Are They Serious?
By matersfish
@matersfish (6306)
United States
February 16, 2012 5:56pm CST
The United Nations planned a big meet-and-vote session today, in order to condemn Syria and its president.
These self-important representatives of nations met to take action? Nah.
Met to plan on providing relief for the people being slaughtered? Nope.
Met to take some strange, meaningless vote to say that they disapprove of the murder of innocent people by a tyrant? Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
Honestly. WTF is the point of this organization? In the context of how the world operates today, what purpose does the UN serve anyone that life wouldn't be the same or better without its existence?
People meeting to vote on whether or not to condemn murder. Huh? I guess that has to be put to a vote. And what does the condemnation do? Nothing that I can tell. If it is a lead-up to something bigger, cut out the meaningless aspect of it - the aspect that obviously goes on too long and too long from these folks.
I think the UN comes down just as hard on Arizona's stance that something needs to be done about illegal immigration.
Does the UN stay in existence simply so people can feel important? They're not shaping or changing or altering events of the world. Imagine al-Assad's fright now that he's been condemned. Ohh! It's all over now, Bashar. Give it up, homes. You've just been pimp-smacked by the power-brokers of the UN (who probably wasted a sh1t-ton of money and resources to meet for this hogwash).
Are they really serious?
2 people like this
8 responses
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
17 Feb 12
"who probably wasted a sh1t-ton of money and resources to meet for this hogwash" - amen to that.. and well everything you said.. I study and ponder bible prophecy and the book of revelation a lot, even wrote a short book.. It's my belief that one day the world body will receive authority, called "breath" in rev 13, when it's head 'comes back to life' or that is to say.. takes the head.. it expired once, because its head did not, after all, sign on..
2 people like this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
17 Feb 12
Well, I don't know anything about that. But if it means that someone's going to take their heads and replace them, then I'm all for that. 
Thanks for the response.
Thanks for the response.1 person likes this
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
17 Feb 12
Yeah, well we all know how politics goes. At least they did decide something was bad and perhaps needed to be addressed. A lot of governments like to spend a lot of time addressing things that don't need to be fixed.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I agree. It's good that they decreed how naughty they find it to be. But my question: what is it worth? What does their condemnation matter? Because I can't really see them actually doing anything but saying that they either agree or disagree with someone else doing something about it - like the United States in conjunction with a few other select nations.
And while that's all good and well, I just don't understand what we need the UN for. Know what I mean? A few reps can just meet via video conference to hash this stuff out. To me, it's like they're poser kings and queens, feigning power but not actually doing anything. The High Council of Schmucktards.
Thanks for the response.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I take your point, but they just seem a useless organization; a hodgepodge of self-important men and women who have a strong title but then don't really do anything but give a thumbs up or a finger wave to things they approve or disapprove of.
I mean, they were created to be facilitators and to prevent wars and human rights violations, etc, by...I don't know -- whatever. But then they gather like it's a big deal in order to vote to make sure that everyone agrees that the mass murder of innocent people at the hands of a dictator is not okay.
We simply don't need the UN to know that Syria's prez should be condemned ---and stopped. It's time, money and effort wasted, IMO.
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I like to think it's an unofficial, official endorsement, of the UN; that any military action another country takes over there will be unofficially sanctioned.
Basically, it's probably their way of saying, we aren't taking any action but if you do, we didn't say no, so let's just not talk about it.
At least that's what I hope it means. That's the only reason I could think of for them to have such a pointless meaning.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
17 Feb 12
The UN is the best example of what is wrong with this world. It is filled with people who know what is best and what is best is to talk things out. Syria is killing people who oppose the dictator and we are going to tell him that he is a bad person and should stop or we will take a vote and tell the world that you are a naughty person. The UN is there for one purpose and this is to give a job to some over educated son or daughter of a very important person and make them feel important. You are asking the member nations (most of which are ruled by dictators) to act on democratic principals and do what is in the best interest of everyone and then they vote what is best for their country.
The US could do more for world peace if they would take their money out of the UN and spend it on a military buildup. You acheive peace through strength of your military and the determination of the leaders. When President Reagan was shown the connection to the PAN AM flight that was blown up over Scotland he bombed Libya and they suddenly cut back on their support of terror. Peace through strength is the answer not the UN.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
17 Feb 12
I couldn't agree more. It's like the big family business now. And their big contribution to the world is deciding to point out that mass murder is wrong -- because we lowly plebs just cannot grasp that prior the UN's condemnation.
I also agree that the US--and other countries as well--could and would do a lot more for peace in the absence of the UN and with the addition of the money, time and other resources spent on the UN's pointless existence.
In a way, the UN acts as a face-saver for cowards. They have the appearance of being against evil in the world, but they don't really do anything about it save saying that they don't mind or do mind someone else do something about it. The UN's personal forces (or whatever one would call them) didn't work out very well, if I remember correctly.
Thanks for the response.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
18 Feb 12
The is another totally useless government organization but this time it is a World Useless Organization. The members enjoy the prestige and I am pretty sure there must also be some kind of monetary benefits which the member get for sitting around and trying to look important. What a bunch of crap.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
19 Feb 12
Yep. The uselessness and ineffectiveness of government has now spread and joined forces to be useless and ineffective together. It's like a bad novel.
I can't speak to any type of salary they may or may not receive. But that's definitely something I'll look into now!
But here's a few things we can all be certain they get on the house: cushy trips to NYC; nice hotel stays; great meals; fine entertainment; diplomatic status to do whatever the hell they want (at least the "important" ones); a platform to spout ideals and grievances not afforded regular citizens; and all-around elitist lifestyle - the royal treatment.
One good cop or soldier, infinitely more effective at his or her task than the entire UN combined, barely makes enough to by in some places.
It's easy to see why so many people want careers in politics these days. You can vacation in one of the world's finest cities just to vote on whether or not you condemn the mass murder of thousands.
You can't make this crap up.
Okay. I'm going to go scream now!
Thanks for the response!
I can't speak to any type of salary they may or may not receive. But that's definitely something I'll look into now!
But here's a few things we can all be certain they get on the house: cushy trips to NYC; nice hotel stays; great meals; fine entertainment; diplomatic status to do whatever the hell they want (at least the "important" ones); a platform to spout ideals and grievances not afforded regular citizens; and all-around elitist lifestyle - the royal treatment.
One good cop or soldier, infinitely more effective at his or her task than the entire UN combined, barely makes enough to by in some places.
It's easy to see why so many people want careers in politics these days. You can vacation in one of the world's finest cities just to vote on whether or not you condemn the mass murder of thousands.
You can't make this crap up.
Okay. I'm going to go scream now!
Thanks for the response!
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
17 Feb 12
God help us if the UN ever invades..I mean helps us.
1 person likes this
@amko1of1 (69)
• United States
19 Feb 12
Well first off the UN is a big waste of space, because their are opposing views on everything that have veto power (mainly China and Russia on one side, and the U.S. and its allies on the other). Condemning is something that must take place in a series of actions. Condemning is the first, this tells them that they are not going to get any aid from the UN or from any other international organization. Also it tells them that they are no longer allowed to vote in UN functions until they change their actions. Also it tells whoever is doing the condemnable act that they can be charged in the international courts if they continue their actions and are apprehended either by their own people or by an international force. The UN does some good things, for instance the Somalia conflict used UN forces (mainly U.S. troops but thats because we were the nation in charge). Also their have been many other UN humanitarian missions. While it is a large waste of space, its bueracracy and it has its own ups and downs and its own slow moving process.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
19 Feb 12
Sure -- the UN has perhaps done some good things. I wouldn't paint them as sinister or anything. But these good things don't make me think that the organization isn't useless.
Without the UN, I'd argue that more humanitarian missions would be carried out, more aid would be sent to places where it's most needed, and fewer dictators would be able to rise.
Swimming through the bureaucratic ocean trying to reach a consensus on something is pointless.
I assumed that a condemnation was the first step in anything. That's why I said it's a useless first step. Brutal, murdering tyrant = BAD. That shouldn't require a vote. The fact it does require a vote and a drawn-out process through which people weigh in on how to handle it, tells me the reason these steps are in place: not everyone is going to agree that killing is a bad thing or that someone needs to stop it.
I appreciate the concept; I just feel the organization is essentially useless.
Thanks for the response.
@lampar (7584)
• United States
20 Feb 12
U.N need some structural overhaul in their security council term. The life long permanent members seats allocated to only five nations that weild veto power for ages need to change before it can move forward to take action on serious crimes against humanity committed by tyranny regime or outlaw nation. It is hard to get full support votes from all members of security council to pass a resolution condemning civilian massacre in Syria when country with authoritarian regime sitting in the security council don't consider killing of civilian including many women, children and opposition members as murder and massacre. It is not quite surprising after all. 
@polaris77 (2039)
• Bacau, Romania
17 Feb 12
I agree completely to what you said,I think this UN session is a joke and the Syrian tyrant doesn't give ac damn about it,he will go on slaughtering innocent people who only want a little freedom and democracy for their country.The UN is a completely useless organization and I'm sure Syrian people know that they don't have to wait for help from outside if they want to dethrone the tyrant and change the regime in their country,they can only rely on themselves in their fight for freedom and unfortunately there will be many other sacrifices until they overthrow the government and punish the dictator for crimes against humanity.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
19 Feb 12
No doubt the UN is the furthest things from the minds of Syrians, and it will probably always be like that. With an organization like the UN around, vicious dictators shouldn't come to power in the first place. Once they do, the UN is pointless.
The UN acts like an outlet for cowardly SOBs who wouldn't do anything to help people in the first place. At least with the UN, they can meet to vote to say they disagree with murder, and then they can at least fool themselves into believing they've done something.
UN = bad joke.
You're right. They'll have to fight for themselves.
Thanks for the response.
