Un
- Thread starter airdawg
- Start date
I think the US should have a more active role in supporting the UN. I think that we should have an equal amount of troops wearing blue helmets when compared to other countries.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Using a superlative can be decieving.
How's this for a current mission.
http://www.un.org/works/water/index.html
http://www.un.org/works/water/pathak.html
OUMoose
Trying to find my place
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,566
- Reaction score
- 24
I think it would be much more useful to provide homes for the people... worry about toilets during that.
Then again, I don't really see that as a militarized mission. Last thing I want is some commando with an M16 staring me down while I'm doing a number two.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
I wish the US, and other nations, were more sincere in their support of the UN.
Well, financially, America contributes more than the rest of the security council combined. Japan contributes more than anyone on the council other than the US.
I think that we should phase out the UN little by little. We will always need a debate society of all nations no matter what politics they have to coordinate things like radio frequency use. But anything with teeth should be left out.
The big problem with the UN is that decisions are reached by a vote. But many of the nations there are not run by people who are in power by vote. Two of the five permanent members of the security council would not pass as a free, liberal democracy.
So anything that can be taken from the UN and given to other alliances or groups should. A case would be to take apart a good prortion of UNICEF and have each nation contribute directly to the red cross and crescent. The UN is filled with corruption and politics. And no one can really tell us how to vote the rascalls out like we would a local or national goverment.
So the answer would be to rip power away from the UN for anything that someone else can do and be more accountable for. And we should not even consider giving any sort of power over our country to any orginization that does not require members to meet stringent standards that include free elections, independent judicial process and a press that can bad mouth the government.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
- Reaction score
- 31
While I think that the world does need an international body to air grievances and consider problems, the current state of the U.N., IMO, drops everything to the lowest common denominator (Libya being on the antiterrorist committee, IIRC, and nations with HORRID human rights abuses railing against the U.S. for Capital Punishment).
Either a world organization has teeth, unlike the current U.N., or it does not. If it does, IMO, it will be tyrannical, and if it doesn't - what use is it?
Either a world organization has teeth, unlike the current U.N., or it does not. If it does, IMO, it will be tyrannical, and if it doesn't - what use is it?
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 9
Personally, I think we should withdraw from the U.N. entirely. We provide more capital to that organization than any other country, and they constantly badmouth us. We let countries that harvest organs from political prisoners be on the Human Rights council. Corruption runs rampant. Ambassadors get to go from their impoverished nations to a nice apartment in New York, with full diplomatic immunity. Resolutions get passed, but are never enforced. When someone decides to stand up and start enforcing their resolutions, that someone becomes a "war-monger". When food aid is given, the U.N. isn't allowed to make sure it's given to the right people, instead of it being snatched up by a corrupt government and sold to finance their military.
I say, they want to criticize us, yell at us, and hate us, let them move to some other country and do it at a distance. Let's see how well they handle things without our financial and military support.
I say, they want to criticize us, yell at us, and hate us, let them move to some other country and do it at a distance. Let's see how well they handle things without our financial and military support.
Monadnock
2nd Black Belt
"It is interesting that the anti-gun monument outside the United Nations building in New York is of a civilian revolver and not a military AK-47"
http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2005-01_CriminalsPreferUnarmedVictims.htm
http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2005-01_CriminalsPreferUnarmedVictims.htm
Arizona Angel
Master Black Belt
And that is just Wrong!!! Talk about an oxymoron!"It is interesting that the anti-gun monument outside the United Nations building in New York is of a civilian revolver and not a military AK-47"
Arizona Angel
Master Black Belt
This one?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
I agree. There's no real benefit to remaining in a "world" organization that's as indecisive as Michael Jackson at a slumber party.
Why have just one orginization? There is still use for things like the UN, I just say that there should be other orginizations that we give more support to as appropriate.
At one end of the scale, let us let any nation into an orginization that has to coordinate between nations on sharing information about the latest news on diseases and epidemics.
At the other end, let us limit those that monitor elections to those countries that actually have elections. I mean isn't it a little weird having guys from Syria and China checking on voting?
How about we get some groups that have a history of democracy and a culture of freedom and create a group that would monitor each others elections, as well as any new democracy that asks. We can expand the membership and duties little by little.
But every nation in this proto club should have free elections, a judiciary independent of the ruling power, a press free enough to talk bad about thier government, due process under the law that applies to everyone and the basic right to do something as long as it does not have some sort of an impact on anyone else i.e. religion, atheism, sexual preferences, etc.
This would be a group open to invitations only with a power to toss people out if they change and do not meet standards in the future. Later, we can increase the cooperation if things go well, tinker and change rules if needed, or walk away and start over if we find out there are problems we did not expect and too deep in the orginization to change.
If we seriously tried to break with the UN and start over we should take it very, very slow and very, very carefully. Better to build small and work for a few generations of peaceful expansion than slap something in less than a decade and regret it in our grandchildren's time.
Monadnock
2nd Black Belt
I had to stop after a few pages. 1, because it's all a crock and 2, I can't STAND reading web pages with repeating backgrounds behind the words. :barf:
bydand
Senior Master
Personally, I would like the US to boot the UN the hell out of our country. I agree that there should be a body that international disputes and other housekeeping duties (like radio freq. distress calls, etc...) should cover, but as for having the UN "headquarted" in the US, let them find a country that is a bunch of candy-arses that wouldn't mind having them (France maybe.)
