UN out of USA

[Scorpion89]

What are the countries who control the human rights council?

They haven't been sat yet that will take place in June

 

[Ambracia]

The spread of human rights, or the prevention thereof?

The human rights commission is one of the chief vehicles for spreading Islamist points of view around. Ahmadinejad as the keynote speaker? Get real!

One of the stated goals, Ahmadinejhad isn't as powerful as we give him credit, in reality he's just a major annoyance.

 

[Gardener]

One of the stated goals, Ahmadinejhad isn't as powerful as we give him credit, in reality he's just a major annoyance.

I never said he was powerful.

the fact that the idiots in charge made him the keynote speaker is what is revealing.

 

[Inferno]

It will never move from the US. I think though to belong a member should have to belong to an international court system. That would be a big plus.

 

[Captain America]

If I were in any country other than Russia, China, US, Britian or France I would see no use for the UN either. Regardless what the collective body of the UN does, those five nations weild veto power so what's the point?

Americans use to LOVE the UN when they were doing what we told them to do. As soon as they got in America's face and started pointing the blame finger in Israel's and the US's direction, then the UN became useless. :roll:

Unless you are one of the veto power nations, it has always been useless really.

 

[SKYPE]

Uhh sticking the most important international body in the world who's goals include the spread of human rights and democracy ..... IN CHINA !!!! If we have some big problem with it being in the U.S I'd advocate for somewhere in Canada, Western Europe, Scandanavia or best of all Antartica.

the u.n.'s goal is to spread peace, but the u.s. has been responsible for creating more conflicts, wars, terorism, than any other country i know of. so china would be a step up.

 

[MSgt]

It would be pretty symbolic of the U.N's over and over again neutrality on international crisis's like Darfur, Somalia, Georgia, etc

This was a perfect response. Good job.

 

[MSgt]

the u.n.'s goal is to spread peace, but the u.s. has been responsible for creating more conflicts, wars, terorism, than any other country i know of. so china would be a step up.

The UN's goal is to maintain stability, not peace. Over the decades they became one in the same to the ignorant. Ask the millions of people who existed under the stability that dictators provided and they may have a different meaning to the word "peace." Ask the people of Sudan and Darfur how they feel about the UNs decision to preserve Bashir even after an international court called him up for crimes against humanity. Peace? Who's peace? Did you know that by law if the UN labels a crisis a genocide it is the responisbility of the West, especially America, to act? Not Russia, China, or anybody in the Middle East. But the West.

Creating conflicts? Hardly. We've just been the ones that deal with them while others get to sit out and criticize.

We did not create Korea. We dealt with the power vacuume and the UN divided it in half between communism and freedom.

We did not create Vietnam. The French were there first and left the door wide open to the spread of communism.

We did not create the Gulf War. We merely dealt with the dictator who once provided that "peace" I spoke of earlier.

We did not create Afghanistan. We were attacked.

Iraq? Yes and no.


But who really created the mess of this world? Who drew lines across tribes and called it colonial right? Who forced tribes together within unnatural borders? Who created the Frankenstein's monster nations in Africa and the Middle East? And who instigated two World Wars and a Cold War? Who created the palestinian/Israeli mess and then washed their hands? The answer is Europeans....not Americans. We've just been left to hold the body bag.

 

[Red_Dave]

This was a perfect response. Good job.

Except he knows **** all about what he's talking about. The UN has sent troops into Darfur and issued an arrest warrant for several sudanese war criminals.

 

[MSgt]

Except he knows **** all about what he's talking about. The UN has sent troops into Darfur and issued an arrest warrant for several sudanese war criminals.

Yet, refrains from honoring an international court's decision to pull Bashir on the carpet for his crimes against humanity because it might disrupt their insignificant activity. UN troops also did little to solve Bosnia before Clinton got involved. And today, UN troops stabilize a Bosnian environment that is safe for gun runners and human trafficing. Ask me what the UNs use was in Somalia.

The UN has satisified the masses by doing the bare minimum in crowd control in Darfur. It does not actively solve anything. It has its uses, but dealing with a crisis is not one of them. This is always left to individual nation states. Korea? - A UN mission where America stood apart and faced. Palestine/Israel? - A UN mission where America is the lone broker of peace. Somalia? - A UN mission where America was the muscle and guide. Bosnia? - A UN mission where America and some European states stood apart to do the job. Kosovo? - Condemned by the UN. Sudan? - Ignored by the UN until it sent contingency forces to deal with the humanitarian crisis afte the fact. Rwanda? - Completely ignored because individual nation states didn't force it.


The UN is famous for arriving and lingering until the international community finds a new location to use in order to define its fake morality.

 

[gunner]

I say - move them to the moon. This organization is so useless in what it's doing, that I don't even think we'd feel the change.

:rofl Say NO more!

Paul

 

[rathi]

We would be fools to give up the advantages we get by having the U.N within our borders. It give us control of the environment, as well as making it easy to spy on the delegates. Foreign policy should be decided by calculated thought, not a whiny emotional response to some utterly meaningless votes in the general assembly. The U.N. promotes stability, and as the leading power in the world, that is very very much in our interest.

 

[Simba]

The UN, if anything, should very much have more of a say in our affairs, if not the US military.

Our nation, under the civilian leadership, has gotten out of control, and is the major threat to world peace in the world.

 

[reefedjib]

The UN, if anything, should very much have more of a say in our affairs, if not the US military.

Our nation, under the civilian leadership, has gotten out of control, and is the major threat to world peace in the world.

Bull****. We need to ****can the UN, as it only obfuscates. THe world needs more democracy and if we need to disrupt the peace of a dictatorship with the war of freedom, then so be it.

 

[Simba]

Bull****. We need to ****can the UN, as it only obfuscates. THe world needs more democracy and if we need to disrupt the peace of a dictatorship with the war of freedom, then so be it.

Your signature...The War Wing...that says it all.

All the more reason the US military, or the UN, or both, needs to join together to contain that element within the US.

You are part and parcel of the problems in the world today.

 

[MSgt]

The UN, if anything, should very much have more of a say in our affairs, if not the US military.

Our nation, under the civilian leadership, has gotten out of control, and is the major threat to world peace in the world.

Hmmm... our military under your civilian kind....or under international your civilian kind. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. Just think....a UN organization full of dictators with American military power at their disposal.

Explain this "world peace threat" we are. Last I checked, it was Europeans that started World Wars and Cold Wars. And it was the U.S. that has made sure that the frictions between states remain small. Or did I miss a World War in the last 60 years?

 

[MSgt]

You are part and parcel of the problems in the world today.

I believe your kind of thinking is a problem in this world, because you insist on seeking American blame where others are absolved of responsibility. You also appear to not understand that history's longest lasting peace has come only after bloodshed. Dictators and aggresive organizations/governments have no sympathies for just hugging it out.

The "problem in the world today" is that it was made wrong long before America inherited it. Do you even have a notion as to what really plagues the world? - corruption and bad borders.

Look around. Everywhere there is conflict there is a legacy of European colonialism. Hell, before America got into the Vietnam void it was the French that were struggling to maintain their former colony. Korea was split in half by the UN. America didn't create the Palestinian/Israeli issue. The Brits, Soviets, and the French did. We didn't get involved until the Suez War. Right after the Cold War ended and both sides went to their corners, Yugolsavia was the first to crack apart into tribal violence. The entire Middle East is a powder keg of tribal madness waiting to blow in all directions. The only thing keeping it together are dictators, thugs, and religious oppression behind unnatural borders. We can't even rid ourseleves of an old Cold War dictator in Iraq without watching the population rip each other to shreds.

The way I see it, you have a very twisted (UN) idea of what "peace" is. Throughout the Cold War, stability equaled "peace" no matter who suffered. If you prefer your sense of "peace," then identify what preserved it in whole regions - dictators and religious oppression. What you aren't getting (or pretending not to get since it enables you to bash America from post to post for some personal reason) is that since the Cold War ended and the free world won, the entire world is in a back lash. Populations who once were fed their propogandous education are now surfing the Internet and asking tough questions. Populations who were once submissive to their governments, because that's all they knew, are now demanding what the rest of the world has had for decades and decades. Governments are cracking down.

But who is left holding the bag after the Cold War ended? Who in the free world was charged with playing the Soviet dictator support game in order to compete? Who is blamed for all that is wrong in the world by ignorant populations and their needy governments? We are. We are on top, therefore, we are to blame and resent. We are hated far more for what we do for ourselves than what we ever did to anybody else. Our successes are are reminders of their failures.

The problem of the world is that European colonialism has a legacy for which Europeans have washed their hands of. This leaves us dealing with bad borders, corrupt governments, Cold War left overs, and diplomatic burdens.

Remove us and watch the world rip itself apart region by region. Because in the end, bad borders remain the source of hatred for hundreds of millions of people. Just about every conflict since 1989 has involved tribal divides within European made borders or tribal hatreds towards minority tribes that have been carved apart because of bad borders.

 

[Simba]

I believe your kind of thinking is a problem in this world, because you insist on seeking American blame where others are absolved of responsibility. You also appear to not understand that history's longest lasting peace has come only after bloodshed. Dictators and aggresive organizations/governments have no sympathies for just hugging it out.

The "problem in the world today" is that it was made wrong long before America inherited it. Do you even have a notion as to what really plagues the world? - corruption and bad borders.

Look around. Everywhere there is conflict there is a legacy of European colonialism. Hell, before America got into the Vietnam void it was the French that were struggling to maintain their former colony. Korea was split in half by the UN. America didn't create the Palestinian/Israeli issue. The Brits, Soviets, and the French did. We didn't get involved until the Suez War. Right after the Cold War ended and both sides went to their corners, Yugolsavia was the first to crack apart into tribal violence. The entire Middle East is a powder keg of tribal madness waiting to blow in all directions. The only thing keeping it together are dictators, thugs, and religious oppression behind unnatural borders. We can't even rid ourseleves of an old Cold War dictator in Iraq without watching the population rip each other to shreds.

The way I see it, you have a very twisted (UN) idea of what "peace" is. Throughout the Cold War, stability equaled "peace" no matter who suffered. If you prefer your sense of "peace," then identify what preserved it in whole regions - dictators and religious oppression. What you aren't getting (or pretending not to get since it enables you to bash America from post to post for some personal reason) is that since the Cold War ended and the free world won, the entire world is in a back lash. Populations who once were fed their propogandous education are now surfing the Internet and asking tough questions. Populations who were once submissive to their governments, because that's all they knew, are now demanding what the rest of the world has had for decades and decades. Governments are cracking down.

But who is left holding the bag after the Cold War ended? Who in the free world was charged with playing the Soviet dictator support game in order to compete? Who is blamed for all that is wrong in the world by ignorant populations and their needy governments? We are. We are on top, therefore, we are to blame and resent. We are hated far more for what we do for ourselves than what we ever did to anybody else. Our successes are are reminders of their failures.

The problem of the world is that European colonialism has a legacy for which Europeans have washed their hands of. This leaves us dealing with bad borders, corrupt governments, Cold War left overs, and diplomatic burdens.

Remove us and watch the world rip itself apart region by region. Because in the end, bad borders remain the source of hatred for hundreds of millions of people. Just about every conflict since 1989 has involved tribal divides within European made borders or tribal hatreds towards minority tribes that have been carved apart because of bad borders.

Master Sergeant.

Over a beer in my back yard...you and I would have no problem. You and I...we have been fed a lot of ****. Cut me some slack.

 

[Whigfield]

Sorry, I cannot stand the self-righteousness of Americans on the United Nations file. I apologise in advance.

Need I remind you that the International Criminal Court, is created by a separate treaty called the Treaty of Rome, at that the Republicans in the US Congress during President Clinton forced Clinton to back out. How can you expect the Prosecutor of a Court that requires members ratify the Treaty before it can even be applicable, to try heavy cases? Additionally, the Court does not have the power to compel arrests. (see: Belgium v. Senegel, ICJ) So even when it does get an arrest warrant provided through the long pre-investigation hearings, it is not always able to get the person involved. Still, the Court does have some convictions which is notable for its short history and sometimes very willing enemies of its jurisdiction (see: The Hague Invasion Act, US Congress...which provides immediate authorisation for the United States to invade the Kingdom of the Netherlands should an American national appear before the ICC court in The Hague).

For the United Nations at large, I imagine it would be better and more capable of working if the American Government paid its bills on time. The United States is currently has 1.5 Billion dollars in arrears, which is a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter, but because the US is a Security Council veto holder...the United Nations does not act to suspend the United States.

The United Nations provides the role of discussion. It is the only body that provides a formal framework for all the recognised nations of the world to meet and discuss issues. It is for the peace of humanity but those are just lofty words.

Still, the United Nations would be better if the United States would stop playing politics and trying to undermine the Organisation everytime the Organisation does not agree with US foreign policy goals. (see: Helms-Biden Amendment).

 

[MSgt]

Still, the United Nations would be better if the United States would stop playing politics and trying to undermine the Organisation everytime the Organisation does not agree with US foreign policy goals.

Well with the Russia and China sitting at the table, someone's got to steer the path.