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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
And to clear things up, the UN is not trying to be a World Government. It is a world organization dedicated to the peace and security of the world with seperate entities for different situations. For example, peacekeeping to provide for free elections and the establishment of peace agreements. Also, the International Criminal Court is there to punish those accused of commiting crimes against humanity. The list goes on. Even if it was a world government, I doubt that it will try to take away American civil liberties. I say that because we have a right to bear arms and unless the UN wants to fight off half of the 290 million citizens with guns then I am pretty sure it will not happen. Moreover, I do support the war in Afganistan, but not Iraq. This whole concept of spreading freedom to other parts of the world is a weak statement. This is because if we really wanted to spread freedom then we would have gone into Africa and South East Asia to help out those people suffering from corrupt governments. In fact, the UN is carrying this burden with its peacekeeping forces in areas such as Cypris, Nepal, Haiti, Sierra Leon, Liberia, and yes even Sudan with it large amounts of humanitarian relief efforts. Of course, progress takes time and one can not rush something with such a coglomeration (spelled wrong) of different ethnic groups.




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Yes, I think so. I'm not an NWO specialist however, knocking off the United Nation as an entity leaves the powers to take full power I feel.

Holding the United Nations intact allows world policy between all Countries to continue. I feel no United Nation reforms should take place until after the next US election and all reforms require 70% minimum support from all Countries, nort only the security Council.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
There are only two countries that regularly stand in that way on unanimous UN decsisions... US and Isreal. Especially resolutions concerning the right of resistance to occupation (terror to US and Israel.. how dare they fight back)

Seems the rest of the world recognizes that this is the best thing we have had so far to combat unilateral bullies like the US and Israel!!!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Of course it is... Without them this place would be much worse...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:45 AM
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



Or the US!!!



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
IMO the UN needs to do some SERIOUS closet cleaning........a big solid shakeup from the ground up would do it some good.

it seems like daily in the news we hear about another UN delegate involved in some kind of scandal.........bribery, corruption...........everything that the UN shouldn't be.

some changes need to be made..........i hate to use the words "self govern" because that seems to be the equivalent of the old saying "the fox guarding the chicken house".............but SOMETHING needs to be done to get the UN back on its feet...........

taking it out of the US would probably be an excellent idea.


angie



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
US owns the UN, we fork 1/4 the bill and house its HQ. IT is a US decision as to whether it is worth it or not. What has the UN done lately, or at all?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
US owns the UN, we fork 1/4 the bill and house its HQ. IT is a US decision as to whether it is worth it or not. What has the UN done lately, or at all?

Afriad not mate.
The US only uses money in its influecne over the UN, the UK supplies more soldiers than the US does.
The UN does quite a bit of action.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
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]


You equate the institution of the UN to the people of the UN, which is wrong. Instead of telling you directly my argument, I will reply with an example.

Suppose that the US government is full of pedophilians doing drug orgies and other scandals. Should the federal government be stopped from existence?

The obvious answer is a big fat 'no'...because the federal government plays a big role in all of USA's procedures.

The same goes for the UN: there has to be an international body that coordinates affairs between nations. If there is none, then the law of the jungle will prevail: the big fish will eat the small fish.

Of course that's something that USA is favor of, since they are the biggest fish...the role of UN has been directly or indirectly been debated, especially by USA, because USA wants to play with their own rules, that many times go against the rules of UN. The primary example of this was the invasion of Iraq.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
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.


Sigh. People "wonder", but they never want to learn. They'd rather have plenty of room for wild assertions.
The United Nations was headquartered in the U.S. because it gave spies, er, I mean, U.N. workers, legal reason to be in the U.S., and would allow them diplomatic immunity.

The U.N.'s job has been to further the Global agenda and to replace all governments with socialist or socialist/democratic governments. Those who envisioned the U.N. even wanted WWII so that they could use it as a cry for the U.N.

Give the reprobate world over to itself. Get us out and let's try and straighten ourselves back out.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Sigh. People "wonder", but they never want to learn. They'd rather have plenty of room for wild assertions.
The United Nations was headquartered in the U.S. because it gave spies, er, I mean, U.N. workers, legal reason to be in the U.S., and would allow them diplomatic immunity.

The U.N.'s job has been to further the Global agenda and to replace all governments with socialist or socialist/democratic governments. Those who envisioned the U.N. even wanted WWII so that they could use it as a cry for the U.N.

Give the reprobate world over to itself. Get us out and let's try and straighten ourselves back out.

Yeah someones not paranoid about the NWO....Nor doesnt like the UN....



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Didn't Al Queda already state that the reason for its Bali nightclub bombing, was in retaliation for Australia's (U.N. sanctioned) involvment in East Timor, back in the Eighties? If the killers in this world won't listen to the U.N., why should we?

Isn't it the U.N. that has cut and run from every conflict, in which they've taken hostile fire, most notably Iraq? It seems that in addition to all you've listed here, in the past twenty or so years, the U.N. has lost any compunction to do ANYTHING in the way of peacekeeping. Clearly, what's needed is an overhaul. What's needed is a U.N. with some morals, courage, and TEETH.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Didn't Al Queda already state that the reason for its Bali nightclub bombing, was in retaliation for Australia's (U.N. sanctioned) involvment in East Timor, back in the Eighties? If the killers in this world won't listen to the U.N., why should we?

Isn't it the U.N. that has cut and run from every conflict, in which they've taken hostile fire, most notably Iraq? It seems that in addition to all you've listed here, in the past twenty or so years, the U.N. has lost any compunction to do ANYTHING in the way of peacekeeping. Clearly, what's needed is an overhaul. What's needed is a U.N. with some morals, courage, and TEETH.

Every conflict?
Korea?
GW1?
www.un.org...
www.un.org...
The list goes on..
www.un.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Toelint
Didn't Al Queda already state that the reason for its Bali nightclub bombing, was in retaliation for Australia's (U.N. sanctioned) involvment in East Timor, back in the Eighties? If the killers in this world won't listen to the U.N., why should we?

Isn't it the U.N. that has cut and run from every conflict, in which they've taken hostile fire, most notably Iraq? It seems that in addition to all you've listed here, in the past twenty or so years, the U.N. has lost any compunction to do ANYTHING in the way of peacekeeping. Clearly, what's needed is an overhaul. What's needed is a U.N. with some morals, courage, and TEETH.

Every conflict?
Korea?
GW1?
www.un.org...
www.un.org...
The list goes on..
www.un.org...


Korea is a fine example of how the U.N. is meaningless as far as a real "peace-keeper." Vietnam is another example, and GWI; I certainly wouldn't bring that fiasco up if I were you. You have absolutely no good example of an efficient U.N. agency or mission.

Want to talk about UNESCO, the agency that has historically been the means by which communist regimes are equipped and supported through U.S. tax dollars?

Paranoid, you called me in a one-liner while quoting my entire post. Paranoid is not the proper term. Educated and not brainwashed, those would be more accurate descriptions.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Korea is a fine example of how the U.N. is meaningless as far as a real "peace-keeper."

What?
They won the war and saved south korea.


Vietnam is another example,

Vietnam? Did the US start recruiting the UN in that war?


and GWI; I certainly wouldn't bring that fiasco up if I were you. You have absolutely no good example of an efficient U.N. agency or mission.

Did we or did we not liberate kuwait?


Want to talk about UNESCO, the agency that has historically been the means by which communist regimes are equipped and supported through U.S. tax dollars?

A) there has never been and never will be a comunist regime, the term comunist regime is a contradiction itself.
B) Thats your opinion not a fact.


Paranoid, you called me in a one-liner while quoting my entire post.

Yeah I did..


Paranoid is not the proper term. Educated and not brainwashed, those would be more accurate descriptions.

Am I now brainwashed?
Not really, I just have faith in the UN and peace.
I dont want a US peace ,I want a global peace.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The UN is redundant.

The Bush administration has replaced it with a more efficient, streamlined, directed platform for international relations.

It is called simply "Us and Them."

Makes good money for arms manufacturers and crony capital companies too.




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne



Korea is a fine example of how the U.N. is meaningless as far as a real "peace-keeper." Vietnam is another example, and GWI; I certainly wouldn't bring that fiasco up if I were you. You have absolutely no good example of an efficient U.N. agency or mission.



I agree Gulf war 1 was fiasco.
We now have proof that limted wars are inhumane and political failures lets dig beyond the surface.
Which country invented and to a lesser extend fought the limted wars ?
America while the US cant be blamed entirely for the concept they must take most of the credit or blame.

The Korean war...
It was Truman who kept UN forces on a leash and the British cared to much about trade down with China via there Hong Kong outpost. To be fair General Macarthur must share some of the blame.
Clearly the UN is made up of more then two countries.
Truman made a grave error that helps seal the fate of millions lets blame the UN.


The Vietnam war......
In hindsight the members of the UN who start out of Vietnam were better off. Besides fighting along side the Americans they were ANZACs and South Koreans just how many countries should have sent troops to Vietnam?
Jungle and Guerrilla warfare wernt the US Military strong points gee must be the UNs fault again.


I can already hear the argument that the US didnt lose the Vietnam war the conflict gave nations time to build there defences against the Red mence. Well it we follow that argument the British accomplished the same task in Borneo and Malaysia. The amountof resouces the US put into Vietnam and the end result are clearly out of proportion !
So much for efficiency.


I think applying the term peace keeping to troops currently in South Korea is either incorrect or the term has a very broad definition. I would like the UN bashers to tell the people of East Timor the evils of peace keeping.

The above post in no way takes away from the role America played in winning the cold war. If America isnt perfect how can the other UN members be ?
Clearly the members are flawed not the UN. If you cant admit that America isnt perfect you have other issues that dosnt invovle the UN.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
What?
They won the war and saved south korea.

The idea was to save Korea, and it was a US war despite what anyone else says.



Did we or did we not liberate kuwait?

The idea was for UN Resolution 687 to hold up to something worth more than the paper it was printed on.



Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Frosty
US owns the UN, we fork 1/4 the bill and house its HQ. IT is a US decision as to whether it is worth it or not. What has the UN done lately, or at all?

Afriad not mate.
The US only uses money in its influecne over the UN, the UK supplies more soldiers than the US does.
The UN does quite a bit of action.


As of now UK had a total of 411 peacekeeping troops, 51 more than the US. www.un.org...

I believe it was French UN peacekeepers who shot at unarmed civilians in Cote Divore a few months back. Someone posted a video of this...I'll try to find this.


UN does nothing. The US doesn't need the UN. I say let the UN exist without the US and see howlong they last.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
The idea was to save Korea, and it was a US war despite what anyone else says.

A US war?
What about the british troops and other UN forces?
I take it the argyles never went there and never took hill 282.



The idea was for UN Resolution 687 to hold up to something worth more than the paper it was printed on.

The idea was liberate kuwait, yes or no did we do that?



Originally posted by devilwasp
As of now UK had a total of 411 peacekeeping troops, 51 more than the US. www.un.org...

I believe it was French UN peacekeepers who shot at unarmed civilians in Cote Divore a few months back. Someone posted a video of this...I'll try to find this.

Yeah and your point is?

No citizen is unarmed, it just depends on the persons view on "unarmed" , any thing is a weapon if you swing it right.



UN does nothing. The US doesn't need the UN. I say let the UN exist without the US and see howlong they last.
[edit on 10-8-2005 by Frosty]

Oh doesnt it?
I take it those poor people that get hurt from landmines, cluster bombs and other incenary explosives dont receive help from the UN?
Or mabye these people are not loading UN supplies onto an RAF plane to help people?
www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk... 679B0B233B26840E83D0D8C18ACC907A150640268C2BC2B6BA0BE589409A28204ED0EA26DDACAECE1E2DF2A4D22FE1A94EBFF676A2E1BCD719F9A47B8A87FE19174F2E435DB95BEAA5F896 0ED64D1217F850DB1B9EE274CEE14802727F226A1341A839967AE4A97716765E72B4E576658B302206E089131390D3D414DC30481AD9B2A7BD65F49FAB0FB28BDAC7E4B150D294E12B06E2 68E

Or this soldier isnt watching over Sengali evacuees being evactuated from the British Army reception point on the Aberdeen peninsula to the north west of the Sierra Leone capital Freetown?
www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk... 679B0B233B26840E83D0D8C18ACC907A150640268C2BC2B6BA0BE589409A282C22978D0A09FD8DB4BEA7D348728BDA594EBFF676A2E1BCD719F9A47B8A87FE19174F2E435DB95BEAA5F896 0ED64D1217F850DB1B9EE274CC80881044128B4B043DE21D495EE7831CE08697BC361D55DA0E95A50B519D924CA6AC9A2F7FF4D8DDC61467153A8C63FF79A93F2093FC0A2D14027873D40F 064
Or mabye this soldier isnt helping a local woman in Bosnia, Formar Republic of Yugoslavia?
www.defenceimagedatabase.mod.uk... 679B0B233B26840E83D0D8C18ACC907A150640268C2BC2B6BA0BE589409A282C22978D0A09FD8DB66C16ACE846837EE94EBFF676A2E1BCD719F9A47B8A87FE19174F2E435DB95BEAA5F896 0ED64D1217F850DB1B9EE274CC80881044128B4B01FE544B0A7F66582B27100CB6935EE1C238BD4D19DBC7E8CCA6AC9A2F7FF4D8DDC61467153A8C63FF79A93F2093FC0A2D14027873D40F 064
Tell me these people are not doing anything, tell me these people are cowards and currupt go ahead, insult your allies.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
A US war?
What about the british troops and other UN forces?
I take it the argyles never went there and never took hill 282.

It was MacArthur who assisted the SK and lead the US charge to war. UN hopped on the band wagon in support of the war, that would be the equivolent of saying both Iraq wars were UN wars.



The idea was liberate kuwait, yes or no did we do that?

That was why the initial invasion took place, but negotiations to surrender failed horrendously as well as future weapons inspections by the UN and later oil for food program.




Yeah and your point is?

The point is you make it out to seem like the number in the difference is thousands, when it is 51 soldiers, in two months the US might have more UN soldiers than UK.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join