• 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.

United Nations (1 Viewer)

Calm2Chaos said:
1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

Neither one of these say absolutely anything about military conflict let alone major military conflict. Security guards with blue helmets and tanks. You aren't seeing the difference. Like sending a battalion in a small town to keep them from beating each other with sticks. You can call that a peace keeping mission, but it wasn't a military action. it was a security gaurd in a tank sitting there catching rays

And yet it worked. Soooo what's the problem?
 
Kelzie said:
And yet it worked. Soooo what's the problem?
But did it? Did we have any right to end such conflicts? Perhaps some group got the wrong end of the deal when they really should have gotten more.

And for all these missions and crap, what do they even do? "Keep the peace"? Yeah, then when the forces leave they'll just be chaos again. And all the troops do, then, is just waste our money that could be used for helping AMERICA, which is where we SHOULD be focusing our attention.
 
Hornburger said:
But did it? Did we have any right to end such conflicts? Perhaps some group got the wrong end of the deal when they really should have gotten more.

And for all these missions and crap, what do they even do? "Keep the peace"? Yeah, then when the forces leave they'll just be chaos again. And all the troops do, then, is just waste our money that could be used for helping AMERICA, which is where we SHOULD be focusing our attention.

Says the person living in the US. :roll: You think the people of Darfur wouldn't want peace no matter which group got the "wrong end of the deal"? Just because you don't live in hardship doesn't mean you should force it on others because you think we need more money.
 
Kelzie said:
Says the person living in the US. :roll: You think the people of Darfur wouldn't want peace no matter which group got the "wrong end of the deal"? Just because you don't live in hardship doesn't mean you should force it on others because you think we need more money.
Not everyone wants the same things we do. If they wanted peace, they'd just stop fighting and talk to each other. But no, they are fighting. Why? Because they have things to GAIN and things to LOSE. We know nothing of them, or their culture. So how can we judge where to draw the line?

And how can we know what's best for the entire world, for every country? Isn't that just saying "Things have to be done our way." It sounds a little tyrannical...how ironic!

And what is good the good of all these "missions" if they just end up in chaos and disaster? What is the point if we are back where we started, AND we lose the money that could be helping AMERICANS (the people we know, the people we are able to help in the long-run, and the only people we should be responsible for).
 
Last edited:
Hornburger said:
Not everyone wants the same things we do. If they wanted peace, they'd just stop fighting and talk to each other. But no, they are fighting. Why? Because they have things to GAIN and things to LOSE. We know nothing of them, or their culture. So how can we judge where to draw the line?)

And you apparently know nothing about situations around the world. The vast, VAST majority of casualties are people caught in the crossfire. Not the combatants. And you also know little about the peace process. They don't sit the two sides down and tell them what they are going to do. They provide a safe forum for them to work out a solution on their own.

And how can we know what's best for the entire world, for every country? Isn't that just saying "Things have to be done our way." It sounds a little tyrannical...how ironic!

It appears you are fine sitting on your thumbs while two warring armies kill millions of women and children while fighting for land, but thankfully there are people who are more inclined to help others. We're not telling them how to do things. We're telling them the killing must stop.

And what is good the good of all these "missions" if they just end up in chaos and disaster? What is the point if we are back where we started, AND we lose the money that could be helping AMERICANS (the people we know, the people we are able to help in the long-run, and the only people we should be responsible for).

But they don't end up in chaos. So you have no point.
 
Kelzie said:
And you apparently know nothing about situations around the world. The vast, VAST majority of casualties are people caught in the crossfire. Not the combatants.
When did I say anything about combatants losing their life more than innocent bystanders? You just ignored my point...

And you also know little about the peace process. They don't sit the two sides down and tell them what they are going to do. They provide a safe forum for them to work out a solution on their own.
Yeah...with a bit of nudging...and prodding...etc etc.

It appears you are fine sitting on your thumbs while two warring armies kill millions of women and children while fighting for land, but thankfully there are people who are more inclined to help others. We're not telling them how to do things. We're telling them the killing must stop.
And in order for the peace to stay, the people from WITHIN must want to unite. And most likely there are plenty who do NOT want to unite and settle their differences. Things won't stop by just a settlement when neither side wants to follow peace. Things would just erupt in violence once again. The parents teach their children about how evil the other side is. And they keep passing down the horrors the other side does. Now how likely is a peace agreement to be lastingly successful?

But they don't end up in chaos. So you have no point.
Yeah...because when we withdraw our forces, what's keeping them from starting to kill again?
 
Hornburger said:
When did I say anything about combatants losing their life more than innocent bystanders? You just ignored my point...


Yeah...with a bit of nudging...and prodding...etc etc.


And in order for the peace to stay, the people from WITHIN must want to unite. And most likely there are plenty who do NOT want to unite and settle their differences. Things won't stop by just a settlement when neither side wants to follow peace. Things would just erupt in violence once again. The parents teach their children about how evil the other side is. And they keep passing down the horrors the other side does. Now how likely is a peace agreement to be lastingly successful?


Yeah...because when we withdraw our forces, what's keeping them from starting to kill again?

Like I said. The peace lasts. So obviously the UN's peace process must work better than you falsely imagine it to. It's called peace. Not a cease fire. Those are two very different things.
 
Kelzie said:
Like I said. The peace lasts. So obviously the UN's peace process must work better than you falsely imagine it to. It's called peace. Not a cease fire. Those are two very different things.
I don't remember seeing anything about lasting peace, just that there was a peace treaty, nothing about how much violence or anything, or how war stopped, or how the rebels were all killed off or went into mainstream society...or anything like that...and until the people INSIDE the country want to be united and peaceful, nothing will work. We have to work for LONG-TERM solutions, not just saying, we'll kill everyone off till we leave, then fend for yourselves...that just doesn't work.
 
Hornburger said:
I don't remember seeing anything about lasting peace, just that there was a peace treaty, nothing about how much violence or anything, or how war stopped, or how the rebels were all killed off or went into mainstream society...or anything like that...and until the people INSIDE the country want to be united and peaceful, nothing will work. We have to work for LONG-TERM solutions, not just saying, we'll kill everyone off till we leave, then fend for yourselves...that just doesn't work.

Well, good thing that's not what they're doing then, huh?

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief2.html
 
Kelzie said:
Well, good thing that's not what they're doing then, huh?

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief2.html
I still don't see anything about lasting peace...I don't believe that lasting peace is created in such poor, desperate, war-raven countries...That's why I think it's better to help the people who I know that the money can make a difference with (America). This will improve our economy, and the countries can trade with us more, thus having a better impact on THEIR economies, and then helping to further stabilize their governments...spending money on America not only helps America, but other countries as well, instead of getting lost on food and such that only solves short-term problems.
 
Hornburger said:
I still don't see anything about lasting peace...I don't believe that lasting peace is created in such poor, desperate, war-raven countries...That's why I think it's better to help the people who I know that the money can make a difference with (America). This will improve our economy, and the countries can trade with us more, thus having a better impact on THEIR economies, and then helping to further stabilize their governments...spending money on America not only helps America, but other countries as well, instead of getting lost on food and such that only solves short-term problems.

And exactly how many war-torn countries has the US having a big economy helped?
 
Kelzie said:
And exactly how many war-torn countries has the US having a big economy helped?
A lot more than the UN with its missions just helping countries for a month or two than leaving them out to dry (you can't supply food forever, and you can't leave troops in there forever either or you'd be occupying the country).

And if we significantly cut down, or perhaps eliminate, foreign aid, we'd be helping even more through FREE TRADE. It helps bring about democracy, peace, and stronger economies, AND we don't intervene in their problems when we don't really know the full story and when we shouldn't be judging or jumping to conclusions. That is the long-term solution we should be shooting for...
 
Hornburger said:
A lot more than the UN with its missions just helping countries for a month or two than leaving them out to dry (you can't supply food forever, and you can't leave troops in there forever either or you'd be occupying the country).

And if we significantly cut down, or perhaps eliminate, foreign aid, we'd be helping even more through FREE TRADE. It helps bring about democracy, peace, and stronger economies, AND we don't intervene in their problems when we don't really know the full story and when we shouldn't be judging or jumping to conclusions. That is the long-term solution we should be shooting for...

Prove it...
 
Kelzie said:
Prove it...
Right back at ya, I'll prove my stance if you'll prove yours.

But not sure if I can prove mine, since we refuse to step down as the UN's major player and still contribute a lot of money in foreign aid...so I think we'll have to put the plan into play first, just like we weren't sure whether communism and capitalism would work or not until they were implemented.
 
Hornburger said:
Right back at ya, I'll prove my stance if you'll prove yours.

But not sure if I can prove mine, since we refuse to step down as the UN's major player and still contribute a lot of money in foreign aid...so I think we'll have to put the plan into play first, just like we weren't sure whether communism and capitalism would work or not until they were implemented.

I already have provided several posts about successful peace keeping missions by the UN. If you can't prove your point, it is wrong.
 
Kelzie said:
I already have provided several posts about successful peace keeping missions by the UN. If you can't prove your point, it is wrong.
But you never said anything about having lasting peace. If the peace doesn't last for a significant amount at all, what's the point of having peace at all?

And if my point can't be proven it is wrong? What kind of logic is that? Adam Smith could never fully prove his point because there wasn't idea like that had been implemented on such a scale to a country's political system. So, capitalism is wrong? You can't say something is wrong if it hasn't been done before. If that was the case, humanity would have gone extinct a LONG time ago.
 
Hornburger said:
But you never said anything about having lasting peace. If the peace doesn't last for a significant amount at all, what's the point of having peace at all?

And if my point can't be proven it is wrong? What kind of logic is that? Adam Smith could never fully prove his point because there wasn't idea like that had been implemented on such a scale to a country's political system. So, capitalism is wrong? You can't say something is wrong if it hasn't been done before. If that was the case, humanity would have gone extinct a LONG time ago.

Adam Smith proved his point with logic. You have done nothing but assert your position.
 
Kelzie said:
Adam Smith proved his point with logic. You have done nothing but assert your position.
I have presented my argument already, but you didn't even bother to refute any of my points. If you wish to find my logic faulty, don't just say so, have a reason for saying so, and show me where I'm wrong. Just saying "You're wrong!" gets us nowhere.
 
Hornburger said:
I have presented my argument already, but you didn't even bother to refute any of my points. If you wish to find my logic faulty, don't just say so, have a reason for saying so, and show me where I'm wrong. Just saying "You're wrong!" gets us nowhere.

But you can't prove your argument either through evidence (which I did) or logic. There is nothing to refute.
 
Kelzie said:
But you can't prove your argument either through evidence (which I did) or logic. There is nothing to refute.
Are you listening to what I am saying? I am telling you you didn't prove your argument because you never said how long that peace lasted. Hell, the two sides could have signed the agreement, then next day attacked the other side. What kind of a peace is that?

And I already told you my side, but you are too good, or something, I don't know, too even tell me where I went "wrong". Let me quote one of my posts. "That's why I think it's better to help the people who I know that the money can make a difference with (America). This will improve our economy, and the countries can trade with us more, thus having a better impact on THEIR economies, and then helping to further stabilize their governments...spending money on America not only helps America, but other countries as well, instead of getting lost on food and such that only solves short-term problems."

Tell me where I am wrong here. I think that giving food to people only solves short-term problems, while building up their economies (through free trade)gives them the ability to provide their own food, which is much more effective. Less money on wasted aid means a better U.S. economy, a better economy means more trade with other countries, more trade with other countries means economic profit for both countries.

Now, how is that wrong? I see free trade and the buildup of strong economies as being peaceful tools that can be used to help strengthen all parties involved and bring about positive political, economic, and social results.
 
Last edited:
Hornburger said:
Are you listening to what I am saying? I am telling you you didn't prove your argument because you never said how long that peace lasted. Hell, the two sides could have signed the agreement, then next day attacked the other side. What kind of a peace is that?

And I already told you my side, but you are too good, or something, I don't know, too even tell me where I went "wrong". Let me quote one of my posts. "That's why I think it's better to help the people who I know that the money can make a difference with (America). This will improve our economy, and the countries can trade with us more, thus having a better impact on THEIR economies, and then helping to further stabilize their governments...spending money on America not only helps America, but other countries as well, instead of getting lost on food and such that only solves short-term problems."

Tell me where I am wrong here. I think that giving food to people only solves short-term problems, while building up their economies (through free trade)gives them the ability to provide their own food, which is much more effective. Less money on wasted aid means a better U.S. economy, a better economy means more trade with other countries, more trade with other countries means economic profit for both countries.

Now, how is that wrong? I see free trade and the buildup of strong economies as being peaceful tools that can be used to help strengthen all parties involved and bring about positive political, economic, and social results.

Calm down now. You just seemed to think that a free market is going to solve war. It's not. I happen to agree that free food is a short term solution. It's even a dumb short term solution, because it destroys local farmers. Who can compete with free? It is certainly good for their economy. Good for ending a war? I'm still doubtful.
 
Kelzie said:
Calm down now. You just seemed to think that a free market is going to solve war. It's not. I happen to agree that free food is a short term solution. It's even a dumb short term solution, because it destroys local farmers. Who can compete with free? It is certainly good for their economy. Good for ending a war? I'm still doubtful.
I just think that it's the most effective way when taking in all aspects, the peacefulness, and the fact that it benefits multiple parties. Mind you, it isn't the fastest process in the world, I agree wholeheartedly with that, but I think that in order to see a significant change, things take time and patience. If there was an easy solution, there wouldn't be so many third-world countries. But as it stands, no solution is perfect. I think we do have to look at what solutions help the country in the long-term, and the only option I can see that would work relatively well is through free trade...free money gets eaten up by corrupt governments, loans put the country deeper into dept, you can't force a country to unite and be more democratic...I just see the free trade solution as one that makes sense and can work, if just given time.
 
Hornburger said:
I just think that it's the most effective way when taking in all aspects, the peacefulness, and the fact that it benefits multiple parties. Mind you, it isn't the fastest process in the world, I agree wholeheartedly with that, but I think that in order to see a significant change, things take time and patience. If there was an easy solution, there wouldn't be so many third-world countries. But as it stands, no solution is perfect. I think we do have to look at what solutions help the country in the long-term, and the only option I can see that would work relatively well is through free trade...free money gets eaten up by corrupt governments, loans put the country deeper into dept, you can't force a country to unite and be more democratic...I just see the free trade solution as one that makes sense and can work, if just given time.

I certainly agree. There's a certain GDP...can't remember what it is...but after countries get there, they have never fallen from democracy to some form of dictatorship. But they have to get to that GDP first. And all the free trade in the world isn't going to stop a war.
 
Kelzie said:
I certainly agree. There's a certain GDP...can't remember what it is...but after countries get there, they have never fallen from democracy to some form of dictatorship. But they have to get to that GDP first. And all the free trade in the world isn't going to stop a war.
That is true...but in the cases where a war arises not from desperation, that war would have much better preventation chances if the country is actually heard out and taken seriously before it is too late...and that would be the UN's function, as a forum for international opinion as someone else (I forget who) said. But dues would not be needed for such a function...
 
Hornburger said:
That is true...but in the cases where a war arises not from desperation, that war would have much better preventation chances if the country is actually heard out and taken seriously before it is too late...and that would be the UN's function, as a forum for international opinion as someone else (I forget who) said. But dues would not be needed for such a function...

I can agree with the first part, but the UN does too much good for the second.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom