UN Critiicizes the USA for Katrina Response

Hugh R · 07-28-2006, 02:37 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14076159/

That's rich, the UN which doesn't do squat in Africa is telling the US that they didn't help the poor minorities enough after Katrina.

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

Seems like there are other things to which they could devote their time perhaps?

VINMAN · 07-28-2006, 04:01 PM

F!#k the U.N. and Khofi Anan! They should take that whole organization out of NY and stick it in another country.

dd74 · 07-28-2006, 05:01 PM

I take the UN less seriously each time they're in the news. They seem like a completely ineffectual body that likens itself to helping world issues when, in reality, it seems like nothing more than grandstanding.

At least that's what I see in the news.

Do they have a real-world purpose these days?

Does anyone take them seriously?

sammyg2 · 07-28-2006, 05:06 PM

F the UN.
The US finances a very large portion of the UN. Ever heard about biting the hand that feeds?

We need to get out of the UN, or at least stop paying for it.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

And we, I'm sure, can sell that Manhatten real estate for a few bucks.

Moneyguy1 · 07-28-2006, 06:01 PM

Wow. Such rancor.

Perhaps the UN is currently ineffective but it is a beginning point and need not be so in the future. Without it, even the occasional contact between some countries would totally cease to exist

Eliminating the UN is akin to tossing the baby with the bathwater.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Moneyguy1 · 07-28-2006, 07:03 PM

Like I said, it can be changed if there are some members willing to initiate the changes and it can be done over time. And what do we replace it with? Isn't this the problem with our current world situation...no planning for the future?

Sorry to be sound contrarian, but I tend to see that what apperar to be simple problems turn out to have very complex components. We do not need to go back to the even more severely divided "bloc" system that led to two world wars. At least when people are talking, they ain't fighting (sometimes)!!!

Mulhollanddose · 07-28-2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Wow. Such rancor.

Perhaps the UN is currently ineffective but it is a beginning point and need not be so in the future. Without it, even the occasional contact between some countries would totally cease to exist

Eliminating the UN is akin to tossing the baby with the bathwater.

Be careful of what you wish for.

Good job with the Sudan and Somalia and the Congo and Iraq and North Korea and on and on and on.

The world would do better without the UN.

legion · 07-28-2006, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Like I said, it can be changed if there are some members willing to initiate the changes and it can be done over time. And what do we replace it with? Isn't this the problem with our current world situation...no planning for the future?

I have all the confidence in the world that France, Russia, and China would block any real change.

Quote:

Sorry to be sound contrarian, but I tend to see that what apperar to be simple problems turn out to have very complex components. We do not need to go back to the even more severely divided "bloc" system that led to two world wars. At least when people are talking, they ain't fighting (sometimes)!!!

I don't buy the "it's complex" argument. The UN is incredibly corrupt--it makes Congress look like the Boy Scout council. Further, it's become nothing but a forum for bashing the U.S.