More zaniness from the UN

[sailaway21]

Why we fund that moribund institution is beyond me. The latest was that the UN was unwilling to send peace-keeping forces where there is no peace to keep. Duh? I suppose the UN thinks that the best use for peace-keeping forces is either London, Davos, or perhaps Marin county. Nevertheless, they've topped even that. They're now going to investigate the US for racism. They're pretty sure we're Islamophobic but they've also got some concerns about our racism. Which brings us back to the first point. If the UN was better at doing what matters, say inspecting for nukes in Iraq, or peace-keeping in Somalia, perhaps we'd feel better about how much they spend to do nothing. I must admit that I was surprised to see that the Hampton's on New York's Long Island were not on this summer's racism investigation. Perhaps it's a little early in the season though.

U.N. racism investigator to visit U.S. from Monday | Politics | Reuters

[sailaway21]

The UN should look closer to home for racism.
Anne Bayefsky on Durban II on National Review Online

[Zanshin]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

...Why we fund that moribund institution is beyond me...

Actually, the USA has not been paying what it promised the UN, and hasn'T been doing so for years. I believe the current debt is in excess of $1.3 Billion.

[Idiens]

I thought the UN had no troops of its own to send anywhere, nor could it do anything without decisions by the security council or the whole group of member states. Even when they decide that the UN should do something, the member states are often very reluctant to provide the troops and finances to support their own decisions.

[sck5]

"If the UN was better at doing what matters, say inspecting for nukes in Iraq"

Actually, they got that one right. There werent any and thats what they said. Our administration is the one who got that one wrong. Way wrong. 4000 dead (and counting) to get rid of WMD's that didnt exist and that we had been told didnt exist.

Got to keep your facts separate from your myths there Sway.

[sck5]

Idiens is right. The UN can pass resolutions to use force but it is entirely up to the member states to decide whether or not to actually do it. They have no troops of their own.

[PBzeer]

So, in other words, it's a toothless, clawless tiger, that isn't much good for anything more than US bashing and various and sundry forms of corruption.

[retclt]

Let's call the 1.3 bil rent for the building and tell them to move to Sweeden.

[brak]

UN had a few offers to move over the years, but US intervened (Germans offered a lot of money for UNDP to move to Germany not too long ago, offer still stands afaik). US has a love-hate relationship with them. On the one hand, we don't pay. On the other - we like keeping them here, it allows for better control of objectives we want to achieve and lets US talk to all sorts of people we can't officially talk to (when they come to visit UN, like Iranina president did just recently, or cubans or whoever else we don't like).

UN is a world-wide forum. It is a method for participants to talk about problems they have. It is about as good as its participants are, it has no power or mind of its own and cannot have these simply because its participants are so different. If there is no world-wide intra-governmental organization where countries can try, just try, to solve their problems - we'll be in a constant state of war with everyone. Oh wait, we are. Well, UN is certainly not what's causing them.

[retclt]

Originally Posted by brak

- we'll be in a constant state of war with everyone. Oh wait, we are. Well, UN is certainly not what's causing them.

I disagree.

. . . and besides, the UN isn't preventing wars either.

I think the UN is pretty much wothless outside of delivering pizzas to worn torn areas or disaters.