| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 7:52:46 PM | Lets here the thoughts on the UN, for or against?
Pros/Cons
I believe the UN doesnt seem to much to better the world, and takes the attitude of live and let live, but keep the money flowing through the UN doors.
Live and let live is a good theory but when do you draw the line when countries commit genocide on their own people? Should the UN stand by?
Reason why Im asking is the hot thing in the news right now is the US being frowned on for wanting to form a coalition with Australia, India, and Japan to help with the Tidal wave disaster. Instead of trusting the UN with the funds like it did with the food for oil, and that turned into lining UN officials pockets. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 8:53:49 PM | | the UN is a great organization. great concept..they just need to toughen up their rules of engagements... | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:05:10 PM | | I wouldn't to see the U.N. go,at least its a forum for discussion, but it really is an almost completely useless bad joke.The majority of its voting members are not democracies but totalitarian sh*thole regimes.I think the U.S. cosortium for aid is a great idea.The U.N. is packed with corrupt thieves, Kofi Annan's own son,in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, scammed millions out of the corrupt oil for food program. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:06:02 PM | | I wouldn't like to see the U.N. go,at least its a forum for discussion, but it really is an almost completely useless bad joke.The majority of its voting members are not democracies but totalitarian sh*thole regimes.I think the U.S. consortium for aid is a great idea.The U.N. is packed with corrupt thieves, Kofi Annan's own son,in cahoots with Saddam Hussein, scammed millions out of the corrupt oil for food program. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:12:11 PM | I think the UN is a terribly important organization and i think that over time, will be the beginning of a world government. it will take hundreds of years for such a thing to come about, but it could be an end to disparity between nations with the loss of artificial boudaries between mankind. I think the UN is a step in the right direction even if it needs to be refined. its really no different than the evolution of all other organizational processes.
I think these are pros by the way.. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:33:55 PM | Unfortunatly igotoosu Ive been hearing that since I was in the 3rd grade and I personally dont see it happening unless the UN was revamped and seriously over hauled.
It is a nice dream but I personally dont see it happening since every country cant even agree with each other not even within thier own borders.
I would say maybe thousands of yrs down the road but by then itll be called the United Federation lol | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:42:39 PM | | it might take a thousand and certainly hundreds is realistic for such a change. but look at what has happened over even the last 2 hundred years. Many many good things. I almost never think of social change as a short term prospect. it took at least 800 years to grow out of the dark ages and 600 is pretty generally accepted by most people. we are talking about a change of such magnitude. certainly we cannot go backwards on the development of an org. like the UN. I mean, can you picture a future without some sort of international board? | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:48:03 PM | | Thats a good point, see debate does some good :) for those who had doubts. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/30/2004 9:48:45 PM | | thank you sir. your points are just as good. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 4:23:55 PM | The original idea for the UN was formed mainly by the US in the first place and that's why the original UN charter was originally signed at the Metropolitan Opera House in San Francisco and made New York City as it's home base.
The UN has served an important role ever since it's inception by providing a dialogue between nations which has often times avoided war; not just between the US and USSR, but other nations as well.
They've organized major relief as international first responders to global catastrophes, such as tidal waves, hurricanes, famine and wars. They've provided peacekeeping forces which have sometimes helped end ongoing wars.
The United States is currently being ruled by an administration which is backed by an ignorant segment of the population which sees no need for dialogue with the rest of the world; but believes the United States need not negotiate or cooperate with anyone and should merely force people to do it's will through adverserial economic and military pressure. We currently have a president with zero statesmanship skills and policies which go against the will of the rest of the world. That is why the UN is currently at odds with US political interests.
If the US drops out of the UN, it will be a defeat for the values which made the US a world leader and organizer of world cooperation. It will be a victory for neoconservatives who support the strongarm tactics of the current administration. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 4:40:10 PM | | This forum could be looked at as a bit of a U.N. Consultation is what the world needs. On the other hand, one can see how difficult it must be to keep order in such a place as the U.N., where so many nations have so many agendas. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 5:39:41 PM | And again we have the Bush hater bringing Bush here to. I should blame him for everything in my life too, it certainly would be easy. Maybe he caused the Tidal wave? I'm sure we can find a way to blame him for that sad sad tragedy.Seems we all are ignorant when we don't agree with a point of view now.
But back to the UN I wouldn't say dissolve the UN and I'm not so sure it would be in our best interest or the worlds. Its a great stage for nations to speak together even when they cant bring themselves too behind doors. I think it has grown to large to be as effective and should trim some fat so to speak.
As for contributing in relief, Bosnia is the 1st thing to come to mind. I've never seen a organization back peddle so fast when shots start going. Their effectiveness right now is pretty lame. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 6:07:29 PM | well casper: you started the thread and asked if we were for or against the UN. Since this question didn't come up much before Bush started trying to show the world "who's boss?", I think it's perfectly relevant to the discussion.
Oh, and I notice YOU seem to have backpedaled a little bit yourself on this since the opening post.. Now you say you "wouldn't dissolve the UN"?
What's that about, Bud? | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 7:46:22 PM | Back pedal LOL please re read, NO where have I said to dissolve the UN, twice I said UN needs a overhaul and they don't do much good as they sit now. Where does it say I said dissolve the UN again? Anyone else see me back pedal?
And you wonder why you cant get people to change their point of views to yours? Maybe because IF I/others did you want to call me/them out on it? I'm sorry I forgot I'm labeled a Republican from other posts in your eyes and I MUST keep that path I MUST NOT DEVIATE FROM MY OBJECTIVE (said the drone).
But ok what ever helps you sleep at night, its all good.
BTW everyone have a GREAT NEW YEAR!!! | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 7:53:23 PM | LOL almost forgot yea work him (Bush) in any where ya can.
Like I said his fault for everything, he's been around since the birth of the UN him and all the puppet masters run the UN too. I think they even started the UN. You really give Bush more credit than you think to be so masterful in doing everything that's wrong in the world today. guess he's not so mentally ill eh? Wait that doesn't support that argument we'll have to reword that some how to make it work, I'll get back with ya on that.
Lets try to stay on whether the UN is relevant and the pros and cons. There's more than one UN leader in there. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 7:54:22 PM | Hey, I never EVER expect to change your point of view to mine *LOL* man.. if we could do that, we'd all be walkin down Broadway about now...
At most: I hope to enlighten you with afew facts that may (or may not) change your perspectve.... but I do hope they influence it as they've influenced mine.
I'm not going to make you like the UN, but people in this country are talking about how it never has done anything and blah blah blah, when it was OUR OWN IDEA TO BEGIN WITH...
.. And a dammed good one, I think... because it's done many things that couldn't have been done ANY OTHER WAY.
... So if anyone puts up something like "UN, yes or no." I speak to defend it like the other person's out of their mind... which they are if they don't acknowledge what it's done over the years for the betterment of humanity. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 7:57:39 PM | Anyway, I'll have to bash you bush bashers some other day. I'm out of here.Happy New Year to all.  | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 12/31/2004 8:06:32 PM | Hey Mike: Happy New Year to you too, Buddy.  | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 3/15/2005 10:06:58 AM | That was the last time they were ever civil to each other. 
Dissolve the UN.It's too corrupt and governed by dictators. We bankroll a hefty portion of their paycheck too. Why? So thye can sit around and talk while people die? Just give them PoF accounts. They accomplish the same thing, it's free, and they can bash Bush all they want. | |
|
| To UN or not to UN
Posted: 3/15/2005 10:25:14 AM | I do not want us to drop out of the UN, but I also want us to retain our sovereignty in all matters.
While I believe we must work with other nations when possible, there are many times when it is not possible, past a certain point. When that point is reached we can do one of two things, 1) wait for a consensus among the disparate members of the UN, or 2) do something on our own.
The fact that our current policies go against some of our foreign friends (there is no "will of the world", too many infighters) does not make them wrong, we need to judge them on their merit and not based on what the UN or whoever says. I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said "speak softly and carry a big stick", so Bush must be a student of history, although he could work on the speaking softly bit a little.
MajMike | |
|
Home
login 
