UN says: UAV strikes may break int'l law

[SkywardET]

I think I know what point you're trying to make... but are you really conflating the UN and Abu Ghraib?

I was using a metaphor. UN is a government, and Abu Ghraib was a severe scandal under the purview of a (different) government. Next time I will use a similie to be more clear, or just keep the focus on one thing and not use an example brought up by a previous poster (Brett).

And that was the precise point I was trying to make. Every organization or nation screws things up once in a while. I think ET is suggesting that the UN is a fundamentally corrupt institution because it has had some scandals in the past. That's a seriously flawed (I believe, agenda driven) way of looking at things. If he's ready to condemn the UN as a whole because of "food for oil" or "Congo rapes," then he has to be prepared to condemn the US for Abu Ghraib and the Enron scandal. Of course, that's ridiculous - and that's my point.

The UN is not fundamentally corrupt because of the scandals in the past. The UN is inherently corrupt, I believe, because its responsibilities in aggregate are not commensurate with its powers. In other words, any given official in the UN has more "leeway" than is good for them, and that leads to trouble. It's the same for essentially every government, and gets worse as its power grows. The US government, as an example, is also inherently corrupt for the same reason--it's among the largest of governments on the planet by some metrics. I understand that some will disagree, but I call them how I see them.

ET, we don't have to figure out a way to separate the good from the bad because they're always going to coexist. That's human nature, so we accept the institution because it is, on balance, fundamentally good - in spite of the occasional flaw.

Brett

Quit when it gets hard. Got it.

 

[Brett327]

I was using a metaphor. UN is a government, and Abu Ghraib was a severe scandal under the purview of a (different) government. Next time I will use a similie to be more clear, or just keep the focus on one thing and not use an example brought up by a previous poster (Brett).

The UN is not fundamentally corrupt because of the scandals in the past. The UN is inherently corrupt, I believe, because its responsibilities in aggregate are not commensurate with its powers. In other words, any given official in the UN has more "leeway" than is good for them, and that leads to trouble. It's the same for essentially every government, and gets worse as its power grows. The US government, as an example, is also inherently corrupt for the same reason--it's among the largest of governments on the planet by some metrics. I understand that some will disagree, but I call them how I see them.


Quit when it gets hard. Got it.

I don't think I would define the UN as a government. It's really an intra-governmental body. I also don't agree with your definition of corruption (responsibilities vs powers). I might buy that as a theoretical potential for corruption, but neither of these two points are relevant since you proceed to conflate (for purposes of this discussion) the US government with the UN - thus making my original point for me. I don't know if that was your intent.

As for quitting when it gets hard, I don't know what you're getting at here.

As is your trend, I don't think you get (or accept) the very important differences between your theoretical ideals and real world application. I mean, what would you do differently vis-a-vis the UN? I'm dying to know. I don't want to put you (back) into the "whining about the status quo" box, but my index finger is hovering over the switch.

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

As for quitting when it gets hard, I don't know what you're getting at here.

As is your trend, I don't think you get (or accept) the very important differences between your theoretical ideals and real world application. I mean, what would you do differently vis-a-vis the UN? I'm dying to know. I don't want to put you (back) into the "whining about the status quo" box, but my index finger is hovering over the switch.

Brett

What would I do? Depending on what my capabilities were with regards to the UN, I would do what you don't know what I'm getting at. I would try to separate the baby from the bathwater. I would try to separate the good from the bad, even though "they are always going to coexist." I wouldn't quit trying, even if it gets hard. If I had the bully pulpit, I would blast the officials that breach the trust of the public. If I had the purse strings, I would tighten them, or at least more vigilantly monitor them. Etc.

I tend to agree with Flash on this one. The UN is inept and inefficient, but does some good when others do not and also serves as an international forum. The original topic discussed here is actually fairly significant, for instance. However, just because the UN feeds someone or has whatever other noble-minded goal, that does not exempt them from criticism.

 

[Brett327]

What would I do? Depending on what my capabilities were with regards to the UN, I would do what you don't know what I'm getting at. I would try to separate the baby from the bathwater. I would try to separate the good from the bad, even though "they are always going to coexist." I wouldn't quit trying, even if it gets hard. If I had the bully pulpit, I would blast the officials that breach the trust of the public. If I had the purse strings, I would tighten them, or at least more vigilantly monitor them. Etc.

I tend to agree with Flash on this one. The UN is inept and inefficient, but does some good when others do not and also serves as an international forum. The original topic discussed here is actually fairly significant, for instance. However, just because the UN feeds someone or has whatever other noble-minded goal, that does not exempt them from criticism.

Nobody ever suggested that they should be free from criticism. So just because I point out some positives of the UN, you interpret that as my wholesale support and endorsement of every aspect of it? WTF kind of bizarre logic is that?

Ironically, your idea of separating the baby from the bathwater sounds just like communism. You can't change human nature, my young friend. People will always be corrupt to some extent, always be greedy, always be looking for an angle. Marx thought the way you do and look at what his brilliant ideas brought the world. That is precisely the danger of the unbridled idealism which you so clearly espouse. Be it right or left of the political spectrum, extremism is bad for the people.

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

Nobody ever suggested that they should be free from criticism. So just because I point out some positives of the UN, you interpret that as my wholesale support and endorsement of every aspect of it? WTF kind of bizarre logic is that?

Ironically, your idea of separating the baby from the bathwater sounds just like communism. You can't change human nature, my young friend. People will always be corrupt to some extent, always be greedy, always be looking for an angle. Marx thought the way you do and look at what his brilliant ideas brought the world. That is precisely the danger of the unbridled idealism which you so clearly espouse. Be it right or left of the political spectrum, extremism is bad for the people.

Brett

I don't know how to interpret your post except as an obvious joke. I didn't find it all that funny, but perhaps you're operating on the Dennis Miller ratio.

Okay, on the off chance you are being serious... seriously? You seriously want to say I put words in your mouth, then immediately do the same the very next paragraph? No, that can't be what you mean, which is why I stand by my assumption that you're just fucking with me. Also, there's also no possible way in hell that anyone, anyone on the planet, could call putting a check on a governmental agency (or "intra-governmental body") a form of communism. It's just... I mean... you are so confusing! Happy Halloween!

 

[Brett327]

I don't know how to interpret your post except as an obvious joke. I didn't find it all that funny, but perhaps you're operating on the Dennis Miller ratio.

Okay, on the off chance you are being serious... seriously? You seriously want to say I put words in your mouth, then immediately do the same the very next paragraph? No, that can't be what you mean, which is why I stand by my assumption that you're just fucking with me. Also, there's also no possible way in hell that anyone, anyone on the planet, could call putting a check on a governmental agency (or "intra-governmental body") a form of communism. It's just... I mean... you are so confusing! Happy Halloween!

You're clearly confused. Perhaps you'd better stop before you hurt yourself. It's been a real slice of heaven going around and around with you, but this is, once again, starting to feel a lot like herding cats.

Brett