John Bolton

[Republican]

I picked Yes, because I think we need a man in there who will be tough with the UN. And he seems to be tough enough.

 

[akyron]

This was written by Tasrah, a very intelligent debater here at the forum...

Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.

In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.

Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling...
Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?

I say, with enthusiasm..."YES!"

Exactly. Thanks. I was looking for that post. We keep covering the same old ground when new debaters come in. We need a resolved section of the debate forum.

 

[cnredd]

Exactly. Thanks. I was looking for that post. We keep covering the same old ground when new debaters come in. We need a resolved section of the debate forum.

I cheat...Sometimes, if I find a post which sums everything up nicely, I put it in a "notepad" file and save it WITH who said it....I give credit where its due.

 

[Fantasea]

I thought the original plan was to beat the Axis Powers. It was called the United Nations because of the unity of nations against the Nazi's, the Italians, and the Japanese.

You just flunked the history test.

The opposing sides during the war were the Axis Powers, which you correctly identified, and the Allied Powers, which you did not.

The initial organizational meetings to form what was to become the United Nations were held in San Francisco in April, 1945, which, incidentally, was the month before Germany capitulated.

 

[superskippy]

Actually the use was first initiated by Roosevelt's Decleration of the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and the defeat of the Axis Powers, the initial idea was set down in 1943 in the Allied conferences in Moscow and Tehran and solidified the goals of those United Nations to defeat the Axis Powers. After the war ended the orginization did not dissolve and the nations already involved did not lose seat's rather the victorous United Nations changed the purpose of it.


It's initial purpose was the defeat of the Axis, that's a historical fact.