are things to be changed, that's for sure. I just hope that EVERY country will have the same weight when it will come to define what's going to be changed.

Nevertheless, I think its great the UN has stepped in to help out with Katrina relief. We need it, and if we can get other nations to donate, everyone should be all for it! I think someone should start a thread about the UN, there would definately be some debate there.

Please feel free to hijack this thread

CU
Y

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Navy Pride:
I am not speaking for the Bush Administation..........I am speaking for myself.....

I can bet you if you took a poll in this country the majority of the respondents would agree with me...........The UN is a corrupt organization all the way from the top the the bottom............If the food for oil scandal does not prove that nothing will........

We were partly responsible for the oil for food scandel by looking the other way with our veto vote in the Security Councel sessions for four years when they were discussing this.

 

[taxpayer]

In the aftermath of the deadly news we got from our american friends, the UN proposed its help. It was accepted by the Bush administration.



Link is here for the full article.

The UN is unvaluable for all on this planet.

CU
Y

So far many countrys and people have made Bush eat his words!

 

[brassmonkey621]

You may think it works as designed, but I think it doesnt and thats why it needs more changes. If it worked as designed, we wouldnt be having a thread about it.

 

[epr64]

You may think it works as designed, but I think it doesnt and thats why it needs more changes. If it worked as designed, we wouldnt be having a thread about it.

I understand your point.

What I meant by "works as designed" is that it was designed with flaws. The UNSC with only 5 permanent members with veto rights is one example that the institution was more designed to enfore the will of those who won WWII rather than to have a real diplomatic solution for the world to avoid further conflicts.
IMO, that would be the goal to set to the "new" UN. But I doubt very much that will happen. It's NOT the goal of those that hold power in the UNSC, and is supported only by those that could use it NOT to be attacked by the powerfull. We saw that during the Cold War, where the US and USSR used the veto right nearly all the time, during the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, where the US vetoed everything between 67 and now, and in fact during ALL conflicts.

The UN should be able to immediately tackle problems, have the possibility to put blue helmets between the parts of any conflict (Darfur, Somalia, India-Pakistan, Russia-Chechnya, but also Iraq, etc..), be able to immediately and fully help refugees if the conflict they flee cannot be stopped by conventional blue helmet actions ( like in Columbia, where blue helmets couldn't reasonably be used to fight FARC and others), etc.. All this based on a majority vote of the general council of the UN, not the UNSC. That of course also means to pressure regimes involved with supporting terrorism, with crimes against humanity, etc..), and ultimately, to have them removed if needed.

But it wasn't designed that way.

Hope it clarifies my opinion.

CU
Y