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?
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.
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?
Kelzie said:Wasn't there a student riot recently? Am I making it up? It happens.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You mean, the "...fox[news] guarding the hen[white]house.Originally posted by ludahai:
Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!
Billo_Really said:The UN would have more credibility if the member nations would obey the laws they are a signatory too.
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.
jakurus said:Way to back right into my camp...
Nothing's stopping countries from doing it, blame them.
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.
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.
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
128shot said:I'm either sniffing sarcasm or I'm a complete dumbass.
128shot said:haha. No love right? :2razz:
I could agree with that assumption.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?