More on the UN

From a NYTimes article about a secret meeting with Kofi, comes this insight:

The meeting also occurred at a moment when the United Nations faces major institutional challenges: the Jan. 30 balloting in Iraq that United Nations electoral experts helped set up; the preliminary report late this month of the oil-for-food inquiry led by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman.

Now, the Asian tsunami is testing the organization's capacity for coordinating aid on a global scale.

The UN's is challenged when it tries to promote democracy, face it's own corruption, and help disaster vicitms. What is the UN good at?
IMAO has a few ideas:

* The main job for the U.N. is "peacekeeping" which usually means "whining at the U.S."
* The U.S. created the United Nations in 1945 in an effort to centralize pointless squabbling.
* The job of the U.N. is to make other nations feel like they have a say in things while the U.S. goes ahead and does whatever the hell it feels like.
* The U.N. has expanded its job to getting kickbacks for their members and hating Israel.
* Most of the voting in the U.N. is for non-binding resolutions that hold no weight. It's like internet polls with more Jew-hating.
*While the U.S. dropping out of the U.N. would cripple the corrupt organization and save the U.S. money, it would make lots of whiny nations angry at us... which, come to think of it, isn't really a change.

Also, how can the Times think that aid to Asia is on a global scale. International, but not global. Unless they are using Kerry's definition of global. (second item)



Finally, a question for all those in the no-name conferences. Who's more corrupt, UN or BCS?