United Nations - Out of Control! davidk14: North Korea closed all its universities and is forcing all students into hard labor. North Korea is now chairing the UN Disarmament Conference. What?????? ________________________________ North Korea Shuts Down Universities to Send Students to Work June 29, 2011 North Korea has shut down its universities for the next 10 months so students can work in factories to help rebuild the country's depleted economy, according to the Daily Telegraph. The communist regime ordered all universities Monday to cancel all classes until next April 2012. The Telegraph reports that North Korean students will be put to work on construction projects in major cities. One Japanese professor tells the U.K. paper that Pyongyang may be worried about students uprising against the government. "The leadership has seen the 'Jasmine Revolution' in Africa and it is very frightened that the same thing could happen in North Korea. They fear it could start in the universities," Toshimitsu Shigemura, a professor at Tokyo's Waseda University, told the Telegraph. Shigemura also said that North Korea recently purchased anti-riot gear from China and that there has been an increased police presence in Pyongyang. ________________________________ North Korea to Chair UN Disarmament Conference June 29, 2011 Despite numerous breaches of arms embargoes and continued threats to expand its nuclear weapons program, North Korea has assumed the presidency of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. In a speech to the 65-nation arms control forum in Geneva, the newly-appointed president, North Korean Ambassador So Se Pyong, said he was “very much committed to the Conference.” Appointing a North Korean to chair the UN’s only multilateral disarmament forum is like “asking the fox to guard the chickens,” says Hillel Neuer, of the UN watchdog organization UN Watch. Neuer is calling on the U.S. and European governments to protest the appointment, which he says, “damages the UN’s credibility.” >  toodels: LOL@Sables - im lazy girl though for yr shocked face i read the thing. the UN and the Koreans - well wt do ya do??  (Post deleted by staff ) Comrade_: Would be interesting to observe how North Korea will now act, whether this "appointment" will make them change. Everyone will be watching and it puts them in the spotlight for criticism. davidk14: . Like putting Iran on the Commission of Human Rights will change Irans view of human rights? . Comrade_: 1. Iran was not placed on the Commission of Human Rights, I believe you meant the Commission of Women's Rights. 2. I said it will be interesting to watch "whether" this changes their views. 3. I don't know the future  FogofWar: The UN has been useless for decades. It's not surprising that they would make a move like this really...at least not to me. It won't be the first time the UN has made a major error. I really don't see this changing North Korea's position on anything. In the spotlight? You mean they weren't when they were threatening nuclear holocaust? I see this changing North Korean policy as much as declaring war on Germany changed Hitler's Jewish policy....easy chrono...we all know. The one thing I can see this changing however is the people of North Korea's position. If they protest this move; how long before riot teams swarm in. South Korea finally has a chance to show the citizens of North Korea who the real bad guys are; and extend a helping hand. Such a move could spell the downfall to the communist regime in the North; like is destined to happen with all communist states at some point. The question is how much blood must be spilled to see this to fulfillment? younlee: Fog>>>>The UN has been useless for decades. It's not surprising that they would make a move like this really...at least not to me. It won't be the first time the UN has made a major error. Is this the same UN that gave you your war in Irag?? The same UN that gave the go ahead for the military action in Libya??? FogofWar: The UN never gave anyone the war in Iraq…and the UN only gave its consent for Libya. It was NATO that pushed for intervention in Libya; and it was France that initiated action. younlee: Well my Fog my very well informed friend, in the UK we went to war in Iraq on the basis of UN resolution 1441...it was how our great and VERY old parliment was persuaded to vote for such a war!! It was the sole justification for the war other than the 12 year old kids thesis that was pulled from the internet(i wonder if you wrote that)!!! In Libya its is exactly the same thing,I cant remember the exact resolution but we are there because we have the UN's authorisation to do so!!! Comrade_: The UN sprung from the Leagues of Nations. It has accomplished things, we can't deny it has, the list is long I'm sure you can find it on Google. They do need to improve. FogofWar: Younlee, you are not making any sense. I did not defend the UN. I have never defended the UN, nor have I ever ignored their resolution 1441…rather the opposite. It was resolution 1973 that gave UN consent to the No Fly Zone in Libya. The UN is useless in every aspect. Not one good thing can be said about the UN's role in peace efforts in regards to military intervention. They shed more blood than need be; all for the sake of 'liberalism' and 'equal treatment'. They are the most useless organization involved in military affairs; and the members should be stripped of all authority. They are not fit to make decisions for their own lives; let alone the world. The UN sanctioned Iraq; threatened invasion if Hussein failed to comply with resolution 1441, demanding weapon's inspections…and when he failed; and the US and the UK were ready to move; the UN turned tail and said they disapproved of it. Just like they did in Rwanda; just like they did in Bosnia; and just like they are doing in Libya. The world will be a better place when it ignores the United Nations. FogofWar: Yes caveman; the list of accomplishments for the UN is long...and top of the list is Rwanda. Followed by Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan (we are currently in Darfur; did you even notice?), Cambodia, etc. etc. etc. The UN doesn't need improvement; it needs to be abolished. Comrade_: The work of the UN has many different fields, I suggest you research on it and their accomplishments. The organisation needs to be improved. If it is to be abolished then I suggest another International organisation in its place, but one with more military backing and transparency and seriousness placed on country-country conflicts. Comrade_: Interesting snippet on the war in Darfur: "Gérard Prunier, a scholar specializing in African conflicts, argued that the world's most powerful countries have largely limited themselves in expressing concerns and demand for the United Nations to take action in solving the genocide in Darfur. The UN, lacking both the funding and military support of the wealthy countries, has left the African Union to deploy a token force (AMIS) without a mandate to protect civilians. In the lack of foreign political will to address the political and economic structures that underlie the conflict, the international community has defined the Darfur conflict in humanitarian assistance terms and debated the label of "genocide." Comrade_: The UN will not be abolished, might be 'renamed' again. But when you look at globalization, there should be an independent organisation (UN/no UN) that set rules & standards for other countries. FogofWar: "The work of the UN has many different fields, I suggest you research on it and their accomplishments." I deal with the UN for a living caveman. I am well aware of their different fields; and of their 'accomplishments'. I specifically commented on their military intervention policy; although if you would like to bring up their other accomplishments; we can gladly discuss the fraudulent activity in their UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. "If it is to be abolished then I suggest another International organisation in its place…" That is exactly my point. "but one with more military backing and transparency and seriousness placed on country-country conflicts." Again; I agree. This is the difference between NATO and the UN. "Reasoning would tell you that a single country can not carry the burden." No one says they can, nor should. "The UN will not be abolished, might be 'renamed' again." It has never been 'renamed'. The League of Nations was entirely different to the United Nations. They operate on two completely separate systems and methods. NATO is closer to what the League of Nations was than the UN is. Personally, I would love to see the League of Nations come back. Comrade_: I did say they need to improve. The UN provides more humanitarian views whereas NATO is more military. You need an organisation with the both. Force without understanding is meaningless. There are more problems to deal with than wars, and these problems are what cause wars. FogofWar: NATO is based on Cold War policy. It has shortcomings; but has proven far more effective than the UN. The UN spends 99.9% of it's effort solely to make it appear that it is helping; and laying the blame for shortcomings on everyone else. It's a group of people who act like they want to be Oprah; and yet don't want to get their hands dirty; so no one can look down on them for making mistakes. Yet the man who makes no mistake is the man who has never taken action. We don't need policy makers who are more concerned with public image than doing what matters. So many hate on our forces for what they have done; that's because we care more about doing what needs to be done than how we look in the public eye. ...The UN is useless. | Politics Chat Room 81 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
