So how about all the unethical stuff that's been reported about the U.N.? First they got the Oil-for-Food debacle and now employees saying that the U.N. bosses promote corruption. The U.N. is pretty U.N.-ethical, no? :lol:

You didn't just figure this out now did you. :lol: :lol:

The UN is a pile of rubbish, they might as well not exist.

[quote=Civic_Zen]You didn't just figure this out now did you. :lol: :lol:

The UN is a pile of rubbish, they might as well not exist.[/quote]

Welcome back Civic Zen - the voice of reason. :lol:

[quote=mixu][quote=Civic_Zen]You didn't just figure this out now did you. :lol: :lol:

The UN is a pile of rubbish, they might as well not exist.[/quote]

Welcome back Civic Zen - the voice of reason. :lol:[/quote]

Just about to say this myself. Welcome to your new favorite board on [ms] :P

hi Civic, Good to have you back. :D

As for the U.N. If they are that worthless, why is Bush trying to pass thorugh a new U.N. resolution about Iraq? I mean, I know that the U.N. is a bit corrupt and never acts in time, but I still think that the world situation without U.N. would be a whole lot worse.

Definately. The oil-for-food scandal was enough to set me off. Just makes you wonder why the U.S. never received a U.N. resolution, maybe its cause theyre all a bunch of money hungry pigs. But I agreee, without the U.N. things could be a lot worse.

[quote=brakada]hi Civic, Good to have you back. :D

As for the U.N. If they are that worthless, why is Bush trying to pass thorugh a new U.N. resolution about Iraq? I mean, I know that the U.N. is a bit corrupt and never acts in time, but I still think that the world situation without U.N. would be a whole lot worse.[/quote]

You do make an interesting point. Post WHORE. :lol: . But yea. Maybe worthless is a bit inaccurate, but only a bit. And I think Bush has done the right thing always trying to work with the UN and everything. I also think he did the right thing when he told them to f~ck off and just did what he felt was right.

[quote=Civic_Zen] You do make an interesting point. Post WHORE. :lol: . But yea. Maybe worthless is a bit inaccurate, but only a bit. And I think Bush has done the right thing always trying to work with the UN and everything. I also think he did the right thing when he told them to f~ck off and just did what he felt was right.[/quote]

It's Mr. Post WHORE for you. :lol: And I'm not a whore, I just like to practice my English. :wink:

I think it was wrong that Bush told the U.N. to f**k off. I'm also quite sure that he could get the resolution about Iraq through in the security council if he tried a bit harder. Now it seems to me as he discovered that "leaving" U.N. was wrong and he just wants / needs them back.

[quote=brakada][quote=Civic_Zen] You do make an interesting point. Post WHORE. :lol: . But yea. Maybe worthless is a bit inaccurate, but only a bit. And I think Bush has done the right thing always trying to work with the UN and everything. I also think he did the right thing when he told them to f~ck off and just did what he felt was right.[/quote]

It's Mr. Post WHORE for you. :lol: And I'm not a whore, I just like to practice my English. :wink:

I think it was wrong that Bush told the U.N. to f**k off. I'm also quite sure that he could get the resolution about Iraq through in the security council if he tried a bit harder. Now it seems to me as he discovered that "leaving" U.N. was wrong and he just wants / needs them back.[/quote]

Ya. He did get himself into a mess thats for sure. But he didn't want to wait any longer. Mistakes were made, I won't argue that, but I still say ousting Saddam was a good thing as a whole. Especially when the UN acted like they wouldn't do a damn thing. Besides, they had their chance the 8 years that they "inspected" his country for WMD. And what about the 2 years or so that Saddam refused to allow them in, or the 6 weeks Saddam demanded before he would let them in before Bush actually told them to F~ck off. Saddam was in no position to demand anything, or disallow anybody. And now its going to take a frickin decade of trials before the bastard gets what he deserves.

[quote=Civic_Zen] But he didn't want to wait any longer. [/quote]

His impatience probably cost you guys a whole lot of money IMo, because if the campaign was better prepaired or better planned, a lot less $$$ would be spent, a lot less Americans would be dead, and the situation would have been a lot better. Again, that's just my opinion.

[quote=Civic_Zen] but I still say ousting Saddam was a good thing as a whole.[/quote]

No one ever tried to deny this. It was definitely a good thing. But what will happen in Iraq next? Well, we'll see. And although I was strongly opposing the Iraq campaign I hope things will get better and I think that US troops shouldn't move out before life gets back to "normal" in Iraq.

BACK to normal?? I don't see where the "back" part applies.

I think the world would be better off without the UN. For example, how effective can the U.N. Human Rights Committee be when countries like China and Syria are on it. Think of the places where the U.N.has been involved: Iraq, Congo, Haiti, just to name a few. Somehow all these palces never seemed to improve much. They propped up a dictator in Haiti, have had money laundering and prostitution charges against them in the Congo, and Saddam Hussein ignored 17 resolutions while top UN officials got rich off the oil-for-food program at the expense of millions of people. Furthermore, of all the countries and dictators in the world, they've issued more resoultions against Israel than ANY OTHER nation. Screw the UN.

[quote=acmatos]BACK to normal?? I don't see where the "back" part applies.

I think the world would be better off without the UN. For example, how effective can the U.N. Human Rights Committee be when countries like China and Syria are on it. Think of the places where the U.N.has been involved: Iraq, Congo, Haiti, just to name a few. Somehow all these palces never seemed to improve much. They propped up a dictator in Haiti, have had money laundering and prostitution charges against them in the Congo, and Saddam Hussein ignored 17 resolutions while top UN officials got rich off the oil-for-food program at the expense of millions of people. Furthermore, of all the countries and dictators in the world, they've issued more resoultions against Israel than ANY OTHER nation. Screw the UN.[/quote]

Well things were much better in Iraq than in europe or the entire western world once, but that's a really long time ago (a few thousand BC) :wink:.

I have to disagree strongly about the U.N. though. The things without U.N. the world would definitely be a much worse place. I AM AWARE THAT UN IS FAR FROM PERFECT, but you can't look like it's just a civil rights movement. Do you claim that without UN people's rights would be respected. Even the USA do not respect the civil rights entirely. So f*ckin' what? People never will. They do to some extent, which imo is increased by the UN. It has a faint influence on things. China is slowly opening to the world and will in some time (a hundred years or less) probably progress to a democratic country. Countries like China and USA are cooperating today, while 50 years ago they couldn't stand each other (I know they don't love each other now, but still, they're progressing). It's not like the UN is a magical box to solve all problems, but it helps solving some issues, which could have ended in blood and violence. It isn't controlled by anyone (although a lot of people could argue with that one), but because of the variety of interests it is hard to produce results to everbody's likening.

To conclude:

IMO the problem isn't the UN. The problem is the world we live in (all the countries). It has been corrupt and "selfish" for as long as we can remember. The UN is the best thing we have to solve international problems and to help the world improve (OK and there's the WTO, too :wink: ) and until we find something better, we should at least give it some respect and credit, after all it represents the world and people.

UN Council

UN representatives (appointed by the governments)

Governments (at least in some cases democratically elected by people like you and me :wink:)

So, the UN is kind of a reflection of our morals and principles.

[quote=brakada]
I have to disagree strongly about the U.N. though. The things without U.N. the world would definitely be a much worse place. I AM AWARE THAT UN IS FAR FROM PERFECT, but you can't look like it's just a civil rights movement. Do you claim that without UN people's rights would be respected. Even the USA do not respect the civil rights entirely. So f*ckin' what? People never will. They do to some extent, which imo is increased by the UN. It has a faint influence on things. China is slowly opening to the world and will in some time (a hundred years or less) probably progress to a democratic country. Countries like China and USA are cooperating today, while 50 years ago they couldn't stand each other (I know they don't love each other now, but still, they're progressing). It's not like the UN is a magical box to solve all problems, but it helps solving some issues, which could have ended in blood and violence. It isn't controlled by anyone (although a lot of people could argue with that one), but because of the variety of interests it is hard to produce results to everbody's likening.

To conclude:

IMO the problem isn't the UN. The problem is the world we live in (all the countries). It has been corrupt and "selfish" for as long as we can remember. The UN is the best thing we have to solve international problems and to help the world improve (OK and there's the WTO, too :wink: ) and until we find something better, we should at least give it some respect and credit, after all it represents the world and people.

UN Council

UN representatives (appointed by the governments)

Governments (at least in some cases democratically elected by people like you and me :wink:)

So, the UN is kind of a reflection of our morals and principles.[/quote]

Ok you make a good case for the UN. And, I can appreciate your idealism, which I share in many respects. Nonetheless, I don't see exactly how the UN is responsible for promoting human rights or for bringing China and the USA closer. I would credit capitalism and free trade(WTO is good,as you pointed out). In the case of China, it is the Chinese officials' desire to stay in power by improving the standard of living there. As you said, the world is corrupt, but this is minimized by ECONOMIC measures not political ones. The problem witht the UN is that it plays exactly to the selfish desires of humans. You have all these world "leaders" living it up in NYC, and in most cases(i.e. Africa, Middle East, Asia), the people in their countries have barely enough food to eat. They sit there with all these other "leaders" and pretend to fix things. What have they done so far. How far along is Africa? Asia? The middle East? Not far. And, any progress has come directly through economic policy which manifests itself in a higher standard of living that allows people to go to school and get medicine.. But these guys in NYC are living the life, so what do they care if people back home are swatting flies. And anyway, why can't government officials interact directly with one another? Why does there need to be some intermediate area?(other than being a great place for money to disappear) I say the UN should exist to distribute food and only food to struggling countries. Other than that, it is just another example of a wasteful and corrupt governing body. A "faint influence on things" isn't good enough. There is just too much money, most of which comes from the USA, being spent on failed programs and disappearing into foreign bank accounts.

We will most likely disagree on this issue at a fundamental level, but these discussions are what politics are all about. This forum could get fun! :wink: I would encourage you to look into some of the things that are currently going on in the UN. Some intersting links are:

[url]www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000773.html[/url] (may be slow to open) [url]www.instapundit.com[/url] (lots of info on many subjects)

[quote=acmatos] And, I can appreciate your idealism, which I share in many respects. [/quote]

I am far from being idealistic, I try to be as realistic as I can. I am aware of the flaws of the UN, but name one "perfect" organization or company which is that diverse and that complex. Even employees of large companies, where workers should share their interests to benefit the company (in theory though) and their co-workers are often subjected to corruption. That's just the way it is. Sadly, though. :(

[quote=acmatos] Nonetheless, I don't see exactly how the UN is responsible for promoting human rights or for bringing China and the USA closer. [/quote]

IMO every economical and other cooperation was preceeded by diplomacy and political agreements (most of which took place inside the UN). It's not just the capitalism that makes the world better (if?).

[quote=acmatos] But these guys in NYC are living the life, so what do they care if people back home are swatting flies. [/quote]

I agree that's a large part of the problem. UN council should be moved to Angola. :lol: with councelours living in mud huts without water and eating flies. Well, I'd let Annan out, cause he seems quite an honest guy, who really tries to improve things (but 1 man is never enough to change the world).

[quote=acmatos] And anyway, why can't government officials interact directly with one another? Why does there need to be some intermediate area?(other than being a great place for money to disappear) [/quote]

because they're too busy scratching their asses, falling off bikes, playing golf and lying to their own people, so someone has to lie in the UN for them. :lol:

[quote=acmatos] Other than that, it is just another example of a wasteful and corrupt governing body. [/quote]

Most of the governments are wasteful and corrupt. The bigger the government, the more corrupt it is. :wink:

[quote=acmatos] A "faint influence on things" isn't good enough. There is just too much money, most of which comes from the USA, being spent on failed programs and disappearing into foreign bank accounts.[/quote]

I just checked the UN operations list at: [url]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Timeline%20of%20UN%20peacekeeping%20missions[/url]

and I think the UN solved quite a couple of crisis. They always came late, but you know what they say: It's better late, than never. I am aware that the situations in most of these countries hasn't gotten much better, but you can't blame the hatred between different nations on the UN. On the other hand, you must admit that the UN was the place for settling most of the diplomatic and politic problems in the 20th century.

And we should not forget the UNICEF and the UNESCO program. Although some money goes into private accounts, still a lot of children and people depend on these programmes.

And everybody's bitching about the UN (the Americans, teh Europeans, Arabs,...) but noone does a thing to improve the UN.

Still, almost all the UN operations (whether they were successful or not) had more international reputation then i.e. the War in Iraq.

[quote=acmatos] We will most likely disagree on this issue at a fundamental level, but these discussions are what politics are all about. This forum could get fun! :wink: I would encourage you to look into some of the things that are currently going on in the UN. Some intersting links are:

[url]www.acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000773.html[/url] (may be slow to open) [url]www.instapundit.com[/url] (lots of info on many subjects)[/quote]

Well, this forum is fun already!!! 8) I tried the links, but the 1st one just wasn't working. I read a couple of things on the second one though.[/url]

I agree on the stand that the UN is an obsolete entity (wow, that one was hard to produce). It is indeed gulping up to much money in comparison with the results it gets, and I for one think that it is the enormity and complexity of it that makes it so immobile in the face of world politics. Always acting to late is not better than doing nothing: the bad has already happened and all you can do is clean up the mess.

The mandates they issue before intervening are also something I just can't understand: most of the time it says that no violence is permitted, only in case of direct violence against UN-peacekeeping forces. How do you expect to stop 2 people from fighting if you're only allowed to stand at the side yelling "Stop fighting, you fools!!". Give 'em both a slap in the face, that'll draw their attention.

And maybe countries acting on an individual basis can act faster if needed. It would be easy to form temporary allegiances with a few other countries that share your views, without having to take your proposal up for accordance to the UN Security council: there's just too many different interests involved to come to a quick decision. You're more likely to end up with a weak compromise, which in terms of taking action is almost equal to nothing...

In that view, I respect the USA and France, even though they haven't always made the right decisions. They took action whenever they deemed it nessecary and for the benefit of the international community.

[quote=Yao]I agree on the stand that the UN is an obsolete entity (wow, that one was hard to produce). It is indeed gulping up to much money in comparison with the results it gets, and I for one think that it is the enormity and complexity of it that makes it so immobile in the face of world politics. [/quote]

Agreed. Although I would add a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiide variety of interests. After all each country has its own interests and own views on certain issues. Something should definitely be changed.

[quote=Yao]Always acting to late is not better than doing nothing: the bad has already happened and all you can do is clean up the mess. [/quote]

Well, here I have to disagree. For example the bloodshed was stopped by the UN in Bosnia. (I know a lot of blood was spillt, but it would have ended a lot worse without the UN. So it's not much better than doing nothing, but it still is better.

[quote=Yao] The mandates they issue before intervening are also something I just can't understand: most of the time it says that no violence is permitted, only in case of direct violence against UN-peacekeeping forces. How do you expect to stop 2 people from fighting if you're only allowed to stand at the side yelling "Stop fighting, you fools!!". Give 'em both a slap in the face, that'll draw their attention. [/quote]

I don't understand that completely either. But I think I might know where the problem lies. Since the peace keeping forces come from a variety of countries, their soldiers share different views and opinions. And if they were entitled to the use of force, some UN troops would help one side, while others would help the other side and in the end there would be UN troops fighting each other. Well, that's just my theory.

[quote=Yao] And maybe countries acting on an individual basis can act faster if needed. It would be easy to form temporary allegiances with a few other countries that share your views, without having to take your proposal up for accordance to the UN Security council: there's just too many different interests involved to come to a quick decision. You're more likely to end up with a weak compromise, which in terms of taking action is almost equal to nothing...[/quote]

Well, you know where alliances have lead to in the past. Do the letters W W I and W W I I mean anything to you? they were all started by "alliances" to intervene without asking anybody else if they agree... :wink: :p

[quote=Yao] In that view, I respect the USA and France, even though they haven't always made the right decisions. They took action whenever they deemed it nessecary and for the benefit of the international community.[/quote]

And like the rules here on MS say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Although there may have been a couple of operations for the good of international community, most of the actions are taken due to superpowers' interests and selfish motives (either to help allies, to get to a certain resource or to strengthen the control in strategic parts of the world. Sad, but true, and this will probably never change.

Thnx for your comments Brakada, most of what you said sounds reasonable. A few things though: When I say that a peacekeeping force is allowed to use violence, it doesn't mean it would be used partially. It would mean that either of the involved parties would be sanctioned when misbehaving, and that any act of violence, no matter which side commits it, would be stopped with the use of force if nessecary, instead of just condemning it publicly and doing nothing. By the way, in Bosnia there have been reports of UN troops fighting amongst each other, although I've forgotten from which countries the ones involved came... :?

Acting late is al least as bad as doing nothing, because it gives the impression that the international community doesn't give a damn about what happened. It is worse because it usually is used to boast and say: look at us, good samaritans helping those poor people, while that just consumes enormous amounts of money and goods. And even if they help, they should really help: that means not just emergency relief, but building up a country insofar as it will be able to support it's own needs again. But prevention is still always the best option.

About the alliances: tricky, yes. But malign alliances if forged will still come to life, even if the UN forbids it. It's about those ones that are meant to intervene in a situation gone bad with people in need of help. Those ones can be made faster when there's not an enormous obstacle standing in the way (that is the UN). But on the other hand, the UN does have a certain amount of control over her members, so it might help in preventing 'evil' alliances coming into existence.

The one about the USA and France taking action independently I should have put differently. But it still stands, especially for France, that has on several occasions sent its troops to stop the fighting where it had no economical benefit, or at least not substantial, like Rwanda. Even though they really fluked on that one, protecting the genocidaires (Hutu) instead of those who where killed...(Tutsi).

By the way, your name reminds me of one of the quarters of Accra, the capital of Ghana. It is called Adabraka. Good Hotels over there for the backpackers. :GameOn:

The UN - great in principle, bloody awful in implementation.

The whole security council thing is dated and does not reflect the reality of thw world we live in. How on earth was it possible for Syria to chair it a while back! Yeah i felt much more secure!

As for the general assembly, if you can muster enough votes you can bloody well pass anything.

A discredited organisation which is corrupt on the ground and representing only a select view.

[quote=davetlv]The UN - great in principle, bloody awful in implementation.

The whole security council thing is dated and does not reflect the reality of thw world we live in. How on earth was it possible for Syria to chair it a while back! Yeah i felt much more secure!

As for the general assembly, if you can muster enough votes you can bloody well pass anything.

A discredited organisation which is corrupt on the ground and representing only a select view.[/quote]

Well said. :)

[quote=davetlv]The UN - great in principle, bloody awful in implementation.

The whole security council thing is dated and does not reflect the reality of thw world we live in. How on earth was it possible for Syria to chair it a while back! Yeah i felt much more secure!

As for the general assembly, if you can muster enough votes you can bloody well pass anything.

A discredited organisation which is corrupt on the ground and representing only a select view.[/quote]

Hi dave, welcome back. I agree totally about the UN. But it definitely still has the most "credibility" when it comes to international interventions. To explain myself: "No matter what the success of the operations is, they are approoved by most of the world. And are often respected by countries, who don't wholly agree. So it's kind of the opinion of the most of the world. The UN definitely need some reforms, which would enable it to act faster when it comes to "tense" situations. And it would definitely need it's own military means. Words are just not effective enough.

But regarding the Security Council: I mean it's made the way, smaller countries can do almost nothing. What could Syria do? Pass a resolution against Israel. Yeah, they wish... :wink: I think even of North Korea was charing the security council, nothing would be different... Like I said part-time members can do nothing in Security Council without the help of the others. It's all about the "big" guys. :wink:

Its good to be back!

To be credible the UN has first got to show that it is impartial - not only in its processes for making decisions but also, more importantly, in the implementation of those decisions.

As you know Brakada I only speak from personal knowledge and experience, in this situation its how I see the UN and its agencies operating with regards to Israel and the territories.

Let?s take the issue of refugees. The UN has without a doubt done some excellent work with refugees from many countries. The UNHCR clearly works for the benefit of those refugees. However, Palestinian refugees are serviced by a separate body set up in 1950. UNRWA has for the past 54 been managing some 23 refugee camps within the territories and another 32 camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria (you?ll note that Israeli occupation only started in 1967). In 1950 there were an estimated 600 000 Palestinian refugees, a similar figure of refugees was created when Jews living in Arab lands were either expelled or forced to leave.

Whereas Israel integrated its refugees, the Palestinians were left in UNRWA refugee camps in Gaza, The West Bank and the aforementioned countries. Whilst Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip UNRWA did nothing to help the Palestinian cause.

This raises the question why the UN needs two Refugee agencies ? one for the Palestinians and one for every other refugee on this planet?

More importantly we need to question if the UN is indeed a fair and unbiased organisation then why does it consistently turn a blind eye into clearly terrorist activities that take place within the camps it controls?

[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001943[/url]

[quote=davetlv] Whilst Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip UNRWA did nothing to help the Palestinian cause.

This raises the question why the UN needs two Refugee agencies ? one for the Palestinians and one for every other refugee on this planet?

More importantly we need to question if the UN is indeed a fair and unbiased organisation then why does it consistently turn a blind eye into clearly terrorist activities that take place within the camps it controls?

[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001943[/url][/quote]

Well, based on your comments the UN seems a fair and unbiased organization. They didn't do shit for the Palestinian cause and they didn't do shit to protect Israel from terrorism, so actually they helped noone. Isn't that fair and unbiased? :wink:

Don't worry, I know what you mean. I don't know why there is a seperate UN organization dealing with Palestinian refugees. Probably just another way for UN money "leaking". I was wondering a couple of times, why the UN never sent peacekeeping troops to Israel or Palestine, or guard the (non-existing) borders. Probably a lot could have been better.

[quote=brakada] Well, based on your comments the UN seems a fair and unbiased organization. They didn't do shit for the Palestinian cause and they didn't do shit to protect Israel from terrorism, so actually they helped noone. Isn't that fair and unbiased? :wink:

Don't worry, I know what you mean. I don't know why there is a seperate UN organization dealing with Palestinian refugees. Probably just another way for UN money "leaking". I was wondering a couple of times, why the UN never sent peacekeeping troops to Israel or Palestine, or guard the (non-existing) borders. Probably a lot could have been better.[/quote]

Obviously the excitement of a politics section has left me incapable of talking clearly. . . I'll try to rephrase.

Whilst doing diddlysquat on the ground for the Palestinian refugees, what UNRWA has become an expert in is allowing their camps to be used as a hot bed of terrorist activity. Whilst not serving the general cause of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA has no problem serving terrorists. Although they are not in this region as peacekeepers, thank god, they should also not be facilitators of war/terror. With a clear remit to help support the genuine refugees, which btw if this would have been anywhere in the world they would no longer be refugees due to various schemes of intergration, UNRWA fail.

Additionally there is confusion on who is a refugee - whilst the UN guidelines say one thing for the world in general, where it comes to the Palestinians it says something completely different (I will try a bit later to find suitable link to explain what i mean!)

As far as the confilict in this region the UN are totally discredited - under no circumstances should they ever be allowed to act as peace keepers here. Personally i don't have a problem as such with the idea of an international forc one in this region, i'm just not convinced the UN is the right one - NATO, although tough on Israel, might actually prove more effective in the long term as they dont have a 54 year history of allowing terrorists run free under their control here.

[quote=davetlv] Whilst doing diddlysquat on the ground for the Palestinian refugees, what UNRWA has become an expert in is allowing their camps to be used as a hot bed of terrorist activity. Whilst not serving the general cause of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA has no problem serving terrorists. Although they are not in this region as peacekeepers, thank god, they should also not be facilitators of war/terror. With a clear remit to help support the genuine refugees, which btw if this would have been anywhere in the world they would no longer be refugees due to various schemes of intergration, UNRWA fail.[/quote]

I think that UNRWA is mostly there for humanitarian reasons. To monitor the terrorist activities in the given conditions they would require at least an armed police force if not a military force, which they don't have. And in the mess that is evident in those camps it's very hard to maintain ANY order or control. And it's not the UN that directly supports terrorism, or terrorist activities. It would be almost like claiming that Israel supports terrorists because it gives them new reasons to attack Israel. (PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT I AM EXAGURATING A LOT) :wink: Most of the people in those camps are still innocent civilians, which struggle to survive from day to day.

[quote=davetlv] Additionally there is confusion on who is a refugee - whilst the UN guidelines say one thing for the world in general, where it comes to the Palestinians it says something completely different (I will try a bit later to find suitable link to explain what i mean!) [/quote]

IMO even the Israelis don't know exactly who are the refugees and who are the terrorists and that's why there is way too much collateral damage being done. I think Sharon uses too much "collective punishment". In the WWII in Slovenia (which was occupied by Germany, Italy and Hungary) there were a lot of partisans. The Germans/Nazis used the collective punishment, ie. they burnt down an entire village, where the families of those partisans lived or they took entire families to concentration camps, but their actions only ignited more people to join the partisans. I am NOT comparing Israel to Nazis or anything, I just wanted to provide an example of how ineffective collective punishment is.

[quote=davetlv] As far as the confilict in this region the UN are totally discredited - under no circumstances should they ever be allowed to act as peace keepers here. Personally i don't have a problem as such with the idea of an international forc one in this region, i'm just not convinced the UN is the right one - NATO, although tough on Israel, might actually prove more effective in the long term as they dont have a 54 year history of allowing terrorists run free under their control here.[/quote]

I agree that the UN was totally discredited, but maybe it would have been different if a peace keeping force was present. As for your comment on NATO, its just plain :BS: Come on, how can an organisation ran by USA and its allies be tough on Israel? And NATO is more appropriate for military interventions than peacekeeping missions and NATO has far too much bias, to be accepted by the Palestinians and the Arab nations. That's why I think that a UN force, formed by European, African and South American soldiers would be the most appropriate. Or maybe the European Intervention Force, when it comes to life, but I'm sure we'll have to wait a whole lot of time, before that happens.

I'm not talking about UNRWA monitoring general terrorist activity, i'm demanding that they dont allow their facilities to be used time and time again for such activity. In doing so they fail to offer humanitarian need and support for those use genuinely need it. Thus failing in their remit.

I have said this before, and i will say it again. I do not support Sharon and his government. I dont approve of collective punishment. But there is a difference between collateral damage and collective punishment. If a bomb factory is situated amongst kindergardens and residential areas, there is, unfortunatley a greater risk of collateral damage. If these terrorist actually cared about the people they say they are fighting for, then they would locate their bases outside of civillian areas - just like they used to back in the 70's and 80's. But then way should they, its better press for them is civillians get killed then just plain old terrorists.

As far as NATO is concerned, i'm not convinced they are run by the US, certainly a vast number of europeans would disagree with that. The US does not always get its way within NATO - but thats not the arguement.

As for not be accepted by Arab nations, well thats too frigging bad, they washed their hands on the Palestnians in 1948 and should have no say in this region today. This is not an Israeli-Arab conflict, its an Israeli-Palestnian one. The Arab nations have had plently of opportunity to help solve this crisis and instead they have made it worse - they are as discredited as the UN are.

As far as the EIF is concerned, here we could have agreement!

[quote=davetlv]I'm not talking about UNRWA monitoring general terrorist activity, i'm demanding that they dont allow their facilities to be used time and time again for such activity. In doing so they fail to offer humanitarian need and support for those use genuinely need it. Thus failing in their remit. [/quote] I get your point, but my point was that I do not know how could the UNRWA stop that. Should they just put a sign on the camp entrance: DO NOT USE THIS REFUGEE CAMP FOR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES!! Without a police or a military force such control is unattainable. I agree that it is wrong that such activities run in refugee camps, but I think that there are other reasons for the current situation. You would probably agree that the most poor Palestinians live in the worst possible conditions...and poverty and desperation probably offer the "best" conditions for terrorism to develop. Desperate people, who have nothing to loose are easier to be convinced that if they blow themselves up and kill a few "infidels" they will recieve eternal grace and blahblahblah. So, something should be done to improve general living conditions in Palestine.

[quote=davetlv] I have said this before, and i will say it again. I do not support Sharon and his government. I dont approve of collective punishment. But there is a difference between collateral damage and collective punishment. If a bomb factory is situated amongst kindergardens and residential areas, there is, unfortunatley a greater risk of collateral damage. If these terrorist actually cared about the people they say they are fighting for, then they would locate their bases outside of civillian areas - just like they used to back in the 70's and 80's. But then way should they, its better press for them is civillians get killed then just plain old terrorists. [/quote]

Well, there is a lot of collective punishment, too. If the houses of terrorists families' and relatives' houses are being torn down with a bunch of neighbouring houses, that my friend I regard as collective punishment. I agree that the terrorists exploit civilians and civilian locations, but there are methods with which "collateral" damage could be minimized: evacuating the area, precision attacks and so on. Israel is (like the USA in Iraq) only trying to keep the number of their own victims as low as possible, but this is IMHO not always the best thing to do (although it is good in short-term, it can not bring a long-term solution).

Recently I developped an interesting theory, which could path the way to friendship and peace. Well the thing is, Israel could provide some sort of "safe zones" (guarded by Israeli military or police forces) in the Palestinian or the bordering regions, where they could in cooperation with Palestinians provide educational and health services for the Palestinians. Because this would be co-operational, Israel could prevent any extremist stuff being passed on to the children and because most of the personnel would be Palestinian, I doubt such zones would be terrorists' premium targets. I don't know if the Palestinians or the Israelis would be willing to accept such zones, but I think this would be the best way to start improving conditions in the region and it would probably cost a lot less than the military operations, implemented by Sharon.

Knowledge is the key to everything. :wink: But that's just my theory.

[quote=davetlv] As far as NATO is concerned, i'm not convinced they are run by the US, certainly a vast number of europeans would disagree with that. The US does not always get its way within NATO - but thats not the arguement. [/quote]

well, I'll rephrase: I was trying to say that no decision in NATO can be taken without the approval of the USA, and they definitely have the most influence inside NATO, so I doubt that NATO would be any tougher on Israel, than the US are...

[quote=davetlv] As for not be accepted by Arab nations, well thats too frigging bad, they washed their hands on the Palestnians in 1948 and should have no say in this region today. This is not an Israeli-Arab conflict, its an Israeli-Palestnian one. The Arab nations have had plently of opportunity to help solve this crisis and instead they have made it worse - they are as discredited as the UN are. [/quote]

Arab nations have probably discredeted themselves even more than the UN. The UN never looked at Palestinians as their brothers... :wink: I still think the peace keeping force should be approved by the UN, and that is why I think the opinion of Arab / Muslim countries matters.

[quote=davetlv] As far as the EIF is concerned, here we could have agreement![/quote]

:Bingo: We'll just have to wait then, won't we? :wink:

[quote=brakada]

Recently I developped an interesting theory, which could path the way to friendship and peace. Well the thing is, Israel could provide some sort of "safe zones" (guarded by Israeli military or police forces) in the Palestinian or the bordering regions, where they could in cooperation with Palestinians provide educational and health services for the Palestinians. Because this would be co-operational, Israel could prevent any extremist stuff being passed on to the children and because most of the personnel would be Palestinian, I doubt such zones would be terrorists' premium targets. I don't know if the Palestinians or the Israelis would be willing to accept such zones, but I think this would be the best way to start improving conditions in the region and it would probably cost a lot less than the military operations, implemented by Sharon.

Knowledge is the key to everything. :wink: But that's just my theory.

[/quote]

Your last remark is absolutely true, but as for the 'safe zones' not being a terrorist target...I'm not convinced about that. As Hamas and some other groups are constantly trying to destabilize the peace process (if we can still call it that at this moment), I think they might actually make a really good target in their view. What's better to show what you think of it than destroying an initiative whose aim is to create a solid basis for future development and understanding? If I were a terrorist, that would be my ideal target. And they've shown not to hesitate to kill women and children...they might want to spare their own, but could still easily try and target for any Israelian involved or Palestinians of they are considered traitors to the cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong though... :Whoaa:

And the thought behind it is pretty OK IMO. But as long as Sharon is in power...I'm not betting on such an initiative to come to life.

[quote=Yao] Your last remark is absolutely true, but as for the 'safe zones' not being a terrorist target...I'm not convinced about that. As Hamas and some other groups are constantly trying to destabilize the peace process (if we can still call it that at this moment), I think they might actually make a really good target in their view. What's better to show what you think of it than destroying an initiative whose aim is to create a solid basis for future development and understanding? If I were a terrorist, that would be my ideal target. And they've shown not to hesitate to kill women and children...they might want to spare their own, but could still easily try and target for any Israelian involved or Palestinians of they are considered traitors to the cause.

Correct me if I'm wrong though... :Whoaa: [/quote]

Well, since it's an argument based on speculations, I guess I can still correct you. :wink: I think that terrorists wouldn't target Palestinian children and schools (I think the terrorists never "even" attacked schools or hospitals in Israel; and correct me if I am wrong), or even if they did, it would probably (my guess again) cause them to loose support amongst Palestinian population, thus a new Palestinian leadership could arise. And it would definitely be a better step towards peace than the current military campaigns. If not all, I guess at least some people's hatred would disappear or milden.

[quote=Yao] And the thought behind it is pretty OK IMO. But as long as Sharon is in power...I'm not betting on such an initiative to come to life.[/quote]

Well, you're right about that one. :Bingo: Well he's old and let's hope he dies soon. The same goes for Arafat, though. :lol:

[quote=brakada]hi Civic, Good to have you back. :D

As for the U.N. If they are that worthless, why is Bush trying to pass thorugh a new U.N. resolution about Iraq? I mean, I know that the U.N. is a bit corrupt and never acts in time, but I still think that the world situation without U.N. would be a whole lot worse.[/quote]

You know for a long time i used to hate the U.N. and think that it was really worthless, but now my eyes have been opened.

The U.N. is the tool that all nations use in order to justify going to war. One day Saddam is compliant with U.N. resolutions. The next day we're kickin his ass. Thanx U.N., without you guys we never would have had legal justification to kill Saddam and his sons. All we have to do is just watch the U.N. resolutions. When we find someone we hate screwin up, we'll bomb them and technically we will have acted within the provisions set forth. Man the U.N. really has made life better for us; and best of all we never even pay our dues. :RockOn:

America uses it to attack terrorists and dictators. Europe used it to attack Milosevic. Arabs blame it so they can attack Israel. Germany blamed its predecessor (LON) to try to take over the world. ETC.

:shock: <--------- This is U.N. supporter with his/her eyes now open.

[quote=mylexicon] You know for a long time i used to hate the U.N. and think that it was really worthless, but now my eyes have been opened. [/quote]

Finally!! :CrackUp: :CrackUp:

[quote=mylexicon] The U.N. is the tool that all nations use in order to justify going to war. One day Saddam is compliant with U.N. resolutions. The next day we're kickin his ass. Thanx U.N., without you guys we never would have had legal justification to kill Saddam and his sons. All we have to do is just watch the U.N. resolutions. When we find someone we hate screwin up, we'll bomb them and technically we will have acted within the provisions set forth. Man the U.N. really has made life better for us; and best of all we never even pay our dues. :RockOn:

America uses it to attack terrorists and dictators. Europe used it to attack Milosevic. Arabs blame it so they can attack Israel. Germany blamed its predecessor (LON) to try to take over the world. ETC.

:shock: <--------- This is U.N. supporter with his/her eyes now open.[/quote]

:CrackUp: :CrackUp: :CrackUp:

And this is hislexicon with his eyes wide open: :ZZZZ: If you had bothered to read a couple of my other posts in this topic, you yould have seen, that it's not just going to war what the UN is about. Where were most of the Cold War crisis solved? Inside the U.N. Do the abbreviations UNICEF and UNESCO mean anything to you? I thought not. What about the UN humanitarian help? You're probably going to throw at me the Food for Oil program, which was corrupt, but there were 10s if not 100s of humanitarian missions, which easened the life of many poor people around the world. So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.

Firstly I dont approve of punishing the family for the crimes of their offsprings. This style of retribution can never solve anything. I think that if my government has proof that the family knew or where involved with the crimes of their offsprings then they should be tried in a court of law, and not punished by the army.

Secondly, imagine the scenario, fliers are distributed amongst the population saying 'On Monday please evacuate your area as we are going to target so and so' - cant see this working can you? It is unfortunate that in war innocents get harmed, I dont like it, i dont particularly like war, but if those who send people out to murder my people can be taken out i aprove - i fully support targeted assasinations. I dont however accept civillian casualities, and whereever possible we should ensure that these are kept to a minimum - and my idea of minimum is 0.

Thirdly, as for terrorist never having attacked shcools and hospitals - you might be right, i can't remember every single attack, however, children also go on buses, go to cafes, go to shopping malls, young people go to nightclubs - these are all targets. Lets be clear, as far as Hamas and the like are concerned, when it comes to taking Jewish life, they dont care how old we are, 0 or 90.

Fourthly, last year when the Maxim was blown up in Haifa, it was not full of just Israeli Jews, there were also a large number of Israeli Arabs (Haifa is particularly known for it usual peaceful co-existence). The bomber made no differentiation between Jew and Arab - from their point of view is some arab/muslims are casualties then they become martyers. For them its collateral damage!

We might not like Sharon, but he is democratically elected, which is more then can be said about Arafat. We might not like his policies and we can vote him out at the next election, which is more then can be said about Arafat. There are presures put on Sharon which are leading him to the Gaza withdrawal, there are no presures put on Arafat which lead him to clamp down on his own armed faction let alone Hamas of Islamic Jihad. Granted they are both old war horses who time should have ended years ago; but whilst we punish our leaders for non-activity on the process Arafat remains the constant to ensuring peace within this region.

[quote=davetlv] We might not like Sharon, but he is democratically elected, which is more then can be said about Arafat. We might not like his policies and we can vote him out at the next election, which is more then can be said about Arafat. There are presures put on Sharon which are leading him to the Gaza withdrawal, there are no presures put on Arafat which lead him to clamp down on his own armed faction let alone Hamas of Islamic Jihad. Granted they are both old war horses who time should have ended years ago; but whilst we punish our leaders for non-activity on the process Arafat remains the constant to ensuring peace within this region.[/quote]

:Bingo:

I am not pleased with the UN. For a peace keeping service, they surely do poorly and have way too many politics. I know too much. hAlp.

[quote=davetlv]Firstly I dont approve of punishing the family for the crimes of their offsprings. This style of retribution can never solve anything. I think that if my government has proof that the family knew or where involved with the crimes of their offsprings then they should be tried in a court of law, and not punished by the army. [/quote] :Bingo: :D

[quote=davetlv] Secondly, imagine the scenario, fliers are distributed amongst the population saying 'On Monday please evacuate your area as we are going to target so and so' - cant see this working can you? It is unfortunate that in war innocents get harmed, I dont like it, i dont particularly like war, but if those who send people out to murder my people can be taken out i aprove - i fully support targeted assasinations. I dont however accept civillian casualities, and whereever possible we should ensure that these are kept to a minimum - and my idea of minimum is 0. [/quote]

I agree with you on the targeted assasinations, although I was bashing you on the old MS about the assasination of Sheik Yassin or whatever was his name, it's not that I disapprove the assasinations, but the Israelis chose the most inappropriate moment. Just when he was returning from the mosque.

I'm glad that the number of attacks in Israel has decreased, though, at least I hope it has. Still not following the news regulary.... :wink:

[quote=davetlv] Thirdly, as for terrorist never having attacked shcools and hospitals - you might be right, i can't remember every single attack, however, children also go on buses, go to cafes, go to shopping malls, young people go to nightclubs - these are all targets. Lets be clear, as far as Hamas and the like are concerned, when it comes to taking Jewish life, they dont care how old we are, 0 or 90. [/quote]

I know children go on buses, but if you were refering to my idea about "safe zones", I'm rather sure, that terrorists wouldn't attack a bus full of Palestinian children from a refugee camps... If they would, it definitely wouldn't help their public image.

Kids shouldn't be going to nightclubs.... :Hmmm: :Nice: :wink:

[quote=davetlv] Fourthly, last year when the Maxim was blown up in Haifa, it was not full of just Israeli Jews, there were also a large number of Israeli Arabs (Haifa is particularly known for it usual peaceful co-existence). The bomber made no differentiation between Jew and Arab - from their point of view is some arab/muslims are casualties then they become martyers. For them its collateral damage! [/quote]

I am aware of that.

[quote=davetlv] We might not like Sharon, but he is democratically elected, which is more then can be said about Arafat. We might not like his policies and we can vote him out at the next election, which is more then can be said about Arafat. There are presures put on Sharon which are leading him to the Gaza withdrawal, there are no presures put on Arafat which lead him to clamp down on his own armed faction let alone Hamas of Islamic Jihad. Granted they are both old war horses who time should have ended years ago; but whilst we punish our leaders for non-activity on the process Arafat remains the constant to ensuring peace within this region.[/quote]

thing that worries me with Sharon's election is how could such a guy be elected. I understand that a lot of Israelis are losing their patience, and seek revenge, but Sharon's methods and motives were clear even before he was elected. When is your next election BTW?

When you reach my age, anyone under 21 is a kid!!!

Your idea of safe buffer zones is intresting. However, if these people care about their youth why do they place their bomb factories in areas surrounded by facilities for kids and civillians generally? Why do they send them out to kill themselves? I guess part of the answer is if Israel bombs them then they take the blame, but at the end of the day the responsibility for their deaths are in the hands of the terrorists. They facilitated them. They are to blame for them.

Now on to Sharon. He got elected for very simple reasons. BOMBS BOMBS BOMBS. The more terror attacks this country faced the more it wanted someone who they percieved as being able to clamp down hard on the mechanisms of terror.

I disagree with you on the whole 'wanted revange'. No one i know here wants revenge. They want to live in peace without the fear of getting blown up on the bus, in the mall. . . When Sharon came to power in 01, and then was reelcted in 03 you have to understand the level of helplessness many Israelis felt.

The Oslo accords had failed, Camp David and Taba was rejected out right and instead of any solutions being put forward by Arafat, terrorism was sponsered. The left in Israel which had put so much effort into the peace process that it was emotionally crippled. They had tried and failed.

The reality on the ground was a nightmare. I came here exactly two years ago (well two years next week). The last time i was in Israel was in September 2000, just before the uprising. The country was flourishing for both Jews and Arabs. There was a great deal of investment, Israelis and Palestinians had work. It really looked like good times were ahead. When i moved here i saw a totally different country. One living in fear, rejected by outside investment, raising unemployment. A country once more at war, and not in the conventionall sense.

Arial Sharon talked the talk. He said what many people wanted to hear. He said that he would ultimetly stop the terror and would rebuild the country. He gave a lot of people hope (albeit false hope in my opinion). Thats how he got elected. It aint particulary pretty, but it happened.

Many people, stupidly, believed he had reformed. But when people are desperate they do desperate things. . . as we know!

Now as far as the next elections are concerned, they are scheduled for 2007 (or 2006 - no one is quite sure due to a change in the law a few years back). Either way, i'm not convinced he will last that long. he's desperatly trying to hold on to his coalition as we speak. Members of his own party disagree with his desire to leave Gaza, he's leading a minority government at the moment. He wants, and needs, the labour parties support. I give him a maximum of 12 months (although realistically i think we will vote again in January)

I know it sounds harsh, but there will never be peace in Israel without victory. Until Arafat and his terrorist thugs are wiped out, the bombings will not stop. Sad but true. I've said it before...look at any world conflict/war; one side has to lose before a peace is negotiated. The UN with its 100+ resolutions condemning Israel and its desire to legitimize Arafat has, IMO, prevented this from happening already.

[quote=brakada] So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.[/quote]

I'm at a loss for words, i had no idea it was possible to be this naive.

[quote=acmatos]I know it sounds harsh, but there will never be peace in Israel without victory. Until Arafat and his terrorist thugs are wiped out, the bombings will not stop. Sad but true. I've said it before...look at any world conflict/war; one side has to lose before a peace is negotiated. The UN with its 100+ resolutions condemning Israel and its desire to legitimize Arafat has, IMO, prevented this from happening already.[/quote]

Well, the suicide bombers are wiping themselves up, so why bother... :wink: Don't you think that by now the Palestinians have already lost.... :roll:, or do you think that the bombers, are soon going to be followed by Palestinian tanks and their airforce... :CrackUp: I think they loose the suicide bombers and this has turned to guerilla warfare, which is very hard to stop. The easiest solution would be wiping out the whole middle east (sorry Dave :wink: ), and voila, problem solved. But it would be a bit inhumane, though. But I agree that Arafat should be removed from power, somehow.

[quote=mylexicon][quote=brakada] So the U.N. is definitely [size=7][b]not all[/b][/size] about politics and going to war.[/quote]

I'm at a loss for words, i had no idea it was possible to be this naive.[/quote]

So, UNICEF is all about going to war, UNESCO is all about going to war either, UNCHR is going about war, ISDR is all about going to war, the landmines programme is all about going to war,...

Come on, mylexicon. How naive do you think I am.:roll: (no need to answer that... :wink: )

Maybe the idea that the UN should be left only with humanitarian tasks, which appeared earlier in this thread, wasn't that bad after all....

[quote=mylexicon][quote=brakada] So the U.N. is definitely not all about politics and going to war.[/quote]

I'm at a loss for words, i had no idea it was possible to be this naive.[/quote]

[quote]The UN Foundation Children?s Health program has awarded almost $200 million through more than 50 major projects. The vast majority of UNF?s Children?s Health initiatives are being undertaken in Africa, where we have helped to strengthen public health capacity and the ability of host governments to address an array of children?s health challenges.

Our work has been advanced and informed by the many partners with which we are privileged to participate: the World Health Organization (WHO); the UN Children?s Fund (UNICEF); the American Red Cross; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); Rotary International; SmithKline Beecham; the Rockefeller Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; United States Agency for International Development (USAID); International Development Research Centre (IDRC); and others.

Eradicating Polio

Together with WHO, UNICEF, CDC, Rotary International, the World Bank, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the UN Foundation is a member of the worldwide polio eradication endeavor aiming to eradicate the disease by the end of 2005. Already, the number of countries where the disease remains endemic has been cut from 20 in 2000 to 10 in 2001.

[b]Building on the experience of the global immunization drive that eradicated smallpox in 1979, the polio eradication initiative has also reduced the number of new cases from 350,000 in 1988 ? when the global eradication effort began ? to under 500 in 2001 representing a very measurable impact on the disease burden of many countries: vaccine delivery; national immunization days and surveillance activities; and days of tranquility in countries experiencing conflict.[/b]

This broad global effort to revitalize the polio eradication effort has brought increased partnership development and creative fundraising solutions to the worldwide campaign. We are hopeful that many of the infrastructures (cold chain, laboratory network, surveillance), approaches (microplanning, social mobilization), and lessons (measure the impact from the start, work in the most difficult situations earlier in the effort) from polio eradication will also help to advance other disease control efforts such as measles.

Teamwork against Measles

The UN Foundation?s Measles Partnership with WHO, UNICEF, CDC, and the American Red Cross draws from the polio model to mount an effort to prevent measles, the leading cause of vaccine-preventable deaths among children. Although the measles vaccine is both effective and inexpensive ? costing less than one dollar on average to vaccinate a child ? WHO estimates that over three-quarters of a million children died of the disease in 2000. In March 2001, launching the first phase of the Measles Initiative, UNICEF and WHO, supported by a grant from the UN Foundation, CDC, and the American Red Cross, began immunizing millions of children in eight countries.

[b]With UN Foundation support, more than 34 million doses of measles vaccine were procured and used for measles Supplemental Immunization Activities (SIAs) or ?catch-up campaigns? in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Mali, Uganda, Togo, and Kenya. The data indicates these SIAs are contributing to the reduction of measles morbidity and mortality among children from 9 months to 15 years.[/b]

The goal of measles immunizations is to reduce mortality and morbidity by 95% and 90% respectively. By the year 2005, our partners estimate that the drive will have prevented 1.2 million deaths from measles in Africa bringing the number to near zero. Widespread international support for measles vaccinations will help ensure that such hopes become a reality. Prevention of Tobacco Use

The UN Foundation?s early support for the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) at WHO has helped to raise the profile of diseases caused by tobacco use and to place a long-term struggle against the single most lethal agent of disease ? tobacco ? on the global agenda.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which grew from the work of the TFI, is the first ever global pact in the field of public health. The principle of the treaty is to reduce consumption of, or exposure to, tobacco. The intent of the five projects supported by the UN Foundation is to prevent childhood exposure to tobacco since most smokers begin to smoke before they reach 18 years of age. [b]The UN Foundation?s funding of projects in education, media coverage, legislation, and economics have mobilized and provided tools for many grassroots efforts in developing countries to combat tobacco interests among youth. Our support has also enabled WHO to mobilize bilateral donors for the tobacco treaty convention and to bring NGOs from developing countries into the process as active participants.[/b]

Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses

It takes the orchestrated efforts of health workers, teachers, parents, community leaders, and even children to reduce death, illness, and disability and to promote improved growth and development among children under five years of age. That premise is embodied in the Integrated Management of Childhood Illnesses (IMCI) approach to child health, a WHO/UNICEF-led initiative that focuses on the well-being of the entire child. With support from the UN Foundation, those UN agencies are putting the concept into practice in ten Latin American countries and seven African ones.

IMCI pursues a three-pronged strategy: improving family and community health practices, strengthening the skills of health staff, and improving the health delivery system. The community component of IMCI, imparting preventive health information and care practices to communities and caregivers to improve care-seeking behaviors, has exceptional potential to decrease childhood mortality. Simultaneously increasing access to district health services and improving the skills of health workers at district health centers increases the acceptability of prescribed treatments. As a concrete way to strengthen the capacity of UN agencies to work with local authorities and staff, IMCI can significantly broaden the access of the poorest of the poor to preventive health measures.

Within the UN Foundation?s community IMCI program, nine interrelated projects seek to improve family and community health practices to prevent malaria, acute respiratory infections, diarrhea, measles, and malnutrition ? the leading causes of death for children under five years of age. To carry out these critical programs, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) will work with the American Red Cross in promoting household and community-wide behavioral changes to prevent childhood illnesses. Additionally, the project will develop a long-distance learning community health course and document project experiences to share success stories with other regions. Thousands of Red Cross volunteers, joining other NGOs, will help the UN carry out this ambitious community-based effort on a region-wide basis.

In addition,[b] the UN Foundation provided support for initiatives throughout Africa, and for expansion of the "Promoting Essential Health Interventions in Tanzania" (TEHIP) project. The Tanzania enterprise (in which Canada?s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is an important UN Foundation partner) uses the IMCI approach to empower district health teams ? in collaboration with their communities ? to make rational choices and prioritize essential health interventions for children and their families. Instead of top-down directives, the projects equip local health systems to base their decision-making on evidence of what works (or does not) in practice. The result is a better understanding of how to use existing health programs for disease prevention. [/b] Community IMCI programs work to convey information to households through child-to-child and child-to-parent channels. Community baseline surveys that quantify child health care practices will be used to guide development of informational/educational materials. Through WHO and UNICEF, this grassroots experience in preventive health care is to be disseminated throughout Africa. [/quote] [url]http://www.unfoundation.com/five_year_cd/programs.htm[/url]

[quote=acmatos]I know it sounds harsh, but there will never be peace in Israel without victory. Until Arafat and his terrorist thugs are wiped out, the bombings will not stop. Sad but true. I've said it before...look at any world conflict/war; one side has to lose before a peace is negotiated. The UN with its 100+ resolutions condemning Israel and its desire to legitimize Arafat has, IMO, prevented this from happening already.[/quote]

Problem is, the Palestinians will never let it get that far. I think we might be in for another terrorist resistance war, just like the one in Iraq now. You're adressing it as if it were an ordinary war, but it's not. It has already gone underground and will remain there, no matter what happens in the future. So I don't think one can speak in terms of 'winning' or 'losing' in this case.

I still remember the day that Rabin got assasinated. I was only 15 and watching the news with my parents, and when that newsflash got trough, all I could think of was: No more peace. They're fucked now over there. Peres tried to save all he could, but he didn't come near Rabin actually.

As for Sharon: what would you expect from an ex-general who is still very militant in his ideas? You could see it coming, and now that he screwed up big time, he is trying to save his own ass. Which hopefully won't work. Question is: what will the Israelians get next?