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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The UN should not be saved, but more importantly it should be disbanded. It was created as a communist organization by communists to be used as a future world gov't. It does not make peace, but in fact makes wars. How many wars have been fought around the world since 1945? It is not doing such a good job is it.
The worst part I see about the atheist UN is their thoughts on human rights. Here in the US, we have natural rights that were given to us by GOD, and therefore can not be taken away from any gov't period. The UN on the other hand does not recognize GOD (they assume they are GOD), so rights comes from the gov't (UN charter). However when gov'ts give rights, they can take them away just as fast (there are many examples in the UN charter of this), so therefore they are not rights at all, but merely privliges. Compare the USSR constitution with the UN charter and tell me they are not copies of one another.
The concept of a UN is very dangerous for free thinking people, and more so for soverign countries.




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fighting Kentuctian
It was created as a communist organization by communists to be used as a future world gov't.


Communist? Rubbish, explain your comment.


It does not make peace, but in fact makes wars.


Care to expand on that comment, how does it "make" wars?


The worst part I see about the atheist UN is their thoughts on human rights.


Atheist, what are you on about? Even if it was atheist, so what? God is irrelevant in politics. Religion causes more wars than it stops. Just look at history. Human rights, what about them, explain yourself.


Here in the US, we have natural rights that were given to us by GOD, and therefore can not be taken away from any gov't period.


You have no rights that cannot be taken away if your government wishes, without a civil war that is.

Bringing religion into determining political policies is pure madness and very dangerous. Religion should be practiced in your own home or in your chosen place of worship.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
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.



For this post you have recieved my way above vote.


Excellent and spot on m8. The UN must go and also be disbanded and lets start all over.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
if the UN was so ineffective then why has it been spurred on by the US ?
why was the UN task force in GW1 not scrutinised?
it was fine when it worked for your government BUT when it goes against it then its bad.
any here notice the propaganda being spun by the US gov?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
if the UN was so ineffective then why has it been spurred on by the US ?
why was the UN task force in GW1 not scrutinised?
it was fine when it worked for your government BUT when it goes against it then its bad.
any here notice the propaganda being spun by the US gov?


I agree with you, that is exactley how it comes across. All was fine untill there was a disagreement on the Iraq war. Some people here seem to view things in far to simplistic way.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I find the comment about the U.S. as a rogue state not following the UN laughable. The United States was following over a dozen UN resolutions when it invaded Iraq. This talk about the US goign against the UN is revisionist history and I take offense to it. The UN itself it completely corrupt and shoudl be either completely rebuilt from the ground up if not disbanded. Lets see, the rogue state of the United States has paid for the UN, housed it, been the only country willing to back its resolutions with force, and in the process has liberated 50 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan. Lets look at the moral decision other countries were making not to back the Iraq war. Its easy to make a moral decision when your palm is being greased by Iraq. The current figures of the Oil for food scandal is somewhere around 20 billion dollars, a good bit of which went to our allies in Germany, France, and other countries that had misgivings. Lets look at what has happened with UN backed attempts. Hmmm..... did a lot of good in Rowanda, the Sudan, and to be honest Bosnia where the records are showing now that we were on the wrong side. Also just recently some upstanding members of the UN in the EU made their big diplomatic victory with Iran and its nuclear program. Its not a week later and Iran is backing out lol. My vote, evict the UN and let them set up headquarters at Versailles.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
United nations worth saving? hell no.
When two nations (UK and US) go against the UN and do what they like without backing, shows us how unimportant the UN is. Even though the UK tried to go the UN route,the UN was incapable of reaching a decision and still is.

[edit]

As FSME for the NWO, you know what my views on the UN are


[edit on 26-11-2004 by infinite]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
I find the comment about the U.S. as a rogue state not following the UN laughable.

i find the US marine core fitness test laughable but i dont comment on it like that.


The United States was following over a dozen UN resolutions when it invaded Iraq. This talk about the US goign against the UN is revisionist history and I take offense to it. The UN itself it completely corrupt and shoudl be either completely rebuilt from the ground up if not disbanded.

the UN resolutions about WMD huh? funny i see a distinct lack of WMD in iraq. also if the reason was good why did both intel agencies say they "sexed up" the report? you say its corrupt , mabye the head of the snake is but not all.
rebuilt ? so you want it to run headlong into fights and kill many people possibley for the wrong reason?
of course the US knows best and should obviosly be incharge is that what your suggesting next?


Lets see, the rogue state of the United States has paid for the UN, housed it, been the only country willing to back its resolutions with force, and in the process has liberated 50 million people between Iraq and Afghanistan.

so has every other country paid for the UN if you didnt notice.
you wanted to house it but hey if you dont want it im sure the UN would happily move to iceland.
umm what about us huh? you know the UK? might have noticed us in bosnia or iraq or in iraq 2?
hell you couldnt have missed almost shooting us down and killing our men surely?
or where these counted as enemy kills?



Lets look at the moral decision other countries were making not to back the Iraq war. Its easy to make a moral decision when your palm is being greased by Iraq.

might i add the US is the main cause of the iraq war.
being greased by iraq is nothing compared to being greased by the oil thycoons of the world



The current figures of the Oil for food scandal is somewhere around 20 billion dollars, a good bit of which went to our allies in Germany, France, and other countries that had misgivings.

yet some other countries that had misgiveings about the war where not in it.



Lets look at what has happened with UN backed attempts. Hmmm..... did a lot of good in Rowanda, the Sudan, and to be honest Bosnia where the records are showing now that we were on the wrong side.

are you saying the US or NATO could have done a better job?
the UN did the best job possible unless of course the great US military had a diffrent better plan?


Also just recently some upstanding members of the UN in the EU made their big diplomatic victory with Iran and its nuclear program. Its not a week later and Iran is backing out lol. My vote, evict the UN and let them set up headquarters at Versailles.


evict the UN yes? next pull out of the geneva yes?
oh wait you already did break that during iraq didnt you.
but ofcourse all this is in the name of freedom so it is legal.
funny how the US used a loop hole to attack a country BUT during all other operations the US has supported the UN.
frankly i find this bush led anti UN "religion" idiotic.


[edit on 26-11-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
United nations worth saving? hell no.
When two nations (UK and US) go against the UN and do what they like without backing, shows us how unimportant the UN is. Even though the UK tried to go the UN route,the UN was incapable of reaching a decision and still is.


two nations of the security council who have the veto power.
also they did go into iraq on a "sexed up" report which LIED yes lied to the public about the WMD claims. thats right claims since there is only what 2 shells of chemical weapons and one ton of useless urainiam ore been found.
thank you very much CIA and MI6
might i add these two units started this whole mess



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Hey, completely off the wall question stemming from reading on this site. In other words please don't think this an attempt to derail the thread and if it does please disregard. It was written in the whole Majestic 12 thing that the CIA is opposed to the Majestic 12 shadow government. Could the whole WMD thing have been a deliberate attempt by the CIA to do damage to Majestic 12's more public face? Again I apologize if this should be in another thread it just got me thinking.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Look the UN is a corrupt group that has no real purpose unless it is changed. If the UN would not back its own laws then what use is it? Most of the countries in it are corrupt also.

As for the other countries paying for it, that is a BIG TIME laugh. The US has paid far more than ANY other country and for what? A knife in the back every time the chips are down.....?


Let it go, it is MOOT anyway.


dh

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
The UN has a public face and a private face
The private face is the global government in waiting
The UN was responsible for pushing the New Age movement through its publishers, the Lucis Trust
Nothing wrong with the New Age, we couldn't be where we are without it except that it carries such a mix of disinfo amongst the real information, therapies, paradigms and so on
It's a warm-up to how things really are when the clamp-down happens
Society will be shuttered down and enslaved because the vibratory increase is leading us to total freedom
This is what 9/11 and all that follows is about
The UN now seems cowed by the US military excess
In fact it's just biding its time when the actions of the US overwhelm and defeat its people from Patriot Act 2 and the ongoing mayhem in the world
Everything is aimed at you suckers, Americans, you are the main target of all the disruption Until you wake up, as many have done, then you're all sheep to the slaughter



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
People who want to disband the UN base their argument on ONE UN program - the peacekeeping program. What about the humanitarian programs? What about the environmental summits? What about the promotion of culture and education worldwide?

There's much more to the UN than the peacekeeping programs. So if we're going to put it on trial, let's at least make it fair and bring out the good points - and there are many.

Besides... this seems to be part of a drive by the US to leave a number of international forums - or just not join (like the International Tribunal of the Hague - the US not joining obviously robs it of any kind of credibility).

The other thing is, the UN is one of the last means for the rest of the world to have some clout in international forums. If we were to tear it apart and build a new organization, I wouldn't trust the US to make it truly international and unbiased.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Look the UN is a corrupt group that has no real purpose unless it is changed. If the UN would not back its own laws then what use is it? Most of the countries in it are corrupt also.

As for the other countries paying for it, that is a BIG TIME laugh. The US has paid far more than ANY other country and for what? A knife in the back every time the chips are down.....?


Let it go, it is MOOT anyway.

says who? the US pres? the guy who thinks its a muslin only organisation.
most of the countries so that would include what countries? and what do you base this on?
because they stole money from iraq?
the US alone has stolen many pieces of tech from other countries but this is fine or the "spoils of war" as some people call them.
also paying so i take it that britain , one of the founding members doesnt pay huh? we just let the good old red white and blue pay huh?
NO
we pay just like you but do you hear us complaning? NO
a knife in the back?
so i take it this whole yeah lets get OTHER countries involved was not the UN's idea but the US military. sure with your military you could have won korea BUT it would have put you in a bad light.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Your Beloved UN is an evil entity and it will not last in its present form. It is as the Nazi's eaten from within by occult beliefs. Not all nations are involved but many are and the power of the UN remains with the 5 Permanent Veto's, we could stay in and not provide funding and watch it shrivel up, or we could just withdraw and see the same thing.

Its idea was grand but so was the league. The best idea I have heard is create a new one of only governments chosen by the people and also give it check and balances....

But I would rather has US sovereignty as I know what the world would do to US if given the chance...

On country, under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Seems that the UN and its cronies are going down fast does it not? The UN is a joke and it has to go, this ship has to stop!


Annan's Son Took Payments Through 2004

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT - Special to the Sun
November 26, 2004

One of the next big chapters in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal will involve the family of the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, whose son turns out to have been receiving payments as recently as early this year from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program.

The secretary-general's son, Kojo Annan, was previously reported to have worked for a Swiss-based company called Cotecna Inspection Services SA, which from 1998-2003 held a lucrative contract with the U.N. to monitor goods arriving in Saddam Hussein's Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But investigators are now looking into new information suggesting that the younger Annan received far more money over a much longer period, even after his compensation from Cotecna had reportedly ended.

The importance of this story involves not only undisclosed conflicts of interest, but the question of the role of the secretary-general himself, at a time when talk is starting to be heard around the U.N. that it is time for him to resign, and the staff labor union is in open rebellion against "senior management."


Annan's son took payments through 2004



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The UN needs to be updated.
The security council and the right to veto needs to be abolished . Countries like Australia need more voice in the UN. There needs to be away of giving democratically elected governments more power then governments that deny people basic human rights.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The UN needs to be updated.
The security council and the right to veto needs to be abolished . Countries like Australia need more voice in the UN. There needs to be away of giving democratically elected governments more power then governments that deny people basic human rights.


No we don't the security council needs more diversity, not less. It's supposed to a be cultural exchange type organisation that works to solve difference not empower those who have very similar beliefs. Heck we only have 20 million people and our human rights record isn't all that great, although since fox is owned by an Australin I'm sure they make us out to be good. No, we need countries with different beliefs to have more say, only than can we stop double standards and try to work with each other to find an acceptable resolution to major differences. The UN isn't perfect but it was setup to try to premote world peace and understanding, obviously such a task is very hard and the risk of curruption in an organisation will always be there. The new organisation would be no more immune to this than the currect one.

For those who laugh at the UN let me tell you of a little political cartoon from my history book that i remember everytime i hear people speaking of the succesor to the league of nations with such distain.

On one page there is a picture of a village in Ethiopia with people sitting around huts with children playing, at the bottom of the page it's labeled "savages". Next to it is a picture of the same village with bomb craters and dead people everywhere, this picture is labeled "civilization". At the time Mussolini claimed he was bringing civilization to savages which was the basis for this political cartoon. On the next page was another cartoon where Mussolini is laughing saying "The league? Pah! The league is weak, they can do nothing" then a woman holding a sign with rights and wrongs of Abyssinia written on it says "but aren't you the league?"

[edit on 27-11-2004 by Trent]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   
The United Nations is an organization ruled by the honor system. With no army really to speak of, and no direct power besides sanctions it relies on its members to come together for a greater good. The fact is the UN has been corrupt for some times giving countries that have current war crimes cases power overseeing the worlds war crimes cases, a clear conflict of interests. Currently it is coming to light that many countries in the UN have been playing both sides, looking after there own interests in whatever way they can whether the UN rules permit it or not, yet voting and supporting the same rules they are breaking, I.E France and Germany most recently.( www.washingtontimes.com... )
With the leader of the UN just receiving a vote of no confidence maybe it is a time for change and rebuilding.( www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139109,00.html )One of the above posts mentioned if the UN could last without the United States. I do not believe so, It would fail much like the previous League of Nations that did not have the United States as a member did. With the United States providing so much of the muscle for the UN maybe the answer is for the UN to provide its own muscle from an army put together from all nations not just relying on one for its action. One thing is certain the UN needs to be re-evaluated and corrected before it fails as it will if it continues on its path.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by ItWasntMe]

[edit on 27-11-2004 by ItWasntMe]


S4E

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   
The UN needs to seriously assess what direction they are moving in.

The Oil-for-Food scandal is RIDICULOUS and we can't put it on anybody other than the UN.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join