U.N. to Say It Overstated H.I.V. Cases by Millions

[jallman]

I find it sad that you appear to believe humans cannot possibly take responsibility for their own actions.

I feel sorry for you and your fellow pure instinct driven ilk.

Based on your point of view hang yourself now because there is no hope for the future since people are just herd animals responding only to the most basic instincts.




Oh....and criticizing the UN for failures is anything but baseless.




Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping".

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan.

UN fails to rally Sierra Leone force

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?

Zimbabwe-famine-UN failure

UN fails to agree on date to tackle North Korea

Iran: U.N. Fails to Condemn Rights Abuses

UN takeover leads to more anarchy and violence.

UN 'fails' to save 2000 year old Afghan statues

UN fails to protect the displaced.

UN fails to resolve Kashmir dispute

There is a common theme here you seem unable to grasp.

The UN cannot be faulted for trying but they sure can be faulted for having inept policies leading to continual process failures.

My god..can I please pray at the altar of truth alongside you?

 

[akyron]

My god..can I please pray at the altar of truth alongside you?

As long as you are not in school.

 

[Hatuey]

The U.N. getting wrong numbers from countries who provide them means Bush's initiatives are working? How? . Abstinence doesn't work. Protection does.

 

[PeteEU]

I find it sad that you appear to believe humans cannot possibly take responsibility for their own actions.

Has zero to do with taking responsiblity for their own actions, but everything to do with survival. When a population has 50% or more infected with a disease, the survival instinct sets in no matter what. We have seen this in various plauges through out history, and in each case almost, saddly religious wackos have made things worse. Look at the black death. Here people not knowing what it was, or how to prevent it, started automatically to isolate people, to expell the sick from towns and so on... hell even the Church was so freaking scared that it pushed through some of the more extreme methods to avoid the black death.

Based on your point of view hang yourself now because there is no hope for the future since people are just herd animals responding only to the most basic instincts.

Again, with 50%+ infection rate, then hell yea the most basic instincts set in. Even before 50%..look at HIV at the start, the fear and stupidity based on ignorance in the west. We put blame solely on the homosexuals and many believed as long as you were with women you could not get it. So homosexuals were avoided to the extreme and paranoia set in even among medical staff. Faith and religion has for the most part squawt to do with people changing thier habits, the brutal realities of life have much bigger influence.

Oh....and criticizing the UN for failures is anything but baseless.

Of course not, but there is a difference between justified critizing and the baseless crap that often comes form many Americans.

Dutch Government resigns as a result of U.N. "peace-keeping".

A total partisan hack piece with fact twisting and far worse making up stuff basicly. The UN does not equip the UN peacekeepers, thats up to the people who send the troops. Hence if the Dutch did not have tanks and big guns, thats the Dutch goverments fault not the UNs. As for the policy, yes that is the UNs, but that policy is not done by the UN, but made by the memberstates in the UNSC and approved by this organ. This means if the US does not like the policy then dont vote for it or veto it. In this case the US did not, and in fact promoted the policies. Hence it was again not the UN as an organisation that was at fault, but again the member states involved. So in closing on this case, the blame was evenly split between the Dutch themselvs, and the rules of engagement put in place by the UNSC.

U.N. fails to condemn slavery in Sudan.

Another hack peace from an even worse source than the first. Its missleading and twists facts. Yes the UN body failed to condem Sudan, but even the article clearly shows that as an organisation it did not fail, but that it was the member states that made the condemnation fail. Is it the UNs fault that the US abstains for some reason? When will Americans learn that the UN is not an organisation of countries with perfect human rights or big democracies, but an organisation of nations, both good and bad, where said nations can hopefully peacefully solve geopolitical issues. Do I find it funny that countries with questionable Human rights are on the Human rights council.. of course I do, but then again I would also object to the US being on said panel due to its Human rights record.

UN fails to rally Sierra Leone force

A much better source, but again your point fails. Is it the UNs fault all of a sudden that nations refuse to provide the needed forces?

Where was the U.N. during the massacre in Rwanda in 1994?

Ahh yes, Rwanda. Here there can be put some blame on the UN, but again far from all blame and even those who are accusing are today big suspects in similar crimes.. kinda ironic no? I dont know what the hell the UN or anyone could have done to prevent Rwanda, besides sending in hundreds of thousands of troops no one wanted to provide in the first place. On top of that you had a civil war in Zaire, where UN peacekeepers who were in place, had no direct authorisation to do jack ****, thanks to the UNSC.. again not the UNs fault that the UNSC ties the peacekeepers hands. Was there maybe lack of information providing internally in the UN so that the UN and the UNSC were not fully briefed.. sure I dont doubt it, but how does that change anything?

Zimbabwe-famine-UN failure

Again how does this prove the UN did wrong? Mugabe is to blame 100%. The UN does not and can not force its humanitarian aid on a country if said country does not give access or allows the UN to work there. Funny you basicly defending Mugabe here.

UN fails to agree on date to tackle North Korea

Again what does this have to do with the UN's failure? That the US cant bully and push its policies through the UNSC is suddenly the UNs fault? How arrogant and missguided is that? Does the US not believe in the basic principples of democracy all of a sudden just because its the UNSC?

Iran: U.N. Fails to Condemn Rights Abuses

Again, so what? The article even bloody says that Iran has prevented the inspector to access the country so why on earth provide funds for such things when its not gonna be used? To me it seems like saving a few bucks. Does it some how change the fact that there are human rights issues in Iran, hell no. ANd again what does this have to do with the UN, as it was the member states AGAIN who voted it down.

UN takeover leads to more anarchy and violence.

Ahh not exactly an unbiased source but at least its better than newsmax. But here I kinda agree that in part it was the "UNs fault", but only in part. For the UN to function you need bodies on the ground, money and a mandate to do it. If all these are not forfilled then you get off on a shaky start. On top of that you of course need competence, and here the UN has been lacking at times. And of course you need local support. Did the UN have all those in East Timor? hell no, so again you cant blame the UN for the whole issue.. parts sure, but for the whole issue no.

UN 'fails' to save 2000 year old Afghan statues

Hello.. TALIBAN! You are blaming the UN for not stopping a religious fanatical sect ruling a country, where the UN had no access too the statue nore the country? How missplaced is that blame gezz.

UN fails to protect the displaced.

So now the UN is to blame that 2 faction in a civil war are driving out people and killing people? Does the UN refugee agency have a standing military force to protect people .. NO.

UN fails to resolve Kashmir dispute

ROLF, yea the UN is to blame for that India and Pakistan dont talk to each other.. yea right. The UK has more blame than the UN in that case..

There is a common theme here you seem unable to grasp.

Yes it seems you fail to grasp what the UN can and can not do, and how the UN works.

The UN cannot be faulted for trying but they sure can be faulted for having inept policies leading to continual process failures.

Hello, the policies are not the UNs work, but the work of the member states! The UN is nothing but a bureaucratic organisation that carries out the wishes of its member states! Or do you go around blaming say the IRS for doing its job, a job put in place by the US congress?

 

[RightinNYC]

The U.N. getting wrong numbers from countries who provide them means Bush's initiatives are working? How?

Nobody is arguing that. I'm arguing that the fact that the number of new infections has dropped every single year since Bush took office is an indication that his policy is not the terrible failure that so many claimed (based on faulty data) that his plan was.

. Abstinence doesn't work. Protection does.

Link?

Also, some African countries have seen real drops in new cases. It happened relatively early in Uganda, after an aggressive “no grazing” (meaning no casual sex) campaign started 20 years ago. Similar declines appear to have happened in Zimbabwe and Kenya, especially since people saw many friends and relatives die. Rather than embracing condoms or circumcision, people decided to have sexual relations with fewer people, Dr. Halperin said.

“You don’t need a Ph.D. to figure out that if you reduce your number of partners, you reduce your risk,” he added.

This would seem to indicate that it's not condom promotion that's making the biggest difference, at least in countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya.

 

[RightinNYC]

Look at the black death. Here people not knowing what it was, or how to prevent it, started automatically to isolate people, to expell the sick from towns and so on... hell even the Church was so freaking scared that it pushed through some of the more extreme methods to avoid the black death.

You neglect to mention that the Church was disproportionately harmed by the Black Death because it was willing to take the sick into its monasteries (something nobody else would do), resulting in a devastation of its clergy.

Again, with 50%+ infection rate, then hell yea the most basic instincts set in. Even before 50%..look at HIV at the start, the fear and stupidity based on ignorance in the west. We put blame solely on the homosexuals and many believed as long as you were with women you could not get it.

Not directly on topic, but it's worth noting that people frequently overestimate the changes of getting AIDS from an encounter with an infected person.

If a male has unprotected sex with an HIV-infected female, there is a 0.05% chance of infection.

Even in cases of males receiving unprotected anal sex from an infected male, there is only a 0.5% chance of infection.

Of course not, but there is a difference between justified critizing and the baseless crap that often comes form many Americans.

And I submit that this is completely justified.

Ahh yes, Rwanda. Here there can be put some blame on the UN, but again far from all blame and even those who are accusing are today big suspects in similar crimes.. kinda ironic no? I dont know what the hell the UN or anyone could have done to prevent Rwanda, besides sending in hundreds of thousands of troops no one wanted to provide in the first place.

If not to prevent genocide, then what the **** is the point of the UN?

Hello, the policies are not the UNs work, but the work of the member states! The UN is nothing but a bureaucratic organisation that carries out the wishes of its member states! Or do you go around blaming say the IRS for doing its job, a job put in place by the US congress?

If the IRS is so inept that it cannot fulfill an essential task, it should be revamped or abolished.

 

[Hatuey]

Nobody is arguing that. I'm arguing that the fact that the number of new infections has dropped every single year since Bush took office is an indication that his policy is not the terrible failure that so many claimed (based on faulty data) that his plan was.

So you are arguing that his policies had some effect on the number of HIV infections dropping...How?

Link?

ABC News: 'Abstinence Only' Sex Ed Doesn't Work

http://aids.about.com/b/2007/08/04/more-proof-that-abstinence-only-prevention-just-doesnt-work.htm

Doctors slam abstinence-only sex ed - Kids and parenting - MSNBC.com

Teaching abstinence but not birth control makes it more likely that once teenagers initiate sexual activity they will have unsafe sex and contract sexually transmitted diseases, said Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville who provided advice for the report.

Just look at your own avatar .

This would seem to indicate that it's not condom promotion that's making the biggest difference, at least in countries like Zimbabwe and Kenya.

Fewer partners is useless if you don't practice safer sex. It's like putting a small bandaid on a shotgun wound. AIDS is too widespread for the solution to simply be lowering the number of partners.

 

[jallman]

Fewer partners is useless if you don't practice safer sex. It's like putting a small bandaid on a shotgun wound. AIDS is too widespread for the solution to simply be lowering the number of partners.

You think? That's not what the good doctor had to say about that.

 

[Hatuey]

You think? That's not what the good doctor had to say about that.

Do you really want to argue Abstinence Vs. Safer Sex? Abstinence is for dreamers. Safer Sex is for people who live in reality.

 

[jallman]

Do you really want to argue Abstinence Vs. Safer Sex? Abstinence is for dreamers. Safer Sex is for people who live in reality.

Reality is that no one ever contracted AIDS from practicing abstinence.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

One thing to add. Why is AIDS such a Hip/Popular/Researched
Disease? T.B. Kills far more people that AIDS does!
Finding a Cure for Cancer will benefit a lot more Americans
than a cure for AIDS! But the media is fixated with AIDS!
Why!

Why not have the most coverage/support for the most devistating
Diseases and just follow the number to determine the
precedence of diseases and funding amount etc... ?

It seems to me that AIDS get preferential treatment.
(By the media and politically)

 

[jallman]

One thing to add. Why is AIDS such a Hip/Popular/Researched
Disease? T.B. Kills far more people that AIDS does!
Finding a Cure for Cancer will benefit a lot more Americans
than a cure for AIDS! But the media is fixated with AIDS!
Why!

Why not have the most coverage/support for the most devistating
Diseases and just follow the number to determine the
precedence of diseases and funding amount etc... ?

It seems to me that AIDS get preferential treatment.
(By the media and politically)

I think it is a continued mentality from back when AIDS was literally a crisis in the gay community. A lot of political activism rose as a reaction to the AIDS epidemic. It's my belief that the momentum of that activism has almost enshrined AIDS as "the worst that could happen" in the public conciousness.

 

[jfuh]

Just highlighting the similarities between your off-topic outburst and the "islamic terror" posting of bhkad.



.....the US Aids programs?

The US aids programs has used the UN as it's only basis? that's definitely news to me.

 

[jfuh]

I do believe a big part of that debate was how the "outdated doctrine" of the Catholic Church was causing harm. And now we see...

.... see what?

 

[jfuh]

That's because he's a mass murdering war criminal and he doesn't deserve any vindication.

I don't see how this vindicates Bush. His policy has been abstinence only how does this vindicate that policy?

 

[jfuh]

Nobody is arguing that. I'm arguing that the fact that the number of new infections has dropped every single year since Bush took office is an indication that his policy is not the terrible failure that so many claimed (based on faulty data) that his plan was.

Um, actually that could just as well be merely a coincidence. Just because he was in office does not necessitate that it was his responsibility or his policy that caused "world wide" aids rates to drop.

 

[RightinNYC]

So you are arguing that his policies had some effect on the number of HIV infections dropping...How?

I'm not aware of anything that shows that conclusively, but I think that given the numbers, it's at least somewhat likely that it had a positive effect and more likely that it did not have the devastating effect that many predicted it would.

ABC News: 'Abstinence Only' Sex Ed Doesn't Work

http://aids.about.com/b/2007/08/04/more-proof-that-abstinence-only-prevention-just-doesnt-work.htm

Doctors slam abstinence-only sex ed - Kids and parenting - MSNBC.com

There's a difference between promoting abstinence as an end in itself and promoting abstinence as a way to avoid contracting a deadly disease that 30% of the people in your country have.

I would think that 14 year old girls from the suburbs are unlikely to take an abstinence message as seriously as someone in the above mentioned scenario, which is why I very much doubt that any studies conducted here would in any way relate to the scenario over there.

Fewer partners is useless if you don't practice safer sex. It's like putting a small bandaid on a shotgun wound. AIDS is too widespread for the solution to simply be lowering the number of partners.

I don't know how you can say it's useless. Like I pointed out above, the odds of getting AIDS from any one interaction is very minimal, especially if it's not a high-risk interaction. Lowering the number of different people encountered is likely to have a significant effect on transmission rates, which is what they found in these studies.

 

[RightinNYC]

The US aids programs has used the UN as it's only basis? that's definitely news to me.

What?

I said:

I'm merely noting that the statistics that so many have relied on for years to excoriate the US's programs and attack President Bush are complete fabrications. I think that's rather amusing. Your mileage may vary.

You asked:

Such as which programs?

I answered:

.....the US Aids programs?

Not sure where you're going here.

 

[jfuh]

Reality is that no one ever contracted AIDS from practicing abstinence.

Reality is that abstinence itself has never worked anywhere in the world. It's a religious holier than thou mentality that fears sex.
Instead of obsession with abstinence why isn't the morally self righteous religious community teaching more about having sex with the one they love. Sex isn't just about procreation.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't see how this vindicates Bush. His policy has been abstinence only how does this vindicate that policy?

No he hasn't. He's been promoting abstinence IN ADDITION TO condom use. Just look at any of the US AIDS websites such as the one I cited above:

The hallmark of this program is to promote behavior change among key high-risk target groups focusing primarily on social marketing of voluntary HIV counseling and testing (VCT), social marketing of male and female condoms and targeted innovative media campaign for behavior change.

 

[RightinNYC]

Reality is that abstinence itself has never worked anywhere in the world. It's a religious holier than thou mentality that fears sex.
Instead of obsession with abstinence why isn't the morally self righteous religious community teaching more about having sex with the one they love. Sex isn't just about procreation.

Link to any religion that advocates for actual abstinence like you're describing?

I think it's pretty clear that the type of abstinence we're referring to here is abstinence outside of a monogamous relationship. I don't see how that's a "fear of sex."

It's a pretty self-evident fact that as extra-monogamous sexual encounters increase, the likelihood of STI transmission increases exponentially.

 

[RightinNYC]

Um, actually that could just as well be merely a coincidence. Just because he was in office does not necessitate that it was his responsibility or his policy that caused "world wide" aids rates to drop.

Of course, and it's quite impossible to calculate exactly what had what impact. However, it's not at all a bad presumption.

 

[jfuh]

What?

I said:



You asked:



I answered:




Not sure where you're going here.

What I'm saying is unless the aids program's sole source is the UN stats (to which it's been reduced by 6M) this "news" doesn't change much at all. And I would hardly call them fabrications by any extent. 33 million is still quite a severe problem.

 

[talloulou]

What I'm saying is unless the aids program's sole source is the UN stats (to which it's been reduced by 6M) this "news" doesn't change much at all. And I would hardly call them fabrications by any extent. 33 million is still quite a severe problem.

OMG :shock: This is like the first time ever that I am in full agreement with jfuh.

I will now go and reassess my position as well as check to see if they're ice skating in hell or pulling bacon out of the air. :2wave:

 

[RightinNYC]

What I'm saying is unless the aids program's sole source is the UN stats (to which it's been reduced by 6M) this "news" doesn't change much at all.

Until yesterday, the official records showed an ever increasing number of AIDS infections that had reached 39 million with no end in sight.

Today, the official records show that infections have been decreasing for the past seven years, that the number is only 33 million, and that there is evidence of hope.

I think that's a pretty big ****ing change.

And I would hardly call them fabrications by any extent. 33 million is still quite a severe problem.

Nobody's saying it's not, but don't act like this doesn't matter.

Again, if a report came out tomorrow that showed that our economic growth over the past 7 years was a result of an accounting error and that the economy had actually been shrinking since 2001, I can guarantee you two things:

1) You and dozens of others would be posting up a storm about how important those fabrications were, and

2) It would be 100% attributed to Bush