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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
US troops murder civlians

and again


and one very recently


And this is indicative of the whole history of the Unites States soldiers? All nations have bad people and to compare what the US has done as a whole with the likes of what the Nazi's did with only ovens doesn't deserve my time.




posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Forget the EU and other similar alliances, we should be focusing on the UN, a global alliance for the greater good, the UN could make a huge global diffference if it wanted to, but it needs reform and the full support of its members....including the US.

I dont think the UN can ignore the EU. The UN needs to find a way of having EU representation without ignoreing the member countries that make up the EU. The UN will become a more effective organization if it is able to deal with the likes of the EU.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
For a new security council... just off the top of my head i would recommend.

Japan, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Germany and Brazil as well as existing members. None of these countries are perfect but they do have a measure power and it would give the council greater representations from certain parts of the world.

Oh and maybe have standards that non-permanent members must reach before they can have a temporary seat on the security council.

I like your ideas so far.
I also think the UN needs to rethink how "aid" money is given to thrid world countries to much of it ends up in the hands of corrupt officials.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
The UN in its current state is flawed, especially more so in foreign intervention.So far the only successful case of rebuilding it has done is Timor Leste.Ironically, that had no American hand in it, and was done mainly by Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand.The point being, localised global forces need to be engaged to solve problems in different regions as they know the place much better than someone in Geneva.Action cannot come from a place where the peacekeeping forces lack the local knowledge on the ground and the ability to regulate the use of force.Imagine this scenario, where you have Nigerian and Chinese peacekeepers guarding the streets of Ramallah or Mosul.No doubt, they are strictly speaking neutral third parties, but they are a sore thumb and are likely to have problems with cultural interaction.What the UN should do is to play the role of a coordinator and energiser, get countries in the local region, preferably those that have an economic or political stake in seeing the affected parts recover, and let them form a caucus to clean up the mess.Let the UN reform their peacekeeping arm, and the Under Secretary General for PEacekeeping and Operations should be elected for a four year term from the different Ambassadors to the UN, in order to improve the communcations and links to her member states, not to mention more accountability.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Japan, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Germany and Brazil as well as existing members. None of these countries are perfect but they do have a measure power and it would give the council greater representations from certain parts of the world.


Japan I can see maybe Brazil and Germany also, but South Africa? You have to be kidding! Indonesia on the other hand I am not sure about.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Japan I can see maybe Brazil and Germany also, but South Africa? You have to be kidding!

Why not have South Africa on the new council ?
You cant have an entire continent without representation. If you do that you my as well not even bother reforming the UN.
South Africa is a logical choice for the new council the countrie holds regular democratic elections. Sure South Africa arent perfect , but anyone looking for perfection should stop now.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Japan I can see maybe Brazil and Germany also, but South Africa? You have to be kidding!

Why not have South Africa on the new council ?
You cant have an entire continent without representation. If you do that you my as well not even bother reforming the UN.
South Africa is a logical choice for the new council the countrie holds regular democratic elections. Sure South Africa arent perfect , but anyone looking for perfection should stop now.


Why? There seems to be no better particular nation than South Africa in the African continent so let's give them a free seat? Makes no sense. The UN is supposed to be a global body, not a continental body. What's so great about Africa? What advances have they made for humanity lately? Why can't they sort out their own messes without help from the UN?



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Why? There seems to be no better particular nation than South Africa in the African continent so let's give them a free seat? Makes no sense. The UN is supposed to be a global body, not a continental body. What's so great about Africa? What advances have they made for humanity lately? Why can't they sort out their own messes without help from the UN?

Frosty if the UN is spose to be a global body then the new council will have represent more then just the economic super powers. The same questions could be asked of the USA.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


And this is indicative of the whole history of the Unites States soldiers? All nations have bad people and to compare what the US has done as a whole with the likes of what the Nazi's did with only ovens doesn't deserve my time.

i point out that the fact that the US has done far worse than a few UN troops have done yet you say there are a few bad people in the US military.
if this is so then there must be some in the UN or is there exceptions to this logic of yours?



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The United States has had some setbacks for people breaking the 'laws' of war, but the UN is very consistent in its corruption and scandal.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
The United States has had some setbacks for people breaking the 'laws' of war, but the UN is very consistent in its corruption and scandal.

so is the US in blue on blue's and killings yet many americans dont believe it.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
The United States has had some setbacks for people breaking the 'laws' of war, but the UN is very consistent in its corruption and scandal.

so is the US in blue on blue's and killings yet many americans dont believe it.


Could you explain your question better?

Blue on Blue killings?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Could you explain your question better?
Blue on Blue killings?

you claim the US is better than the UN and that the US isnt as evil as the UN yet the UN has a better record of NOT killing civilians or friendly troops.

blue on blue is the military term for friendly fire.

The UN is no worse than the US hell better in some cases.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

And this is indicative of the whole history of the Unites States soldiers? All nations have bad people and to compare what the US has done as a whole with the likes of what the Nazi's did with only ovens doesn't deserve my time.


The germans did not cross the ocean and rid a whole continent of its natives to then go and build "the greatest nation" there!



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
you claim the US is better than the UN and that the US isnt as evil as the UN yet the UN has a better record of NOT killing civilians or friendly troops.
blue on blue is the military term for friendly fire.The UN is no worse than the US hell better in some cases.


First thanks for the clarification,

second, how can you even say this when the majority of the UN troops that actually FIGHT were American.

Korea
Gulf War 1

do I need to go on?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by CorinthasThe germans did not cross the ocean and rid a whole continent of its natives to then go and build "the greatest nation" there!


Oh really? Seems I am here and came over the pond. Hmmm


No German immigrants huh?

Deny it pal...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Halloween78 said: "They also have not done sh** to prevent war"
talking about the un.
well,
i think they could have done a lot more to prevent some of the preventable wars of our time.
but they certainly have tried when they said they would.
now the US....
they have also talked about preventing war,
yet the attempts by the UN to stop the major war of our time were in fact trying to stop the US from going to the war that has robbed so many people of the freedom that the US was apparently giving to them.
i speak of Iraq and Afghanistan.
i hear all this talk of spreading freedom throughout the world.
yet would somebody please explain to me how any of those people are any more free than they were before??

the only freedom that i see the US spreading over there is the freedom to do whatever the US Govt wants to do.
installing a government that does what it is told to do is not giving the people of Iraq or Afghanistan any of this so-called freedom at all.

and i laugh at your attempts to justify what your govt does yet criticise another org that you believe is doing exactly what you yourselves are doing.
Do you recall what happened in east timor?
highly successful mission.
yet what did the US provide?
the only thing i saw was a bunch of soldiers jumping off a helo and first thing they tried to shoot was the locals coming up to greet and thank them.
that is not an accusation either.
ITS FACT.
I WATCHED IT WITH MY OWN EYES!!
they were bringing them a drink of water for christs sake!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
xpert11.
how could you possibly include Indonesia in that??
they are the main threat to the stability of this part of the world!!
i dont know where you live but i think i might have an inkling as to where you hide your head in the sand!!
Indonesia has NO rights to being a part of a global org designed towards the betterment of the human race.
none at all!!!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I am well aware the role Indonesia plays in the region. Indonesia is a souce of extremists and sometimes trouble maker in the region. A method is needed to bring maxium diplomatic pressure to bear in the event that fails bombs start falling.
How would you ensure Indonesia dosnt go awol in the region ?

[edit on 9-8-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I happen to believe that the UN is worth saving. I believe it to be a world body that does more good for the benefit of humanity. However, it does have its faults like the oil-for-food scandal and prostitution within the Congo. And yes, there needs to be reform; although, the biggest problem that it faces is that it is under funded and most of the money that pours into it comes from third world countries. Also, for those of you who say that the U.S. provides most of the man power in peacekeeping operations, yall are wrong. In fact, the U.S. only provides 1-2% of its military to the UN, which is roughly around 400 American soldiers. The largest provider is Canada for the year 2002; however, I do not know which country came first for the year 2005. As far as supplies and equipment are concerned the U.S. does provide for 25% of this, which is a good thing coming from the United States.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join