I saw this article, and I found it to be a thought provoker.
2.6 billion people lack basic sanitation: U.N. report
Here is the question that immediately came to my mind. Is it the UN's responsibility to make sure that everyone has sanitation, clean water, etc?
For that matter, what exactly is the UN's job?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Quote:WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
I guess that's the UN's job.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
Quote:WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
I guess that's the UN's job.
That is a pretty broad statement.
Stop wars, justice, freedom (any non-democratic nations in the UN?), improve living conditions (Where is my help?), enforce treaties lmfao , equal rights of men and women (any muslim countries in the UN?), peace, etc.
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
Not sure what's so funny to you...
Democracy does not equal freedom.
Are your living conditions so bad that you need the UN to help you out?
Muslim does not equal "equal rights of men and women."
Well considering the U.N. has 192 member states and of those 102 do not have truely free and democratic governments and 47 members are full fledged dictatorships, I have a hard thinking they are capable of anything good.
If they represent the world then the world is truely a dicked up place. I guess the old 80-20 rule comes into play even with the U.N.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Muslim does not equal "equal rights of men and women."
You got that right.
Edith Bunker had more rights then a muslim woman.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Muslim does not equal "unequal rights of men and women."
You got that right.
Feh...
I meant to put an un in there....
Unfortunantely for a good part of the world,
it does, but not for all of it.
ShoreBuc Wrote:If they represent the world then the world is truely a dicked up place.
If they didn't represent the world, would it not be a "dicked up place?"
I think UN was set up in a very idealistic manner, and doesn't run very well at all. But that is going to happen whenever you have a governing body with such a wide variety of points of view. Do you think the US congress is the model of effeciency?
At times the UN does some good stuff. There certainly are a lot of problems with it, but I think in the end it can be a positive force for the whole world. I don't think there is much laughable about trying to help people get proper sanitation. You may disagree that it is the UN's job, or that they don't do it in a very effective manner.
I don't particularly care for the UN either, but I'll look at this situation for the important part: people are helping people that are suffering, and they have got a long way to go.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:ShoreBuc Wrote:If they represent the world then the world is truely a dicked up place.
If they didn't represent the world, would it not be a "dicked up place?"
I think UN was set up in a very idealistic manner, and doesn't run very well at all. But that is going to happen whenever you have a governing body with such a wide variety of points of view. Do you think the US congress is the model of effeciency?
At times the UN does some good stuff. There certainly are a lot of problems with it, but I think in the end it can be a positive force for the whole world. I don't think there is much laughable about trying to help people get proper sanitation. You may disagree that it is the UN's job, or that they don't do it in a very effective manner.
I don't particularly care for the UN either, but I'll look at this situation for the important part: people are helping people that are suffering, and they have got a long way to go.
The " lmfao " was in relation to and directly next to the "enforcing treaties". Don't get all out of sorts over that. I just don't think that a world organization needs to concern itself with setting up septic systems and such. If anything that should fall on the individual governments. I have to fund my own sewer system, so why should I subsidize somebody's
hole in Brazil, Mozambiqe, or Pakistan?
I would say because somebody's government isn't doing it for them. I guess I think a person should help another person when they are down and out. I don't care what country they are from, but it appears people need help. You could advocate supporting a charity that would attempt to alleviate the problem after you heard this information, but instead you chose to use people's suffering to rail on an organization you disagree with.