user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
I think that for these people, and indeed hundreds of millions of others, stopping genocide, famine, and war would be a more worthy goal for the UN to dedicate it's energies to.
Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
To be honest I have no problem with rights for the disabled and think the UN is right on this one. With that said the UN is in my opinion utterly useless as a whole.
Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
Obviously ending genocide is the immediate pressing need. However, this isn't an "either/or" option. A competent organization would do both. The phrase "Competent and the UN" is an oxymoron. They aren't using "concentration camps" in Darfur either. Its more along the lines of enter a village, destroy it, rape the women and kill everyone there.
The United Nations Security Council needs to be reformed. Like many of our more conservative Americans, it appears to be stuck in 1945 -- save for the removal of the USSR and the entrance of Russia and the People's Republic of China. The one-veto power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council is even more ridiculous than not granting other nations like Japan permanent seats in the council. You could get Britain, France, Russia, and the United States on board to intervene in Sudan (not to mention the majority of the non-permanent members of the Security Council), and China says: "No, I don't think we'll be doing that." Back to square 1.
What's the connection?
^ The point I was making is that the UN is capable of moving with great speed on meaningless gestures such as this (it's not a bad idea in theory, but it won't be enforced, so it's just paper) but when it comes to actually upholding their ideals they drag their feet (the genocide in Sudan, among other atrocities, has been going on for years and has yet to recieve even a sternly worded letter from the UN).
To me this is about like the city council speedily churning out an ordinance asking people to stop littering that isn't binding, as the city burns to the ground.
Herzog, this ballot is highly fallacious.
I can't give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. I believe that the UN is too incompetent to address the problems of either genocide OR rights of the disabled. The disabled rights they will draw up will sit gathering dust with the other human rights that they 'declared'. The only big news in that story is that the EU adopted the laws. But they could have and probably would have implemented such into actual practice without the UN. The UN itself will not enforce the rights of the disabled. The UN just wants to appear virtuous- teh appearance of such is crucial, because in practice they are not much.
seamus - I disagree. Sarcastic perhaps, but not fallacious. "fight to death to ensure that the concentration camps they are forced in to are wheelchair accessible" - Obviously it is not true that the UN is pushing for disabled rights as much as they can in Sudan. It is sarcasm. It seems that the UN isn't truly pushing for any rights in Sudan really.
Voted : No, they'd probably prefer the UN did something about the genocide instead
Would be such a lovely thought. Maybe ifwe all got together and bought them an oil well. That might get them noticed.
|
|