It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the United Nations worth saving?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   
And some want this to continue? It is time for it to be dissolved,



Update:

U.N. accused of rape, pedophilia, prostitution Civilians, staff in Congo under internal investigation



The United Nations claims it is investigating about 150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in the Congo, some of them recorded on videotape.

The charges include accusations of pedophilia, rape and prostitution, said Jane Holl Lute, an assistant secretary-general in the peacekeeping department.

Lute, an American, said there was photographic and video evidence for some of the allegations and most of the charges came to light since the spring.




U.N. accused of rape, pedophilia, prostitution





I think this is a good representation of what the UN has become and how it got there. I agree that we need to remove it from New York, withdraw some funding unless we can audit and control more closely how it is spent. Also, if the US left the UN, others would soon follow. It could be bad but the UN must change and quickly because mostly it is moot already.


Is the United Nations worth saving?

Posted: November 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

For a good many years, it has been a fair question whether or not the United Nations is more trouble than it's worth. For the first 15 years of its existence, from 1945 to 1960, it served its purpose as a handy forum for the world's variegated nations, and even occasionally served a useful purpose as in 1950, when it lent its name to the American-led war to defend South Korea from the North Korean invasion. (Though even that was possible only because the Soviet Union, which could have vetoed the move, had temporarily walked out of the Security Council in a huff over something or other.)

But then, about 1960, a flood of new ex-colonial nations entered the world body, and quickly organized themselves as the Third World, ostensibly neutral in the epochal struggle between the communist powers and the Free World. By virtue of sheer numbers, this new entity seized control of the General Assembly and with it control of the United Nations' central bureaucracy and began selling itself to the higher of the two global bidders: Washington and Moscow. Slowly, however, under the leadership of India, the Third World began siding regularly with Moscow, and the United Nations followed suit.



All of which makes even more urgent a serious re-evaluation of the ability of the United Nations. The time may be coming when Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!"


Is the United Nations worth saving?

[edit on 27-11-2004 by edsinger]




posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Perhaps the UN will continue to evolve its various organizations and charters with or without US involvement? The problem arises if any government in the US that promotes an isolationist agenda also has the US behaving as a rogue state. The US ends up getting voted off committees and less and less relevant to what are meant to be positive developments in international relations and the betterment of the human environment.

It's a two-way street: the US is a wealthy militaristic nation that represents 3% of the people in the world, what is the UN?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
It's a two-way street: the US is a wealthy militaristic nation that represents 3% of the people in the world, what is the UN?


Well the 3% figure is misleading, if the amount of people were to be the que then India and China would rule the world would they not?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
ed.. I think you know my opinion already


Get that crap out of New York.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
points of reform:

- the UN needs to be relocated to somewhere like Switzerland or Austria, somewhere globally central.

- the UN needs to simplfy its structure

- take a more active role in peace keeping

- warn, then kick out, then impose sanctions on those who violate human rights on a mass scale eg China



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The U.N has its pros when it comes to helping other countrys but it has its cons the main one being it can't control its members. America for one, the war in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
points of reform:

- the UN needs to be relocated to somewhere like Switzerland or Austria, somewhere globally central.

- the UN needs to simplfy its structure

- take a more active role in peace keeping

- warn, then kick out, then impose sanctions on those who violate human rights on a mass scale eg China



I can not see anything wrong with this at all.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
The U.N has its pros when it comes to helping other countrys but it has its cons the main one being it can't control its members. America for one, the war in Iraq.


very true, but how can the UN influence countries such as the US without alienating them????



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard


very true, but how can the UN influence countries such as the US without alienating them????

especially if the country is one of the big five.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:46 AM
link   
No. It is not.

Get them out of here. We could use the office space for our own use. Especially after the little incident that happened about three years ago.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Only if it invades and disarmes America and Israel... otherwise its just sitting around being laughed at by the US president.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
- warn, then kick out, then impose sanctions on those who violate human rights on a mass scale eg China


How about the US!?!

Just look at what Reagan did when the Wold Court told him he was a terrorist...



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corinthas
Only if it invades and disarmes America and Israel... otherwise its just sitting around being laughed at by the US president.


, Corinthas, I know you aren't trying to be funny, but the thought of the UN having to ask the US for the money to invade the US with is just the sort of thinking that we find laughable and have come to expect from the UN.

Your post is a great example of why it needs to go. Too many in the UN likely think much like you do.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Yes I think it is well worth saving. I also think the UN would benefit from the US leaving the UN, its pointless them being members anyway.

As for the location of the UN headquarters, I have often wondered why it is where it is. My thinking is that the US wanted it there.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
This only has to do with control and the lack of it.

- A global council is required. (If the UN is disbanded, another organisation will be created, only with a different name and run by the US)
- Mutual respect and Equality are prerequisites
- Using loopholes as a way of getting around resolutions or just simply ignoring them shows a distinct lack of trust.
- A neutral non-corrupt country for it's HQ (good luck finding one of those) maybe Iceland.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Your post is a great example of why it needs to go. Too many in the UN likely think much like you do.


I thought the aim of the UN was to stop unaggrevated agression... to stop rouge states like the US walking over poor 3rd world countries to gain extra resources.

Remember why the League of Nations (UN version 1.0) broke up?

Coz no one was bothered to stop Mussolini from taking Abissinia (Etheopia in oldspeak).


I know the thought wasn't a realistic one, but it sure as whatsit was serious.

Having a country like the US being a member of the UN is an insult to its founding priciples.


Edit:OK OK my spelling sucks...


[edit on 26/11/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
u got point there. UN cannot work perfectly as long its members doesnt obey the rules. So usa out of it and maybe we have a working united nations.
-ap



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by aape
u got point there. UN cannot work perfectly as long its members doesnt obey the rules. So usa out of it and maybe we have a working united nations.
-ap



Thanks i do try to come up with sense every now and then... if my spelling allows.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   
The problem with the arguments that the U.N. is actually capable of making a morale decision is the problem of moral equivalency. Many of the members of the U.N. (a majority of them in fact) do not have representative governments. Thus, these member nations do not represent their populations (because their populations have no say in their governmentsare in many cases slaves to their governments). Instead, we are dealing with a small group of thieves and thugs but the U.N. makes it appear as though we are working with governments.

The U.N. allows dictatorships to be elevated to the moral level of a democracy or republic. This is its basic flaw. It needs to be dissolved and a League of Democracies be established. If your government is a representative form of government then you can join, otherwise get bent.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
A very good point by MRNice...

I have heard a suggestion that you standing (weighing of votes etc.) in the UN sould reflect the Democracy Index rating of the country. Giving country who are seen to be more democratic more say in the affairs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join