The Waterbed Scandal? Davky Please Respond

The U in U.N certainly doesn’t stand for Useful

January 9th, 2009 at 07:16am

It is any wonder that I have such a high level of contempt for the United Nations.

Right now the situation in Gaza is getting worse, Lebanon have joined in, firing on Israel and Israel have fired back, although exactly what Lebanon’s interest is in the matter remains unclear…all that we really know right now is that they have just made the situation a lot more dangerous, and a lot more volatitle, and a lot harder to end. Ending a war between two parties is one thing, but between three is a whole new kettle of fish, and a problem that we really didn’t need.

Earlier in the week, the UN tried to work out what to say about the war in the Middle-East. It was fairly widely expected that they would make one of their usual “we condemn the war, please stop it” type statements…but they couldn’t decide exactly what words to use, so they just decided to say nothing.

Admittedly if they had said something, it would have just been hot air…but at least it would have been a statement on behalf of the UN’s member nations.

Today the UN have made a decision…it’s too dangerous in Gaza, so they’re withdrawing their humanitarian support.

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency claim that four of their people have been killed since the conflict began about two weeks ago, the latest death apparently occurred when the Israeli forces fired directly on them…Israel denies any knowledge of the incident, saying that Hamas militants sometimes target U.N. aid trucks to take food.

The UN and the Israeli government are working on investigating the incident.

Here’s the bit that I don’t get though. War, by it’s very nature, is dangerous, and without the UN, a lot of innocent people who are caught in the middle of the conflict will have no chance of receiving aid. Despite this, the UN say that they won’t go back unless Israel can guarantee their safety.

If I can draw a comparison here, we are currently involved in a war in Iraq…we have lost a number of our soldiers there, but there are people there who still need us, so we’re staying. Admittedly, the UN humanitarian workers aren’t soldiers, and perhaps they need support from external troops such as our troops, or the Americans or the British to help protect them, but turning around and running away isn’t going to help anyone, least of all the innocent people who are caught in the middle of this war…the very people that the UN should be helping.

I also find it interesting that the Red Cross, despite also claiming to have been fired on, are not leaving…they’re staying.

It all makes me wonder why we, as a nation, waste so much money on the UN. Their ability to actually provide a useful outcome seems to diminish every year despite the larger amount of money that we give to them.


Entry Filed under: Samuel's Editorials

Print This Post Print This Post


  • 1. davky  |  January 10th, 2009 at 8:26 am

    The benefit of the UN is that it provides an organised opportunity for a group of countries to band together and say “NO” to a rogue state.

    It also allows a (kind-of) non-partisan force to come in and restore order / defend the victims. Think of the consequences of having US troops, under a US flag, actively fighting on the ground in Israel… It could, quite conceivably, lead to all-out war in the Middle East. Quite possibly WWIII.

    The UN is a political bureacracy. It will never be fully efficient, fully competent or completely fair to all. But I do believe that it is necessary.

  • 2. padders  |  January 10th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    If the UN didn’t have so many war-mongering, dictatorial countries among its very members – and perhaps if the rest of the UN told these countries to get their own house in order – maybe then the UN would be more effective at reprimanding rogue nations. Fat chance of any of that happening!

    The UN is really just an international debating forum where its individual members spruik their own country’s agendas. And the argument (one of the arguements – for there are several) for a comprehensive overhaul of the UN, is that in half a century none of its debates has ever solved a single crisis. Any crisis during this period that appears to have been mitigated is more likely the result of some shady back-room deal or threat that we were never meant to know about anyway.

  • 3. legshagger  |  January 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm

    I was forced to endure with the United Nations in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Iraq, and never have I ever dealt with a more nonsensical, bureaucratic and corrupt organistaion … errrr, I take that back, something has to be “organised” to qualify as an “organisation”.

    While you can laugh at the UN’s ineptitude, you can only cry at the millions of deaths it has been culpably responsible for.

  • 4. Tony  |  January 12th, 2009 at 1:47 am

    Why are they called United Nations?
    When they don’t unite any nations.
    As for Gaza, just lunatic people doing their usual lunatic things, really how can you talk sense to crazy fanatics?
    I’ll be glad when God wipes away all the hokey pokey man made religions and please God soon.
    Then we can all get some peace and a good nights sleep.


January 2009

Most Recent Posts


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in