the UN
i've felt this post coming for a while now since there seems to alot of anti0un sentiment in america.
i just can't understand why this is so.
i myself belief that the un needs to be thinned out and un-beauracrised. but i believe it is necessary and performs a wholey good job and needs to be kept.
can someone please expalin to me why this is without the usual "those big boys are bullying us" type answers without proper explanations.
The majority of nations which comprise the UN are not democracies, nor are they free nations in any real description of the term. Perhaps it's fine for someone to represent those nations, but there's no reason why we should be lumped in with them.
The UN's anti-Americanism is blatant, wherein they can't hold a single summit on any problem without seeking (and finding) a way to blame whatever the problem addressed is on the USA. While persons who dislike the USA and would like to see us "taken down a notch" may find this a good or even joyful thing, there is no reason the United States should support it--and isn't it somebody else's turn to host this freak-show by now, anyway?.
The UN's appointments show that it is not even interested in the problems it pretends to address--such as a summit on arms control headed by Iraq and Iran, or placing Libya as the head of the Civil Rights Committee.
The UN's other actions are not just wrong, or sins by omission, or even petty, but plain and simply evil, and must be stopped. The Oil-for-Food scandal truly doesn't count among these issues, not compared to the other things they've done. Among them is their deliberate decision to stand aside in Rwanda and subsequent refusal to protect Tsutsi refugees from Hutus bent on the utter annihilation of their rival tribe, more of the same in Bosnia, and rampant rape and 'forced prostitution' (wherein someone commits rape, then later gives the victim money or gifts so that they can claim it was prostitution rather than rape) in the Congo.
The United States not only has no need to support this organization, it is a moral imperative that we condemn it and withdraw all support.
UN? United Nig...Nations
Until they get real power then they are useless. They are good organization but they first need to change how they do things slightly. I hate that the 5 perminant members on the board all have to vote yes to something. As was proven with Iraq, the big 5 don't always vote for what might be right. They voted for political gain and they were going around sanctions. The big 5 shouldn't have that kind of power. Maybe just 3 out of the 5 have to approve with over half of the 15. That would clear up political motivations.
The US is in a lose-lose situation with regard to the UN. Whether everything that goes on in the UN is corrupt or not can be debated, much the same as whether much of what goes on in the US is corrupt, but the heart of the issue deals with ego. Since the UN "represents" the countries of the world, whenever the US or any country turns their back on the UN, it makes it appear as if the US is turning its back to the world, which if that IS the case, can only end in the turmoil and tragedy.
Take care all.
no one has said that the UN is anti american were do you get your sources from? A 2 to 6 hour internet research?One thing about it right now i know now is the who wants o represent the USA in the UN hates teh UN.Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Yes, John Bolton certainly is a controversial choice, though a lot of conservatives have voiced concerns over him, so his selected is no longer a given.
Take care all.
So...your source of analysis is from a bunch of nazi conservatives? Oh yeah. Thats the way to get your news :rolleyes2
So your way of avoiding the problem of the facts not being on your side is to call your opponents Naziz? Oh yeah. That's the way to debate.So...your source of analysis is from a bunch of nazi conservatives? Oh yeah. Thats the way to get your news
I learned from you...OOOOOOOOOOOO :laugh:
I called them Nazis because at the time I couldn't think of the actual political ideology that they were. But I just remembered it. I would like to substitute nazi for Facists.
Also I can't avoid the facts if they aren't there to begin with...OOOOOOOOOOOH BURN! :laugh:
And what, pray tell, did the United States do in regards to Rwanda?Among them is their deliberate decision to stand aside in Rwanda
Also, I hope nobody seriously believe that the united states is morally superior to the Un (or anyone, for that matter) The UN has done bad things, yes. But the United States commits attrocities. Period. Everybody does. So to say that we should not associate with the UN because they have done bad things when we ourselves do equally bad things is kind of hypocritical, don't you think?
Nazi's were conservatives dude.Nazi's were/is the extremist conservative.That person isn't hiding beind it.Just because he said Nazis or used an example blah blah balh.
So you're calling your opponents fascists to avoid the problem of the facts not being on your side. Not quite as bad, I guess.I called them Nazis because at the time I couldn't think of the actual political ideology that they were. But I just remembered it. I would like to substitute nazi for Facists.
However, the facts here are cited for you to look at--which is why you had to resort to Reductio ad Hitlerum instead.Also I can't avoid the facts if they aren't there to begin with...OOOOOOOOOOOH BURN!
And obviously, avoiding the facts is not a feat which you have any difficulties performing.
The United States wasn't in Rwanda to do something regarding it.And what, pray tell, did the United States do in regards to Rwanda?
Of course we do--it's obvious fact.Also, I hope nobody seriously believe that the united states is morally superior to the Un (or anyone, for that matter)
Actually, the Nazis were green socialists. That's liberal, not conservative.Nazi's were conservatives dude.Nazi's were/is the extremist conservative.
I agree with many American conservatives that the UN is ineffectual, corrupt and in dire need of reform.
I just don't want to see it become an American puppet organisation in doing so.
Economically liberal. Socially conservative (authoritarian).
Dude, the Nazis were THE most conservative party that has ever been on the face of this earth. Conservative as in they are fanatical about conserving and protecting the values they believe in to the point where they'd murder millions and start wars. The fact they have 'socialist' in their party name means nothing. Just like 'the Republib of Syria' doesn't really mean it's a republic, or like 'the Democratic Front' is actually a blood-thirsty Islamic terror organisation. Words can easily be averted.Actually, the Nazis were green socialists. That's liberal, not conservative.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
Posting Permissions
