• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Reminding everyone why the UN and Intl' Law are good things

Kelzie said:
I thought there was a substantial number of academics still in China and unhappy with the government. Didn't they just have a riot?
Click to expand...

There have been a number of "riots" and other demostrations in China lately as reported by the Taiwanese media. However, to my knowledge, none of them have been led by academics. Rather, they have been peasant-led, driven by the fact that they are not satisfied with the way the government deals issues from poverty in the hinterlands to AIDS.
 
ludahai said:
There have been a number of "riots" and other demostrations in China lately as reported by the Taiwanese media. However, to my knowledge, none of them have been led by academics. Rather, they have been peasant-led, driven by the fact that they are not satisfied with the way the government deals issues from poverty in the hinterlands to AIDS.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a student riot recently? Am I making it up? It happens.
 
jallman said:
I still say I dont see what purpose the UN is serving anymore for the free world. Of course, it's a place where nations can talk out differences, but at the same time, we are in the middle of a supposed war on terror. How can we be expected to sit on a council with known supporters of terror? I am not saying disband the UN, but I think it is time for the democratic nations of the world to form a stronger, exclusive, and more productive allied organization. Why should we even consider the notion of taking the opinions of despots and tyrants into consideration?
Click to expand...


Uh the United States supports plenty of tyrants and their policies. I don't think we care much how democratic they are.

The UN still does much more than discuss and debate, but the point is that if you are looking for decisive and unified action from a group with diverse interests then this is the wrong place.
 
Kelzie said:
Wasn't there a student riot recently? Am I making it up? It happens.
Click to expand...

I have heard of one or two over the past year or so, but undergraduate students certainly are not "academics". Still, most of the unrest has been from the peasantry, not students and other urbanite classes.
 
jakurus said:
Uh the United States supports plenty of tyrants and their policies. I don't think we care much how democratic they are.

The UN still does much more than discuss and debate, but the point is that if you are looking for decisive and unified action from a group with diverse interests then this is the wrong place.
Click to expand...

Uh... the second paragraph of your response just restates my whole point. But just for the record, let me restate it...The UN is the wrong place to look for unified and decisive action...there are too many diverse interests to make it effective.
 
I still say I dont see what purpose the UN is serving anymore for the free world. Of course, it's a place where nations can talk out differences, but at the same time, we are in the middle of a supposed war on terror. How can we be expected to sit on a council with known supporters of terror? I am not saying disband the UN, but I think it is time for the democratic nations of the world to form a stronger, exclusive, and more productive allied organization. Why should we even consider the notion of taking the opinions of despots and tyrants into consideration?
Click to expand...

democracy is hardly the question here. There are democratic countries we don't support and there are oppressive regimes we feed billions into as well. The thing is, US interests hardly meet those of other countries in the UN (e.g. France, Germany, Russia, China etc.). With that said, it is in our interests not to follow the UN.
 
jallman said:
Uh... the second paragraph of your response just restates my whole point. But just for the record, let me restate it...The UN is the wrong place to look for unified and decisive action...there are too many diverse interests to make it effective.
Click to expand...

Noooo, it's that you aren't going to solve gigantic and controversial problems, but that there are still many things the UN does do.

It's not incapable of any action, you just aren't going to see it doing everything right.
 
jakurus said:
Noooo, it's that you aren't going to solve gigantic and controversial problems, but that there are still many things the UN does do.

It's not incapable of any action, you just aren't going to see it doing everything right.
Click to expand...

And a lot of times you arent going to see anything done at all. You get that many different agendas trying to accomplish anything and you fall victim to a paralysis of analysis. The debate can continue long after the time for action passes. I am not saying disband the UN or withdraw support entirely, but why not form an alliance of like minded nations with similar agendas. Surely the world struggle for freedom would benefit boundlessly by a group of strong and powerful nations untethered by sharing their voice with tyrants and madmen.
 
Originally posted by ludahai:
Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!
Click to expand...
You mean, the "...fox[news] guarding the hen[white]house.

The UN would have more credibility if the member nations would obey the laws they are a signatory too.
 
Billo_Really said:
The UN would have more credibility if the member nations would obey the laws they are a signatory too.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the United States is a law abiding nation. Look at the states out there that are members of the United Nations, and have signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and violate them right and left. Those are the countries you should be focusing your rhetoric on.
 
jallman said:
And a lot of times you arent going to see anything done at all. You get that many different agendas trying to accomplish anything and you fall victim to a paralysis of analysis. The debate can continue long after the time for action passes. I am not saying disband the UN or withdraw support entirely, but why not form an alliance of like minded nations with similar agendas. Surely the world struggle for freedom would benefit boundlessly by a group of strong and powerful nations untethered by sharing their voice with tyrants and madmen.
Click to expand...


Way to back right into my camp...

Nothing's stopping countries from doing it, blame them.
 
jakurus said:
Way to back right into my camp...

Nothing's stopping countries from doing it, blame them.
Click to expand...

I believe thats what I just did.
 
Kelzie said:
I don't think this is such a good idea. One of the most important functions of the UN IMO, is that it provides a place for countries to meet and try to settle disagreement without force. If you exclude totalitarian states, who would presumably be the ones that people have the most problems with, than we would have no forum to talk with them. Not only that, but because they are members, we can put more pressure on them to change some of their policies. They would have no reason to listen to us if they weren't.
Click to expand...

You mean a place to make and break deals? The UN can create international law but no one follows and the UN doesn't enforce it effectively...it simply makes idle threats. Did I mention that the US payes the membership fees for a lot of the members of the UN? Did I mention that the organization is probably the most corrupt organization on earth? If they can't abide by their own rules why would anyone else abide by them. Besides, laws look good on paper but if no one follows them thats all they're good for.
 
Many of those seats the US has is bought, they literally control the UN, in my eyes, this is NOT good at all. There should be a free flowing atmosphere in organizations like this, not one country having huge dominance over others.
 
128shot said:
Many of those seats the US has is bought, they literally control the UN, in my eyes, this is NOT good at all. There should be a free flowing atmosphere in organizations like this, not one country having huge dominance over others.
Click to expand...

SAY WHAT?!?!? THe US dominates the UN? Could you PLEASE tell me what you were smoking this morning because I would like to try a sniff.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
 
ludahai said:
SAY WHAT?!?!? THe US dominates the UN? Could you PLEASE tell me what you were smoking this morning because I would like to try a sniff.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Click to expand...


I'm either sniffing sarcasm or I'm a complete dumbass.
 
128shot said:
I'm either sniffing sarcasm or I'm a complete dumbass.
Click to expand...

"Both" is also an option. :rofl
 
haha. No love right? :2razz:


I could agree with that assumption.
 
128shot said:
haha. No love right? :2razz:


I could agree with that assumption.
Click to expand...

You can just cut the "love" with a knife in here, cantchya?:2wave:
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
You mean a place to make and break deals? The UN can create international law but no one follows and the UN doesn't enforce it effectively...it simply makes idle threats. Did I mention that the US payes the membership fees for a lot of the members of the UN? Did I mention that the organization is probably the most corrupt organization on earth? If they can't abide by their own rules why would anyone else abide by them. Besides, laws look good on paper but if no one follows them thats all they're good for.
Click to expand...

You also didn't mention the fact that the US owes the UN over a billion dollars. Not doing such a great job on paying other's fees. And if you are referring to the Oil for Food Scandal as your evidence of corruption, please find actual proof that it was sanctioned by the UN. I can help you though. It doesn't exist.
 
How can you owe a body that has no income and does not collect national fund's or give out loans money? You mean the owe some nations in the UN money, which they do, but it is a distinct difference. You can't "owe" the UN money you can only owe the nations involved.
 
Kelzie said:
You also didn't mention the fact that the US owes the UN over a billion dollars. Not doing such a great job on paying other's fees. And if you are referring to the Oil for Food Scandal as your evidence of corruption, please find actual proof that it was sanctioned by the UN. I can help you though. It doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Frankly, the corruption in the UN isn't my biggest beef (sorry Kelzie) with the organization. It is the fact that they routinely coddle tyrants and dismiss a democratic country like Taiwan. THis isn't surprising as about 60% of the UN membership is comprised of nations that are not democratic! This is why China can get away with their antics regarding Taiwan, even preventing the UN press corps from meeting with Taiwan representatives, and claiming to represent Taiwan at the WHO during the SARS crisis.
 
The incident in Rwanda seems to come to mind when I think UN, why didn't they stop it when they did? The general on the ground had knowledge of huge amounts of weapon stock piles and what they planned to do with it, all a few days before mass murder started, and the UN said NO to helping these people.


I think this shows troubles within the UN, and frankly, i think there should be than one global organization other than the UN around..
 
superskippy said:
How can you owe a body that has no income and does not collect national fund's or give out loans money? You mean the owe some nations in the UN money, which they do, but it is a distinct difference.
Click to expand...

I belive Kelzie is referring to the fact that the U.S. is in arrears of its UN dues. Considering that the U.S. payment is 20% of the entire operating budget of the UN, the U.S. SHOULDN'T pay it all.
 
128shot said:
The incident in Rwanda seems to come to mind when I think UN, why didn't they stop it when they did? The general on the ground had knowledge of huge amounts of weapon stock piles and what they planned to do with it, all a few days before mass murder started, and the UN said NO to helping these people.


Is that what the kind of organization you want?
Click to expand...

This is the same organization that puts countries like Sudan and Syria on the Human Rights Committee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom