On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:57:42 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote:

How easy it is to dismiss the UN when it does not rubber stamp
everything that suits you. The UN and its agencies organise
international telecommunications, air travel, safety of life at sea
and do a lot of good in the world.

Dismiss? I did no such thing. I've carefully analyzed the available
information on their performance and come to the conclusion we aren't
getting good value for our investment. The U.N. performs almost no useful
function, which could not be accomplished more effectively in another venue,
the ITU not withstanding. That could easily be wrapped up in the ISO as can
any other standards body. Safety of life at sea???? Give me a break here. I
have over 20 years at sea and still maintain a seaman's document and a close
relationship with those who do. I haven't seen one damn thing in that time
with a U.N. influence. I, also, work in a shipyard (23 years) and we work to
no U.N. standards and use no U.N. documents. So tell me, just what is it
they do with this safety at sea. Perhaps jawbone and wring their hands,
maybe hold a conference or two at some resort. You'll note nations have been
negotiating treaties regarding the sea for centuries without the U.N.

Just because the UN would not rubber stamp the American invasion
of Iraq - based on the evidence presented, who would, you have it
in for the organisation as a whole. It may have flaws but it provides
a lot of services of value and its clearly not run by your government.

My only dealings with the IMO was when the company I worked
for purchased their rules for container loading and I implemented
them. The level of safety increased.

The IMO introduction says it better than I can:

"Shipping is perhaps the most international of all the world's great
industries and one of the most dangerous. It has always been
recognized that the best way of improving safety at sea is by
developing international regulations that are followed by all
shipping nations and from the mid-19th century onwards a number of
such treaties were adopted. Several countries proposed that a
permanent international body should be established to promote
maritime safety more effectively, but it was not until the
establishment of the United Nations itself that these hopes were
realized"

You presume I have a TV. Big mistake. I put a torch to mine 10 years ago and
haven't seen one since. Which is exactly what should be done with all
useless things, the U.N. included. Your presumption the U.S. is like the TV
tends to lead me to believe you are watching entirely too much of it and are
unable to separate reality from entertainment. It's much more interesting to
watch these "diplomats" who formerly lived in grass shacks, mud huts or
tents, cruising the streets of New York in limousines, escorting their hired
whores to black tie functions on the public teat. You'll note the Iraqi
diplomatic corp to the U.N.. with one exception, remains in New York, paid
by the U.N., although they have no one to represent. Why should they return
to the mud hovel when life is good in N.Y.

Intersting. What powers of vision you must have to see all this
without the aid of television.

However, despite what you might think, a lot of the world is more
civilised than many parts of New York and has fewer cockroaches.

Bagdad had a lot of very nice modern buildings before it was bombed
by the Bush family.

I may be visiting the UN C24 in October can you come and pick me up
in a limo and we can discuss this further.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com