To the United Nations: Time to Call it a Bad Day

[jbg]

You are simply claiming things without any data or evidence to back it up. As far as I can see, UN aid is ranked as number 3 in aid transparency index. So you need to back up your claims for us to take you seriously
Transparency | United Nations Development Programme

I'm stating the obvious. These countries are massive aid recipients and are not doing well despite the receipt of international assistance.

 

[Lyndon]

Speaking of massive aid recipients, what about Israel, what do we get for that wasted money??

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I thought that the Watch Tower saw the UN as in opposition to God's Kingdom.

Think about this: At one point God used the Babylonian forces on His rebellious people to capture them for 70 years.
Think about this: At another point in the year 70 God used the Roman armies against un-faithful Jerusalem.
Think about this: The pattern is set. Once again God will use the political/military to now go against un-faithful Christendom.
www.jw.org

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What does "corrupted religious establishments" mean? What makes them corrupt? What would happen to them?

Same today as in the past when people practiced worship Not in harmony with God's law / standards.
What will happen to them is that there is a coming ' house cleaning ', so to speak - 1 Peter 2:5
The old adage says that a new broom sweeps clean.
Jesus, so to speak, will prove to be that figurative new broom sweeping clean.
Because Christendom claims to follow the Bible, adverse judgement will start with her.
Then the 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of all religious corruption.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Are you joking? You are going to let Iran, China, Pakistan or Central African Republic become the "long arm of the law"?

No, but with backing (support) the United Nations can be strengthened.
Even a bad economy (?) could make the wealth the religions have amassed look like easy political taking even through the international banking system.
Details of the coming sudden destruction of course will be known at the coming time of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm stating the obvious. These countries are massive aid recipients and are not doing well despite the receipt of international assistance.

If it is obvious then you should be able to support your claims by using reliable sources. I am not saying that you are right or wrong here, but an unevidenced rant is never very convincing. You are likely trying to convince others, after all what good does preaching to the choir accomplish? In that case you will need evidence to convince others that you are right.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think that is highly unlikely, but I do know what you mean. Have a Happy New Year.

.... and may you have a Happy Spiritual 2023.
At times we see a connection to terrorism connected to religion.
That would put such religion on the U.N. radar, so to speak.
Terrorism connected with religion could create a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing in today's world.
Remember: We are forewarned that the 'final signal', so to speak, is when the powers in charge are saying, " Peace and Security...."
So, yes, highly unlikely such a ROSY saying would actually be leading people down that so-called ' primrose path '.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Same today as in the past when people practiced worship Not in harmony with God's law / standards.
What will happen to them is that there is a coming ' house cleaning ', so to speak - 1 Peter 2:5
The old adage says that a new broom sweeps clean.
Jesus, so to speak, will prove to be that figurative new broom sweeping clean.
Because Christendom claims to follow the Bible, adverse judgement will start with her.
Then the 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of all religious corruption.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15

Good thing the UN sees that as entirely against their mission and Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good thing the UN sees that as entirely against their mission and Declaration of Human Rights.

The ^ above ^ could very well be reasoning why 1 Thess. 5:2-3 won't happen.
However, the UN will prove to the the symbolic 8th king of Revelation 17:11.
I'm wondering if you see or think there is an anti-religious atmosphere perhaps in feeling or attitudes in the UN ____
Religion has often tried to wed herself with the political in order to make public policy, meddle in political policy.
History shows religion that she has tried to throne or de-throne kings.
So, meddling in world affairs will put her on UN radar.
Channel surfing I heard a wound-up religious leader stirring up his audience to reject political policy.
In other words, to be vocal,etc. against political policy, whereas Jesus was neutral in world affairs.
Meddling in world affairs thus could create a reason for the political to surprisingly turn on the corrupted religious world.

 

[Brian2]

Think about this: At one point God used the Babylonian forces on His rebellious people to capture them for 70 years.
Think about this: At another point in the year 70 God used the Roman armies against un-faithful Jerusalem.
Think about this: The pattern is set. Once again God will use the political/military to now go against un-faithful Christendom.
www.jw.org

OK that's fine, God can use whomever He wants for His purposes. That includes Satan in the book of Job and Nebuchadnezzar and the UN and the witch at Endor. But I bet you disagree that God could use the witch.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

The formation of the UN did nothing to solve any of these problems. A corrupt crew of bureaucrats sprang up whose only mission was self-preservation. The dictators of these new countries picked "ambassadors" who got the cushy privilege of living it up in New York City, and running wild. Imagine the heaven of being supported by your own (corrupt) government, being able to amass thousands in unpaid parking tickets, and having as a "job" attending a debating society overlooking the beautiful East River of New York City. Simply irresistible. If is were only the waste involved, the UN would be inexcusable and in need of abolition.

As a New Yorker myself, we all know very well how U.N. diplomats abuse not only NYC's parking regulations to the tune of millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets, but they also commit serious and injurious traffic violations with impunity.

Here are a few instances where U.N. diplomats abused the people of New York with their immunity to our laws:

Shoplifted raincoats from a New York department store? An Iranian envoy did just that in 1984. Claim that your German Shepherd, who’d bitten several neighbors in Pelham, New York, was protected by immunity and any action against the dog would lead to “possible international consequences”? A delegate from Barbados made that argument (and won) in 1975. Smuggle 40 kilos of cocaine from Mexico to New York in a diplomatic pouch? Ecuador diplomats tried it (and got away with it) in 2012.

Quoted source: How Diplomats Commit Crazy Crimes

Reading the above linked article also reveals which nations the worst offenders come from, and I suppose it's no coincidence that these are also the nations that "happened to score low in the annual ranking of public corruption compiled by World Bank researches": Kuwait, Egypt, Chad, Sudan, and Bulgaria.

The United Nations, I believe, is an institution about which one might say: "It seemed like a good idea at the time..."

Edited to add: I meant no offense to anyone here who lives in or comes from the above-mentioned nations. I'm merely quoting from the linked article, and I'm pretty sure that the criticism is aimed at what the governments of these nations will tolerate from their chosen officials -- and not aimed at the nations' populations in general.

 

[Lyndon]

As a New Yorker myself, we all know very well how U.N. diplomats abuse not only NYC's parking regulations to the tune of millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets, but they also commit serious and injurious traffic violations with impunity.

Here are a few instances where U.N. diplomats abused the people of New York with their immunity to our laws:

Shoplifted raincoats from a New York department store? An Iranian envoy did just that in 1984. Claim that your German Shepherd, who’d bitten several neighbors in Pelham, New York, was protected by immunity and any action against the dog would lead to “possible international consequences”? A delegate from Barbados made that argument (and won) in 1975. Smuggle 40 kilos of cocaine from Mexico to New York in a diplomatic pouch? Ecuador diplomats tried it (and got away with it) in 2012.

Quoted source: How Diplomats Commit Crazy Crimes

Reading the above linked article also reveals which nations the worst offenders come from, and I suppose it's no coincidence that these are also the nations that "happened to score low in the annual ranking of public corruption compiled by World Bank researches": Kuwait, Egypt, Chad, Sudan, and Bulgaria.

The United Nations, I believe, is an institution about which one might say: "It seemed like a good idea at the time..."

Sorry but in almost all those case it refers to diplomats but does not claim they were UN diplomats, there are lots of kinds of diplomats

 

[sayak83]

I'm stating the obvious. These countries are massive aid recipients and are not doing well despite the receipt of international assistance.

A country cannot do well until it's govt improves. That is not the task of the UN aid program.

The task of the UN aid program is more about tackling problems of deep deprivation that kills people like hunger, malnutrition, stunting, lack of access to clean water, basic medical aid (like malaria medicines, ORS etc). It's obvious to me that millions of extremely poor people in these countries are still alive today partly because of aid programs funded by the UN. This is like saying donating blankets to homeless people is useless as that does not solve homelessness. No it does not. But it does help homeless people to not freeze to death in winter. Duh.

Changing govts is more the ambition of superpower countries like US and Russia. That seems to be working badly isn't it? Going by what happened in Iraq, Afganistan and Ukraine?

You need to start backing up your claims. Nothing of what you claim is obvious.

 

[jbg]

Speaking of massive aid recipients, what about Israel, what do we get for that wasted money??

OK. First of all Israel uses much of the money to buy American goods. It's R&D, in turn, helps the U.S. with military and other development. Israel also is in a strategic location.

If you liked the bloodshed at Normandy you'd love what it would take if the U.S. or other Western powers were forced to invade the Middle East to protect vital interests. Israel is basically a gigantic Western military base. Israel is vital to U.S. and overall Western interests in ways that may not be totally obvious. If you are familiar with WW II history, Hitler controlled Europe to the Atlantic Ocean. Spain and Portugal were "neutral in favor of the Axis." Italy was separated from most of Europe by the Alps, and in any event was not conquered until sometime in late 1943 or early 1944.

The only usable avenues of attack to regain Europe was on the beaches of France; Normandy and/or Calais. The battle to make a beachhead was a bloodbath. Israel is a giant "Normandy" in the Middle East, a fraught and unstable area. Should the West need to enter the Middle East militarily, Israel is the only country that, as a stable democracy, that can be counted on as a springboard. That is why some Arab countries and groups want Israel out so desperately. Knocking off Israel knocks the West out of a large chunk of the world. I consider that we should be allied to Israel both as based on ideological similarities, i.e. it's a democracy, and for strategic purposes.

Aid to Israel is more akin, then, to aid to Britain.

In the case of almost all other aid, it winds up in Swiss bank accounts. The U.S gains no prestige with subsequent dictators for having funded his or her predecessor's largess.

 

[jbg]

If it is obvious then you should be able to support your claims by using reliable sources. I am not saying that you are right or wrong here, but an unevidenced rant is never very convincing. You are likely trying to convince others, after all what good does preaching to the choir accomplish? In that case you will need evidence to convince others that you are right.

Sitting down to post on RF or any discussion board should not involve hours of research. There are some times that some things are obvious. One obvious case is earthquake aid a few years ago to Pakistan and similar flood aid this past summer.

How much did the victims really benefit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sitting down to post on RF or any discussion board should not involve hours of research. There are some times that some things are obvious. One obvious case is earthquake aid a few years ago to Pakistan and similar flood aid this past summer.

How much did the victims really benefit?

I don't know. But they are your claims, your burden of proof. And that sort of example would be a piece of evidence for your claims, if you found a reliable source.

 

[jbg]

A country cannot do well until it's govt improves. That is not the task of the UN aid program.

The task of the UN aid program is more about tackling problems of deep deprivation that kills people like hunger, malnutrition, stunting, lack of access to clean water, basic medical aid (like malaria medicines, ORS etc). It's obvious to me that millions of extremely poor people in these countries are still alive today partly because of aid programs funded by the UN. This is like saying donating blankets to homeless people is useless as that does not solve homelessness. No it does not. But it does help homeless people to not freeze to death in winter. Duh.

Changing govts is more the ambition of superpower countries like US and Russia. That seems to be working badly isn't it? Going by what happened in Iraq, Afganistan and Ukraine?

You need to start backing up your claims. Nothing of what you claim is obvious.

Usually these governments do not want aid "in kind." They want aid in more "fungible" form.

 

[Lyndon]

So giving billions to Israel to buy military weapons good, giving money to poor countries to buy food bad. Sure is some sick and twisted logic or lack thereof

 

[jbg]

I don't know. But they are your claims, your burden of proof. And that sort of example would be a piece of evidence for your claims, if you found a reliable source.

I I stumble across such an article about how Pakistan or some other aid recipient is doing now and I remember this thread, doubtful because of my poor memory and low intelligence I will post it.

 

[jbg]

So giving billions to Israel to buy military weapons good, giving money to poor countries to buy food bad. Sure is some sick and twisted logic or lack thereof

Military aid is different from humanitarian aid. I doubt the dictators stuffing food aid into Swiss bank accounts are all that hungry.