- This topic has 8 voices and 50 replies.
-
Posts
-
Keep in mind too, the UN usually uses aids workers from their own native regions/countries. What happens when aid is needed in an anti-US environment? I don't think it's a good idea to subject American foreign service personnel to hostile conditions.
Given that we pay our dues to the UN late and in less than full measure (several agencies that we will not support) yet we supply aid to many nations beyond what the UN gives, I'd say we still do more than our part in the wider picture.Sadly feeding the pit bulls next door doesn't assure they won't bite you if they get the chance. The UN is a good idea and slightly more able than the League of Nations but nationalism still is a factor in all dealings (as well as the lingering bad will from the imperialist past)… why can't we all just get along? Same reason we can't fix the economy… the one's trying to solve the problem aren't interested in a fix that won't aggrandize themselves.This just in…
Keep in mind too, the UN usually uses aids workers from their own native regions/countries. What happens when aid is needed in an anti-US environment? I don't think it's a good idea to subject American foreign service personnel to hostile conditions.
Me neither; who, however, will make sure the aid gets to the ones in need? Giving it to the warlords in Somalia worked rather less than well, eh?
Me neither; who, however, will make sure the aid gets to the ones in need? Giving it to the warlords in Somalia worked rather less than well, eh?
True, not sure about Somalia, but in the DRC when the aid workers were Congolese citizens, and were responsible for distribution/projects, that helped out more in getting stuff done…especially social services.Congolese rape survivors break silence at UN-organized event
Keep in mind too, the UN usually uses aids workers from their own native regions/countries. What happens when aid is needed in an anti-US environment? I don't think it's a good idea to subject American foreign service personnel to hostile conditions.
The US does the exact same thing when we provide individual aid. The only Americans are the ones who write the checks. The Americans are there to ensure that the aid money is spent for its intended purpose. The UN is not good at this (Oil-for-Food anyone).
The UN is not good at this (Oil-for-Food anyone).
I very much disagree. I don't think any of us really know all the little (and big) things the UN is doing and has done. The only thing that makes the news for the most part are the scandals.And besides, the US can't do everything. It's good to see other nations/groups helping themselves and each other.
And besides, the US can't do everything. It's good to see other nations/groups helping themselves and each other.
Isn't this statement directly contray to your earlier opinion?
So I guess the best alternative then is to let everyone starve, get killed, get raped, be oppressed, and stay illiterate?
If the peoples of the world are helping themselves then won't all the rape, torture, and other ugliness take care of itself as a consequence of their self-help?
And besides, the US can't do everything. It's good to see other nations/groups helping themselves and each other.
Isn't this statement directly contray to your earlier opinion?
Well the topic turned from foreign aid to the UN. 😀
If the peoples of the world are helping themselves then won't all the rape, torture, and other ugliness take care of itself as a consequence of their self-help?
If only that were the case, huh? But reality says otherwise. If only there weren't tribal or cross-border or other conflicts. If only all governments weren't corrupt and actually used the money to better the lives of their citizens.The UN helps because it's the citizens of the country who suffer.
Could you guys please provide proof of the UN's ineffectiveness? How many people have NOT died?How many people now have access to education?How many women are no longer oppressed?How many wars or conflicts have been diverted?..because of the UN's combined efforts
The only sources on those figures would be from the UN itself so how much of it could we believe? I'm sure the UN does some good, but it would be better if it were disbanded and the nation-states themselves worked together on the world's problems in their respective regions in mutual cooperation without dealing with an inefficient global bureaucracy doing it.
Ski,I admire your idealism and encourage you to do as much as you can with it and help the world. However, try to help the world without reaching into my pocket, I am perfectly capable of deciding where and for what I will spend my money. That is my single biggest problem with the UN, they, like liberals everywhere and apparently conservatives lately, are really good at spending other peoples money. It is all in a good cause of course, but it is still not their money to begin with.Realistically, ther has always been and always will be, conflict and injustice in the world. I don't think we should ignore the world. I think we should take care of our own backyard before we go galloping off into the wilds to save everybody elses backyard. Essentially, I guess I am selfish. I dont really care if people in Sudan are starving, if they are oppressed in Tibet, or denied democracy in Burma. That is sad yes, and they have my sympathy and even some of my money to maybe make a difference in their life. But neither I nor anyone else is going to change anything until they change themselves. That is the core problem in third world countries, they must bootstrap themselves. It is like the old saying
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink
there are plenty of examples of successful countries for these nations to emulate, why dont they?
scout, I don't think your selfish at all thinking that. Perhaps I'm “selfish” in that there's times I'd rather help the world than my own country. What I think is it boils down to two types of people, and both types are needed and equally admirable: those who want to serve their own nation and those who are more international-oriented. At this point in my life and education I don't know where I stand yet, although I tend to lean internationally. I think the United States, although burdened with her own bureuracratic issues and political problems, is perfectly capable of handling itself. From communicating with people who have worked in the UN or in some NGO, there are countries or regions who just are not capable of handling their own problems for one reason or another and need outside help. Without this outside help, many will die or suffer. I understand not wanting to pay for other country's problems or issues, but 0.9% is hardly a drop in the bucket. The nearly 15% of our budget that goes to welfare is ridiculous and should irk one more than what we give to foreign aid. I agree the UN can be a mess when it tries to handle things in a top down manner, but when it works from the bottom up, it has been very effective. I don't know if it's most or even half, but I do know that a lot of what the UN does is local, small, and efficient. I do take issue with the UN when it tries to claim sovereignty over this nation, but as long as we have permanent veto power (and a good president), it can't.
I agree with Ski here, at least in respect to the necessity of the U.N. For all its faults, it is a step forward, rather than a step backward, to have a communal forum at which nations can discuss the issues and operate diplomatically rather than resorting to war. And that, I think, is at the very heart of the origin of the U.N.Today it is a much larger body, or organization made up of a number of bodies. It deals with a range of issues, from international security matters and food programs, to protection of world cultural sites and the protection of intellectual property (e.g. WIPO). One can argue that the U.N. also gets into some bad programs, and I would have to agree. But my opinion is that the U.N. ought to be reformed, not abolished. I don't think the point has been made that America benefits indirectly from the U.N….when the world is better off, America is better off. Besides, the U.N. can perform functions more efficiently than what individuals can do on their own. Now I don't think that America should be a world problem-solver or world policeman, and that countries that are in need of change need to want the change. In fact I think that with many (if not all) third world countries one can find corrupt officials at the top who take for themselves what is supposed to go to the people. However, I don't think these kinds of thing preclude the importance of the need for a major international body such as the U.N.
That is my single biggest problem with the UN, they, like liberals everywhere and apparently conservatives lately, are really good at spending other peoples money. It is all in a good cause of course, but it is still not their money to begin with.
What if I, Ken Adams-UN worker, requested $1,000,000 from the US (which comes to about .06/person)? A million can feed, educate, and keep disease-free a small (500-600) village for probably close to a decade. I hope no one would consider that socialism.
That is my single biggest problem with the UN, they, like liberals everywhere and apparently conservatives lately, are really good at spending other peoples money. It is all in a good cause of course, but it is still not their money to begin with.
What if I, Ken Adams-UN worker, requested $1,000,000 from the US (which comes to about .06/person)? A million can feed, educate, and keep disease-free a small (500-600) village for probably close to a decade. I hope no one would consider that socialism.
Just keep Kofi Annan's son away from the money okay? 🙂
That is my single biggest problem with the UN, they, like liberals everywhere and apparently conservatives lately, are really good at spending other peoples money. It is all in a good cause of course, but it is still not their money to begin with.
What if I, Ken Adams-UN worker, requested $1,000,000 from the US (which comes to about .06/person)? A million can feed, educate, and keep disease-free a small (500-600) village for probably close to a decade. I hope no one would consider that socialism.
That is the problem, it wouldnt be the entire population forking over .06c apiece just like it would not be the entire population forking over $15,000 apiece to pay for the $700,000,000,000 bailout of the banking and mortgage industry. The only people that would pay are the taxpayers. I dont include in the count of taxpayers those people that get their entire withholdings or more back when they file their taxes in April.And lastly yes, I still consider that socialism.
scout, I don't think your selfish at all thinking that. Perhaps I'm “selfish” in that there's times I'd rather help the world than my own country. What I think is it boils down to two types of people, and both types are needed and equally admirable: those who want to serve their own nation and those who are more international-oriented. At this point in my life and education I don't know where I stand yet, although I tend to lean internationally. I think the United States, although burdened with her own bureuracratic issues and political problems, is perfectly capable of handling itself. From communicating with people who have worked in the UN or in some NGO, there are countries or regions who just are not capable of handling their own problems for one reason or another and need outside help. Without this outside help, many will die or suffer. I understand not wanting to pay for other country's problems or issues, but 0.9% is hardly a drop in the bucket. The nearly 15% of our budget that goes to welfare is ridiculous and should irk one more than what we give to foreign aid. I agree the UN can be a mess when it tries to handle things in a top down manner, but when it works from the bottom up, it has been very effective. I don't know if it's most or even half, but I do know that a lot of what the UN does is local, small, and efficient. I do take issue with the UN when it tries to claim sovereignty over this nation, but as long as we have permanent veto power (and a good president), it can't.
Isn't it kind of condescending to assume that people cannot take care of their own problems? What people want are quick solutions, these often do not work long term. The situation in the third world will shake itself out if given enough time. That is my innate optimism in people, no matter where rthey are at. Sometimes we (meaning the West) should probably just get out of the way. The undeveloped world is not full of children and we do not need nor should we put ourselves in the position of being nanny to the world. We have tried that at home and we saw how well it worked when crunch time came. ( New Orleans)
Don, don't worry, I'll be the one who manages the cash. ;Dscout, how can a third world country “shake itself out of it” if there is no access to water or food and more than 1/2 the population is dying from malaria or AIDS or if their government is beyond corrupt to the point of being criminal or even genocidal? And how is giving a pittance of an amount of a country's GDP considered socialism? We're not talking sharing equal wealth here, we're not talking about giving away “carbon credits,” we're talking about assistance to get these people on their feet, helping them get beyond the stage of just surviving and actually becoming productive members of society who will be able to help themselves eventually. How is this being condescending? It's not “assuming” they can't take care of themselves, it's reality that they can't.New Orleans is completely different than the Eastern Congo. In NO, the people had a choice to leave and they didn't. They also had the 82nd Airborne to evacuate them. In many third world countries there is no choice, there aren't any means of help. It's like what one of the students in my Int Rel class said about Bangladesh. She said why don't the people just go inland to get away from the flooding during monsoon season. I asked “then where would they stay?”And at the same time, referring to Phid's indirect benefits to the US, our image will improve greatly.
