UN Food Programme Releases Game 63
bobbis.u writes "The UN World Food Programme has launched a game (for Windows and Mac) to educate people about their work. Although aimed for children, I'm sure some Slashdotters will enjoy it. It includes six different missions and is a hefty download."
Great game! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great game! (Score:2, Funny)
Not only can you be a contra causing destruction to most of your country for the 'protection' for a dozen rich human rights violators, you can also be a member of the 316th Battalion commiting your own human rights violations. Better be careful with those electrodes!
I understand that the next version is goi
Re:Great game! (Score:3, Funny)
solution! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solution! (Score:1)
XXX Version Available Soon (Score:5, Funny)
/.'d already (Score:1)
Re:hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)
Man, we, as a group, wield unbridled power we can barely begin to comprehend.
If someone could only figure out how to properly wield it...
Food-force website slashdotted. (Score:5, Funny)
Way to go, guys...the site is slashdotted, and now the children won't learn about hunger.
Won't someone think of the children???
Re:Food-force website slashdotted. (Score:1)
Re:Food-force website slashdotted. (Score:2)
Re:Food-force website slashdotted. (Score:2)
Re:Food-force website slashdotted. (Score:2)
what were they thinking? that they wouldn't get a shitload of hits with something like this?
Children (Score:2, Insightful)
My submission was "edited": I made an appeal for Torrents - think of the starving children when you are running up the UN's bandwidth bills.
marginalization (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:marginalization (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll admit that it's likely PR, but what the fuck - what you're suggesting is that the UN is first and foremost interested in corrupt profiteering and maintains humanitarianism as a sideshow. I'll admit that the UN is pretty damned ineffective, but this claim is totally incredible.
Re:marginalization (Score:1, Troll)
People like that poster bathe in their ignorance and self-righteousness. They're the same idiots who keep propagating partisian myths like the "Al Gore invented the Internet" lie.
Re:marginalization (Score:2)
No myth: Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the Internet during a CNN interview. (exact words: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"). It was merely a misstatement during an interview. It is rather clear that Gore did not intend to lie about his accomplishment, so the word "lie" is not the best to use.
Re:marginalization (Score:2)
Re:marginalization (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically, the majority of the UN's problems are the DIRECT result of the United States making the organization completely incapable of accomplishing much or enforcing important humanitarian mandates.
It's funny how the U.S. criticizes the U.N. whenever the organization doesn't exclusively promote the US's agenda, and then two seconds later, after veto'ing numerous resolutions, they cite UN sanction violations as a means by which they can engage in preemptive war. And when the UN's members get upset, the U.S. calls the UN "useless" and ignores them.. until the next time the UN's agenda coincides with their own.
This would be all fine and dandy if this planet were one singular culture and nation, but it isn't. And the UN, while not perfect, is the best attempt thus far to provide a forum for the world's people to work together. It's pathetic for ignorant, small-minded people to marginalize the U.N. when they don't know much about it.
Because of so much propaganda and misinformation spreading about on the UN, educational programs like this are probably a good idea. They're no counter to the hundreds of hours of right-wing media lies being spread about the organization, but it's a start.
Re:marginalization (Score:2, Insightful)
It certainly is a start, but it fails to address the root problem. The US, along with everyone else, ignores the UN because they can. The UN, while an organization with lofty, laudable goals and asperations, lacks the infrastructure and means to achieve those goals.
The real solution is to give the UN the means to actually enforce its mandates and impose its will on nations. And let's be honest, foreign policy is exactly that: imposing one nation's will on another. As it stands now, the UN must rely on
Re:marginalization (Score:1)
Although I do stand by the statement that the U.N. is horribly corrupt, ineffective and politicized and should be dissolved.
However, the food programs are one of the few things I think it's done well, overall.
Re:marginalization (Score:2)
Well then stop making them.
You surely can't think your rant is any less specious than my joke.
Re:marginalization (Score:1)
I was waiting for this issue to come up. You should do some research into that scandal and find out the real truth and which countries were behind it, not the least of which was under any control by the U.N. This is exactly the ignorant generalizations being spread inappropriately.
Re:marginalization (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, one has to wonder why the members of the Security Council, and the US and the UK specifically, designed a program that handed money over to Saddam. The UN bureacracy that is wrongly blamed actually flagged many contracts under the program for potential overpricing, but the US and the UK approved most of them.
This might be the reason why Saddam scammed most of his money from smuggling, which the UN itself had no jurisdiction over or means to stop. That again falls on its member states, and in this case
Re:marginalization (Score:1)
You are an idiot.
Re:marginalization (Score:1)
Dispense with the insults, please.
I didn't say we shouldn't be upset, but I think we should be equally or even more upset at the Security Council members who are also responsible, if not more responsible.
Re:marginalization (Score:1)
OK. I apologize for the insult. I'm just sick of that spin.
Re:marginalization (Score:4, Informative)
Very funny (Score:2, Informative)
The Oil For Food Program succeeded in its humanitarian mission.
"International aid efforts and the U.N. oil-for-food program helped reduce the ruinous impact of sanctions, and the rate of acute malnutrition among the youngest Iraqis gradually dropped from a peak of 11 percent in 1996 to 4 percent in 2002."
- The Washington Post, November 21
That's not the only aspect of the OFFP "scandal" that has been twisted. [oilforfoodfacts.org]
With the risk of ruining the UN-bashing with a little US-bashing - the US can't even feed the d [thebakersf...hannel.com]
Re:Very funny (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Very funny (Score:1)
I know, the US-bashing was in jest.
But to be fair, the focus on corruption, prostitution and such, while obviously justified, easily obscure what the UN accomplishes too, just as any negative news from Iraq jumps ahead of positive ones.
Media continues to distort UN food programme facts (Score:2)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504140003
Sinclair Broadcast Group commentator Mark Hyman used the April 12 edition of "The Point" to attack United Nations and European leaders with false and misleading accusations regarding their involvement in corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program.
Referring to Benon Sevan, the U.N. undersecretary who headed the oil-for-food program, Hyman opened "The Point" by stating, "Generally, if someone has found to have
Try something factual next time. (Score:2)
Also, regardless of whether Sinclair is snakes or not, it cannot possibly engage in " continued misuse of public airwaves" by "broadcast[ing] one-sided, politically charged programming without a counterpoint." Such broadcasts are part of free speech, and are an excellent use of the a
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
So, we have a game that educates us on the UN Humanitarian efforts. So, options will be feed the populace, get kickbacks, or go home?
I would like the UN to live upto its charter and worry about Human Rights and Genocide. BTW, 'Ethnic Cleansing' is a term for Genocide that does not envoke the Genocide Resolution (Resolution 260 (III) A) in the UN Charter.
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Unfortunately, they are required to act in cases of Genocide. The UN is broken if they cannot handle a core issue like Genocide. The fact that the US did not act Unilaterally is a point of shame on my part; but hell, I voted Dole.
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
If its not a genocide, guess what the rest of the world need not act. The US does not need to act unilaterally, what is needed is leadership. I mean I do understand that we Americans are not the worlds most favorite people right now but I think we would be surprised at how many people would support (millatarily and morally) if any country goes to stop whats happening in Suda
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
I have seen the Movie "Ghosts of Rwanda". The issue with the UN is that every country gets a vote in the General Assembly. Considering the shear number of petty dictators out there, there is no surprise that we have the issues that we have. The change has to be political reform inside countries first.
As for Israel, all I see is a country beset by enemies that we help. The issue isn't Israel, but the Countries around it.
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Depends on what's right, obviously. NATO had no problem acting without UN sanction in Kosovo, but decided to toe the line in Rwanda. I can't discuss it reasonably, because it's a hotbutton for me. I don't know that every country would do what's right in the absence of the UN, but we (as a global community) obviously don't always do what's right WITH the UN present. So essentially
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
So I agree with you but in reality I rather spend money on an organization that MAY however remote the possibil
The server is as quick as... (Score:1)
Re:The server is as quick as... (Score:2)
Re:The server is as quick as... (Score:1)
Re:The server is as quick as... (Score:2)
The UN is often vetoed by the US, true As for the funding, the UN is overfunded if anything. The lavish lifestyles they give their leaders and the ways they waste their money on enriching the already rich shows that they have more than enough right now.
Direct link (Score:1)
Didn't Intellivision originally do this one? (Score:1)