• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Replace the UN?

Should the world democratic community...

  • Work strictly within the UN organization?

    Votes: 14 35.9%
  • Remain in UN and also form a new supplemental organization?

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • Form a new organization and disengage from the UN entirely?

    Votes: 17 43.6%

  • Total voters
    39

MikeyC

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think veto powers should be removed within the UN. And the US should care more about what's discussed, as much as we'd like to think it, America cannot run the world and we should learn some better diplomacy instead "Our way or no way".
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,340
Reaction score
10,609
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Our diplomacy has been fine and actually very cooperative up until recent years. The only reason we have taken the "Our way or no way" policy lately has been because we are the ones that are constantly threatened and they are not. If it were them that were threatened by these Islamist terrorists, then they would be all for it and we wouldn't have the "Our way or no way" attitude, because we would stand beside them.

The UN has it's uses. Often times they are merely a puppet for us though. I would like to see the UN make some decisions and act on their own on some of those "tragic" areas where they have said America could be instead of Iraq. Without us, the UN does nothing. If they believe Africa to be in such a mess (which it is), why don't they unite some peace keepers and humanitarian troops from Europe and go?
 

MikeyC

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2005
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There are many countries who have just as great, or greater terrorist threat that us. Spain was attacked, Russia, and I think Turkey has terrorists.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
galenrox said:
You see, the difference is you see a pompous asshole as a reformist, while I see him as a pompous asshole.
I'm sure you know about America's current standing in foreign opinion, do you think sending a guy that couldn't get a recomendation from a comitee controlled by the President's party would improve it at all, or do you think that logic would lead us to the fact that the guy is really just an asshole, and thus shouldn't be a diplomat.
Plus, doesn't the fact that the white house is hiding information on him imply that he has something to hide, probably about how he is not qualified to be an ambassador?
And he can't reform a damn thing if no one listens to, and the majority of people don't listen to people who go out of their way to be assholes.
The United States is the single largest payer to the United Nations, with 22 percent of the administrative budget and 27 percent of peacekeeping costs.

Do you really think anyone could fail to leverage that?
Failure to reform the UN up to this point has contributed to the current world crisis. Madeleine Albright ended up hated and was trying to be liked. John Danforth was a priest. I wont say that is a good or bad thing but we all know the sorry state the UN is in now. Maybe we need a little rough and tumble to get things moving.
 

matay_brit

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Location
England, Britain, European Union
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Squawker said:
Actually, LaMidRighter is right, matay_brit. The Global warming Koyoto Treaty and World Court are meant to do exactly that. So far our leaders have rejected both, but the day will come.
yes they are meant to do exactly that! Damn right too. The koyoto treaty as u obviously no is to try to limit pollution. As proven by your Government you don't care about pollution as a topic because if you really wanted to you could make the targets. In some circumstances like this an external force needs to shove u into line.
the day will come. - no it won't.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
matay_brit said:
yes they are meant to do exactly that! Damn right too.
So what is it Matay? you said the U.N. isn't trying to control the U.S. then admit that these things are designed to do just that.
The koyoto treaty as u obviously no is to try to limit pollution.
But, as you well know, it gives a pass to developing and undeveloped nations who are already the biggest per capita polluters and punishes the U.S. and other developed nations who have pollution control laws such as the U.S. so it is basically useless.
As proven by your Government you don't care about pollution as a topic because if you really wanted to you could make the targets.
We care about our economy as well, and the Kyoto treaty would basically turn it into S#$t, so we wisely did not sign it, unlike many U.N. members.
In some circumstances like this an external force needs to shove u into line.
Wrong, we are a sovereign nation with a stable government in place, so the only thing that should be shoved is "it" which we should readily invite the U.N. to do.
the day will come. - no it won't.
All it's going to take is another pansy like Clinton for that day to come when the U.N. gets it's way, hopefully we can put that off until we can get rid of that godforsaken travesty of a world body.
 

WiseRufus

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Gandhi>Bush said:
So let's say a genocide is occuring in... ohh, I don't know... the Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything about it, we should ignore it(THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING ANYWAY)?

Should we just go with it?
Absolutely! That's why we joined the "UNITED NATIONS"! Because we wanted to make decisions as a "UNITED" entity.

My point was...we (The U.S.) does not want to do things as a "UNITED" entity, then we shouldn't be a part of the "UNITED NATIONS" organization.

It's pretty silly to be a member of a group that is called "UNITED" and when we disagree with the majority, we just go it alone.

Ya feel me?
 

matay_brit

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Location
England, Britain, European Union
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So what is it Matay? you said the U.N. isn't trying to control the U.S. then admit that these things are designed to do just that.
no i didnt say that, i said the UN didnt have enough power. I never said the UN wasn't trying to control the UN anyway. There obviously not, your just obsessed about having your sovereignity breached, oh poor old America, lets all cry because the naughty UN want to check your not ruining the world. Oh you are, oh well! The UN can't do a *****ing think about it at all, so i don't no why ur so miffed about being checked on, like every other *****ing country is, what makes you so special.

Ok biggest per capita polluters. HA now thats twisted facts if i've ever heard it! idiot! as u full well know the reason they are the biggest per capita polluters is because they earn so *****ing little. Your the biggest polluter America, granted not too long, China.
The kyoto treaty would not "turn your economy to ****". America is just stubborn enough not to change as the other nations have at least tried to do. It's a simple case of American politics having no sense of equity whatsoever. Something which i'm glad the British Government has shown it's got (in limited proportion) with the recent events.
I sure hope you elect another "pansy like Clinton" very soon by the way. Even if he gets a bit horney from time to time.
What bothers me is that you think that for some reason America is the only country who don't have to answer to anyone while every other nation does. You keep blurting on about soverignity but the truth is you have this nieve patriotic belief that the UN is infringing on your rights when it clearly isn't. The UN so far as stated a few times on this forum can't really do anything so why are u pissed about it?
conclusion whether you like it or not America at the moment undermines any attempt at making any international body work properly because of its stubborness. For those of you that say who cares. Without it everyone will die! Well no not quite but conversation and diplomacy will stutter. Wars and scuffles would quite possibly become more frequent due to to the non-pressence of pressure on unstable Nations. In short the world would become more unstable.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
WiseRufus said:
That's why we joined the "UNITED NATIONS"! Because we wanted to make decisions as a "UNITED" entity.

My point was...we (The U.S.) does not want to do things as a "UNITED" entity, then we shouldn't be a part of the "UNITED NATIONS" organization.

It's pretty silly to be a member of a group that is called "UNITED" and when we disagree with the majority, we just go it alone.
Perhaps you neglected to read the opening statement. The US did not merely join the United Nations, it created the UN. Why do you think the UN organization is headquartered in New York?

You also seem to have missed (by omission or commission) the thrust of my opening statement. For at least the past 55 years, the UN has not resembled the organization originally conceived of by the US in 1945. The descriptive adjective United in United Nations is in reality a blatant and sad misnomer.

Since its noble ideological conception in 1945 with freedom and democracy as virtual cornerstones, the UN has degenerated into an organization that launders a faux legitimacy to autocratic and dictatorial regimes. The UN has morphed into a many-headed evil hydra... and the time has come to move on.

 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Matay Brit said:
Your the biggest polluter America, granted not too long, China.
The best way to help nations develop while limiting pollution and improving public health is to promote technologies for generating energy that are clean, affordable and secure.

That approach is reflected in an explosion over the last three years in the United States in new technological advances which are seeking to feed the planet's desire for development while reducing pollution.

It includes cleaner coal technology, the development of hydrogen fuel cells - where the sole waste product is water - and the production of clean-burning methane. In this field, America is far ahead of the game.

If China was to adopt the same level of technological innovation as in America, it would be worth the same reduction in emissions as four or five Kyoto's.

 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Tashah said:
The best way to help nations develop while limiting pollution and improving public health is to promote technologies for generating energy that are clean, affordable and secure.

That approach is reflected in an explosion over the last three years in the United States in new technological advances which are seeking to feed the planet's desire for development while reducing pollution.

It includes cleaner coal technology, the development of hydrogen fuel cells - where the sole waste product is water - and the production of clean-burning methane. In this field, America is far ahead of the game.

If China was to adopt the same level of technological innovation as in America, it would be worth the same reduction in emissions as four or five Kyoto's.



Do you think the UN is a lost cause and we should start a new club
of United Democracies?
Can it be salvaged from the sorry state it is in now?
I am in favor of salvaging it if possible.
Why waste money on a new building?
The top ten floors are wasted anyway per Bolton.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
akyron said:
Do you think the UN is a lost cause and we should start a new club of United Democracies? Can it be salvaged from the sorry state it is in now? I am in favor of salvaging it if possible. Why waste money on a new building? The top ten floors are wasted anyway per Bolton.
Thank you for your input akyron. Unfortunately, I believe the UN is well past the point of rehabilitation. From its original charter mission, it has morphed into an organization incapable of enforcing its resolutions, preventing genocide, preventing WMD proliferation, eradicating slavery networks and drug cartels, and advancing humanitarian values to name but a few of its shortcomings.

The US could remain a UN member while also organizing a new institution dedicated to the ideals of freedom/democracy and which would seek to address many of the serious issues iterated in the above paragraph.


 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Tashah said:
Thank you for your input akyron. Unfortunately, I believe the UN is well past the point of rehabilitation. From its original charter mission, it has morphed into an organization incapable of enforcing its resolutions, preventing genocide, preventing WMD proliferation, eradicating slavery networks and drug cartels, and advancing humanitarian values to name but a few of its shortcomings.

The US could remain a UN member while also organizing a new institution dedicated to the ideals of freedom/democracy and which would seek to address many of the serious issues iterated in the above paragraph.


So what purpose would the current UN serve if any?
Has it served its primary purpose in "preventing" world war III?
While the UN has undoubtedly failed on many fronts, By merely presenting a forum where differing nations can meet in neutral territory it could be argued that it is serving its main function and could yet be reformed once cleared of dross.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
matay_brit said:
What bothers me is that you think that for some reason America is the only country who don't have to answer to anyone while every other nation does.
Okay, so if we have to answer to the United Nations, who does the United Nations have to answer to? If I have a problem UN policy, there's nothing I can do about it whereas at least with the US government I can contact my congressman and senators. You're asking me to hand in my democracy.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
akyron said:
So what purpose would the current UN serve if any?
The only succinct purpose of the UN would be to serve as a waystation between the democratic community and everyone else.

akyron said:
By merely presenting a forum where differing nations can meet in neutral territory it could be argued that it is serving its main function and could yet be reformed once cleared of dross.
Clearing the UN of *dross* is tantamount to its deconstruction.


 

teacher

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tashah said:
The only succinct purpose of the UN would be to serve as a waystation between the democratic community and everyone else.


Clearing the UN of *dross* is tantamount to its deconstruction.


I believe there is someone out there who hates the UN as much as I.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
teacher said:
I believe there is someone out there who hates the UN as much as I.
As an American I reject the UN ........ As an Israeli I detest the UN.


 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
matay_brit said:
no i didnt say that, i said the UN didnt have enough power. I never said the UN wasn't trying to control the UN anyway.
You tried to play both sides, you said the U.N doesn't have enough power then said it isn't trying to control the U.S. then said that some of it's legislation is designed to control the U.S. when confronted with fact, and backtracked, then you complain that the U.S. will not be controlled without a fight, that is basically whining that your globalization friendly U.N. isn't getting it's way.
There obviously not, your just obsessed about having your sovereignity breached, oh poor old America, lets all cry because the naughty UN want to check your not ruining the world.
We contribute around 60% of funds to the U.N. if my figures are correct, so I think we've earned our opinion and sovreignity besides the fact that we have fought for it 200 plus years ago, so why should we care about what an out of control 60 year old wants. By the way, if sovreignity doesn't mean that much to you, then by all means go ahead and allow other nations to mind your business or influence your policy, but leave us out of it.
Oh you are, oh well! The UN can't do a *****ing think about it at all, so i don't no why ur so miffed about being checked on, like every other *****ing country is, what makes you so special.
Why am I so miffed! That's a simple answer, the simple arrogance of a body that we mostly fund and back telling us what to do, that's like an employee trying to give orders to a boss, it's arrogant, dangerous, and stupid. You mentioned earlier about us as a country ruining the world, nothing could be worse than a one world government, which is what the U.N. desires, all people on the globe should be happy that we won't let that happen.

Ok biggest per capita polluters. HA now thats twisted facts if i've ever heard it! idiot! as u full well know the reason they are the biggest per capita polluters is because they earn so *****ing little. Your the biggest polluter America, granted not too long, China.
I believe this one has already been adressed and you are wrong. I don't like to engage in personal attacks but since you drew first blood I will redirect, MORON!
The kyoto treaty would not "turn your economy to ****". America is just stubborn enough not to change as the other nations have at least tried to do. It's a simple case of American politics having no sense of equity whatsoever.
So let me get this straight, you think it's our job to punish ourselves for success just so the world can feel good about themselves, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Jealous much?
What bothers me is that you think that for some reason America is the only country who don't have to answer to anyone while every other nation does.
You assume too much, I don't want the U.N. to violate any stable countries sovreignity, but the U.N. is so spineless it won't engage troubled countries often because that would be difficult, it tries to change already established countries who use a diplomatic channel which makes it useless.
You keep blurting on about soverignity but the truth is you have this nieve patriotic belief that the UN is infringing on your rights when it clearly isn't.
You're not even worth debating with really, you are the naive one my friend if you think that sovreignity means that I am overly patriotic, we as a country have our ways, just as you Brits have yours, and I will be damned if someone in Tanzia gets together with a Canadian diplomat to tell my countrymen we are not doing things the right way because they don't agree with it, for the most part we leave others alone and if the world can't reciprocate that respect then too bad.
The UN so far as stated a few times on this forum can't really do anything so why are u pissed about it?
Because it only takes the wrong representation for that to change.
conclusion whether you like it or not America at the moment undermines any attempt at making any international body work properly because of its stubborness. For those of you that say who cares. Without it everyone will die!
With the U.N. we have the current state of modern terrorism in the middle east, it started with the formation of Israel, personally I like the Israelli government but the U.N. conveniently forgot to make sure the Muslim population was treated fairly, we made a mistake in that area as well, but either way you slice it, the U.N. created a new deadly situation that is harder to track than the two world wars of which it was supposed to prevent.
Well no not quite but conversation and diplomacy will stutter. Wars and scuffles would quite possibly become more frequent due to to the non-pressence of pressure on unstable Nations. In short the world would become more unstable.
Doubtful
 

matay_brit

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2005
Messages
82
Reaction score
2
Location
England, Britain, European Union
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You tried to play both sides, you said the U.N doesn't have enough power then said it isn't trying to control the U.S. then said that some of it's legislation is designed to control the U.S. when confronted with fact, and backtracked, then you complain that the U.S. will not be controlled without a fight, that is basically whining that your globalization friendly U.N. isn't getting it's way.

I have took the view that the UN does not have enough power, i have never back-tracked. Where have i back-tracked when i'm "confronted with fact" I believe that the UN should have more power then it has, i havent tried to play both sides.

We contribute around 60% of funds to the U.N. if my figures are correct, so I think we've earned our opinion and sovreignity besides the fact that we have fought for it 200 plus years ago, so why should we care about what an out of control 60 year old wants.

Yes you have earned your opinion, yet your opinion should not over-rule everyone else's. I'm sorry i didnt understand the last sentence of that, i'm 18.

By the way, if sovreignity doesn't mean that much to you, then by all means go ahead and allow other nations to mind your business or influence your policy, but leave us out of it.

other nations should definetly influence your policy, how can you not see that? Can't you see that if you only look out for urself then everyone else may and probably will suffer as a result. kyoto treaty example.

Why am I so miffed! That's a simple answer, the simple arrogance of a body that we mostly fund and back telling us what to do, that's like an employee trying to give orders to a boss, it's arrogant, dangerous, and stupid.

Oh so you think because America has the most money that it automatically should control the UN and the world is that it? please especially make a point of this one. Americas the boss and we have the arrogance to not do what you say. hmmm

You mentioned earlier about us as a country ruining the world, nothing could be worse than a one world government, which is what the U.N. desires, all people on the globe should be happy that we won't let that happen.

The very point of the UN is that it's ruled by everyone not just America or anyone else, yunno many opinions.?

So let me get this straight, you think it's our job to punish ourselves for success just so the world can feel good about themselves, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Jealous much?

If punishing yourself means cutting back on pollution, and taking an interest in what every other country in the world thinks, then yes, you should punish yourselves.

I don't want the U.N. to violate any stable countries sovreignity, but the U.N. is so spineless it won't engage troubled countries often because that would be difficult, it tries to change already established countries who use a diplomatic channel which makes it useless.

agreed

You're not even worth debating with really, you are the naive one my friend if you think that sovreignity means that I am overly patriotic, we as a country have our ways, just as you Brits have yours, and I will be damned if someone in Tanzia gets together with a Canadian diplomat to tell my countrymen we are not doing things the right way because they don't agree with it.

You obviously interpret what i believe wrongly. If the majority of people think its wrong, then yes i think it is. So if that tanzanian joined up with canadian, british, australian, brazilian, chinese, Japanese, French, German and Swedish chief foreign diplomats then possibly yeah. You don't seem to realise just how much you actually influence everyone else.

for the most part we leave others alone and if the world can't reciprocate that respect then too bad. Because it only takes the wrong representation for that to change.

Worst statement ever! erm Iraq, Afganistan, globalisation the fact that America basically controls the world through business, thats not leaving the world alone! Pollution! affects everyone not just U. Taking advantage of Africa through trade, yeah ok you've proved that you leave everyone else alone.

With the U.N. we have the current state of modern terrorism in the middle east, it started with the formation of Israel, personally I like the Israelli government but the U.N. conveniently forgot to make sure the Muslim population was treated fairly, we made a mistake in that area as well, but either way you slice it, the U.N. created a new deadly situation that is harder to track than the two world wars of which it was supposed to prevent.

erm no Israel was our fault, the British, yeah sorry about that one guys, point taken that it doesnt do enough of the right stuff in Israel. The UN yeahhh i'm sure that was after the 2 world wars wasn't it huh?

oh by the way i'm sorry for my being rude to you i get an ickle bit accentuated sometimes, my point is basically America only looks out for America, that's bad. in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
matay_brit said:
I have took the view that the UN does not have enough power, i have never back-tracked. Where have i back-tracked when i'm "confronted with fact" I believe that the UN should have more power then it has, i havent tried to play both sides.
If I misunderstood I apologize, but the speed at which this forum moves can create fast reads, we probably had a communication mishap.


Yes you have earned your opinion, yet your opinion should not over-rule everyone else's. I'm sorry i didnt understand the last sentence of that, i'm 18.
I don't mind other opinions towards U.S. foreign policy, don't get me wrong, but I cannot stand when another country or body dictates what we should do within our borders. We will probably just have to disagree on that.


other nations should definetly influence your policy, how can you not see that? Can't you see that if you only look out for urself then everyone else may and probably will suffer as a result. kyoto treaty example.
We will have to definitely disagree on this one, the thing is that the U.S. is trying to get limited to non-polluting technologies in place, but again, if we tank our economy or hurt it that can only slow down our progress, the tech sector requires rediculous amounts of money which could be lost through the Kyoto treaty(an opinion I subscribe to).


Oh so you think because America has the most money that it automatically should control the UN and the world is that it?
Don't misunderstand here, I don't think we should control the U.N. but it should stay out of our internal business and matters of safety, debate and diplomacy are fine, and in fact essential, but it should stay at that particular stage.
please especially make a point of this one. Americas the boss and we have the arrogance to not do what you say. hmmm
Alright, that was said out of anger, basically to expand on that I feel that we are not getting value for our investment, in other words the more we give in terms of money, troop contributions and political concession, the more is asked of us, the reason I used that particular analogy was not to say any member countries are less than us, rather to say that we as big contributors often get the shaft, we are asked to step things up on behalf of the U.N. and in fact do, but when it comes down to diplomatic efforts we get alot of daggers lobbed at us, we constantly get smeared, and frankly, a growing number of Americans are getting sick of it. Most of the heat comes from countries who are upset at U.N. initiatives and after we take the flak, the hands come out again. Sorry if that sounded arrogant in shortened form.

The very point of the UN is that it's ruled by everyone not just America or anyone else, yunno many opinions.?
That is the way it is supposed to work, the idea looks great on paper, but one thing that is showing about all of the differing opinions is that many differing opinions are based on a particular regions agenda, these are the votes that make action in said reason difficult. Also, many different agendas collide and make it almost impossible to take decisive action on anything, it's almost like trying to order the same kind of pizza for a party, no one agrees.


If punishing yourself means cutting back on pollution, and taking an interest in what every other country in the world thinks, then yes, you should punish yourselves.
Cutting back on pollution will come naturally, but it could be impossible to regain economic ground lost because of a bad treaty, thus not a good deal, we do take an interest in others opinions and in fact lead the world in charitable giving and do much for peacekeeping efforts, but as I said earlier, it is never considered enough, the hands always come back out. Also, if world opinion leads to something that could damage our country, then we must do what is right for ourselves, much like all people worldwide, we can listen, but ultimately must do what's conducive to our needs as all countries do.



You obviously interpret what i believe wrongly. If the majority of people think its wrong, then yes i think it is. So if that tanzanian joined up with canadian, british, australian, brazilian, chinese, Japanese, French, German and Swedish chief foreign diplomats then possibly yeah. You don't seem to realise just how much you actually influence everyone else.
This goes back to the internal affairs argument, I don't mind if a country thinks we are dealing unfairly with other countries or thinks we could do things a better way, please, by all means share the opinion. But like I stated earlier, these opinions should not pertain to our laws, economic system, or way of life.


Worst statement ever! erm Iraq, Afganistan, globalisation the fact that America basically controls the world through business, thats not leaving the world alone!
Iraq needs to be reformed, the U.N. has been complaining about the country for over a decade, we just set things into action, Afghanistan and the Taliban needed to be done, they were terrorists allies and were our business(Yes, I know we created them, we effed up) As far as economics go, we control alot of that because we are well off, most of it comes from investment and I won't deny that some abuse is probably there, but that's quite different from meddling in others affairs.
Pollution! affects everyone not just U.
I don't think anyone really knows the true effects of pollution because there are so many conflicting reports for multiple sources, that's a tricky debate.
Taking advantage of Africa through trade, yeah ok you've proved that you leave everyone else alone.
Like I said, economics are a totally different animal, we do trade with Africa, but because of economic law it will be done at a mutually agreed on price, most of the problem with Africa's economy comes from despotic governments that control the money, ultimately the laborers and powerless suffer, maybe we shouldn't trade with them, but they have many things that we need, another tricky situation.


erm no Israel was our fault, the British, yeah sorry about that one guys, point taken that it doesnt do enough of the right stuff in Israel.
Israel was created through the U.N. but I think on a Brittish initiative, we still backed the process though, like I said, the Israellis are great people and the biggest problem is that the muslims surrounding them were given the shaft, it's a problem and hard to fix.
The UN yeahhh i'm sure that was after the 2 world wars wasn't it huh?
Yes, the U.N. was, it was meant to replace the League of Nations which failed miserably after WWI, thus, WWII happened. The big problem is that the U.N. was set up so that WWIII couldn't happen but hard feelings in the muslim world were not considered at the time, also, the big problem with the U.N. is that you will have hard feelings because of radical differences in opinion and agenda, this could, but hopefully won't lead to rampant conflict. Time will tell though.

oh by the way i'm sorry for my being rude to you i get an ickle bit accentuated sometimes, my point is basically America only looks out for America, that's bad. in my opinion.
Apology accepted and also extended. Yes America does look out for ourselves, but we do many things that benefit others, as any country does.
 

Loki

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle of nowhere Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Any organisation that puts libya in charge of its human rights

department has lost all credibility.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Although I believe the UN should be disbanded, how about this for a compromise...Every two years, the UN delegates have a vote on where the most pressing need is in the world(currently, I'd go with Sudan)...

Here comes the fun part...The UN packs up, gathers the airline tickets...and GOES there!

No more mid-afternoon tea breaks and immunity status...Watch the genocide firsthand from the shack-view...

Maybe that will get them to do a little problem-solving...
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hey teacher, I came across this little ditty on Fox News today (shhh don't tell anyone that I was actually on that website) while reasearching the Oil for Food program and/or any investigations already in place or forthcoming. I read it and found it quite interesting.

The first link is the actual article. The second link, is the piece Kofi Annan put into the Washington times back in June. I believe you will find it as interesting as I do.

Happy reading!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161084,00.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001176.html

just on a side note- too bad the UN isn't a smiley I'd :nukeum: in a second!:2rofll:
 
Top Bottom