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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
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.

So its about who lead it , not who fought in it?
Hmmm nice thinking there pal.
The UN didnt support GW2, infact it opposed it.


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.

We took back kuwait, job done, mission accomplished.




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.

I am not makeing it out to be thousands, I am makeing it out that we send more troops.
As far as I can remember the UK has had a larger number of soldiers for atleast 5 months, but I cant acess the UN site....damm PC.
The US will not have more soldiers than the UK in the UN because the US doesnt believe in the UN.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
the simple fact is that no organisation is full of perfect people.
the US isnt perfect,
far from it.
so why then does the US seem to think they can just leave something they have agreed to just because not everyone in the UN is perfect?
i say let he who is without sin cast the first stone.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Wow that is the question with what I feel is the honest answer - YES.

I, at least for the moment, don't know how to better answer that. The UN is going to be very important after more severe aggression happens.

Dallas



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Its only worth saving if they are willing to reform their corrupt leaders. But for a lack of replacement to the UN its worth trying to save via reform.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
It cetainly beats the alternative of not having a UN. It provides a forum for world leaders to meet and discuss things discretely if necessary.

Shame the US has pledged to veto the reform bill currently on the table.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Joe we have only pledged to veto it as it is right now because we want some changes done on the bill.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Frosty
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.

So its about who lead it , not who fought in it?
Hmmm nice thinking there pal.
The UN didnt support GW2, infact it opposed it.


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.

We took back kuwait, job done, mission accomplished.




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.

I am not makeing it out to be thousands, I am makeing it out that we send more troops.
As far as I can remember the UK has had a larger number of soldiers for atleast 5 months, but I cant acess the UN site....damm PC.
The US will not have more soldiers than the UK in the UN because the US doesnt believe in the UN.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


Read up on the Korean War and stop wasting my time. There were two main forces who opposed the NK: US and SK. There were minimal UK troops and far fewer if any from the other nations. This was a war the US backed the SK, the UK was involved only minimaly. Please give the statistics of UK, French, German, Russian, and other troops. Please do this...

You have to have an IQ of a toaster not to see that liberating Kuwait was not the only goal of the first Iraq war. The goal after defeat of Saddam was to get rid of him, thank the UN for blowing this. Maybe this is why people don't know why we are in Iraq: UN Res 687 (google it please).

If the US doesn't believe in the UN please tell me why we fork over 1/4 the bill and why the UN HQ are IN THE US.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Read up on the Korean War and stop wasting my time. There were two main forces who opposed the NK: US and SK. There were minimal UK troops and far fewer if any from the other nations. This was a war the US backed the SK, the UK was involved only minimaly. Please give the statistics of UK, French, German, Russian, and other troops. Please do this...

What?
Wasteing time in saying that the UN was involved? No I wont.
Waste my time by proveing you wrong when you said it was just a US SK war.
Guess what the UN was involved, the size and number of troops involved matters not a jot.
Also Why do you want me to do this? Are you incapable of doing it?


You have to have an IQ of a toaster not to see that liberating Kuwait was not the only goal of the first Iraq war. The goal after defeat of Saddam was to get rid of him, thank the UN for blowing this. Maybe this is why people don't know why we are in Iraq: UN Res 687 (google it please).

Nice to see your acting mature and not using personel insults.
Hey , our job was to liberate kuwait and frankly I dont see an iraqi flag over kuwait so I say job well done.
Also mabye you'd like to thank the OTHER countries in the UN force since it was THEM not the UN itself.


If the US doesn't believe in the UN please tell me why we fork over 1/4 the bill and why the UN HQ are IN THE US.

The US forks over 1/4th of the bill because the US forks out 2% of the troops.
The UN HQ is in the US because the US was the major power wanting the UN to be in place in 1942.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
It would seem to me that this topic is still relevant. I mean it can do nothing to Iran and yet it still functions? I wish they would move it to Geneva and the US would drop out.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I amr eading this thread and the hate against the US is disheartneing. The US is not the cause of the UN being corrupt, problematic, etc.

China has repeatedly blocked UN intervention in Sudan. Why? Because they are scared that the oil will be taken by other nations. So the genocide goes on and weapons are sold there by China still. Yet nobody says anything.

Ask yourself, WHY the UN didn't back the US in invading Iraq? Was it because they were against the war, or was it because they had business involvements with Iraq (like France).

Why did the UN agree to sanctions on Iran if they did not suspend Uranium enrichment, yet now China and Russia and France went back on it? Business. Simple business.

Why didn't anyone intervene in Rwanda?

What about the corruption in the Oil for Food program?

Those who are only blaming the US does not know the reasons as to why the UN is unsuccessful, and you are being unfair and onesided.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
It would seem to me that this topic is still relevant. I mean it can do nothing to Iran and yet it still functions? I wish they would move it to Geneva and the US would drop out.

Mabye you can also drop out of the geneva conventions and NATO as well and built a 60 foot wall around the border to stop all those nasty terrorists as well?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspMabye you can also drop out of the geneva conventions


Well last I heard the these scum didn't sign onto that now did they?


Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by devilwasp and NATO as well


Wouldn't hurt my feelings, then maybe Europe can start paying for their own defense.



Originally posted by devilwasp and built a 60 foot wall around the border to stop all those nasty terrorists as well?



Not needed, just close the borders with the National Guard and that will solve the great majority of this problem of border crossings

[edit on 2-10-2006 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well last I heard the these scum didn't sign onto that now did they?

No but then again I do believe a few people who the US now counts as enemies did sign that yes no?



Wouldn't hurt my feelings, then maybe Europe can start paying for their own defense.

You mean like the UKs been doing for say I dunno the last couple hundred years....




Not needed, just close the borders with the National Guard and that will solve the great majority of this problem of border crossings
[edit on 2-10-2006 by edsinger]

I seem to remember a country or group of countries doing that before and as far as I know they didnt do too well.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Is the United Nations worth saving?

Is it worth saving? No. The UN became useless when they all argued over the Israel/Lebanon Crisis. After repeated pleas from the UN Sec. They did not give in.
Also most of their sanctions do not mean anything, alot of the countries ignore them anyways. Look at the trouble they are having trying to get UN troops into some country in Africa. Oh yay the UN is great not !!!!!!!!!!!

They need to either disband the UN altogether, let other organisations, like the E.U. set up on their own or America to set up alliances with other countries, but if that happened then the conflicts that are happenin now will be small frie compared to what would happend if one organisation went to war with another. Or the permanent 5 on the Security council, should have the veto powers scrapped, Let every country have an equal say and vote on any security or Humanitarian issue.

But will this happen no.

And btw it is not just the US of A's fault, alot of the blame lies with nearly every country in the UN not just one country.

They all look out for their own self interests. The UK are just as bad as any other country.

I find it humerous how this thread has turned out to be another anti-american bash thread. Anything that goes wrong in the UN, the US always gets the blame, doesnt matter what the other countries do. Always stick it to the US. All this American v UN p contest, is diverting the thread.

Will the UN last. That is questionable. It is gonna take a very big overhaul or some major to happen before anything happens. The we will see weither or not it will be disbanded.


just my 2 cents on the issue




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I agree with Spencer, the UN has gone to far to long without doing anything. I understand the point of them trying to prop up smaller countries into the 21st century and all, but the way they go about it is a joke. The scandals, the in-action and the constant badgering of anything western has turned this once proud group into nothing more than a propaganda machine for extremism and everything that is bad in this world. They should stick to "humanitarian" issues alone if they want any kind of effectiveness, because their policies on everything else are pretty much ignored by everyone. BTW, have they sent troops to the Lebanese border yet??



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Its been a while and I see nothing that has changed my mind about it.

Ineffective in Iran, North Korea, and the list goes on and on..

Lets move it to Geneva and let the US quit paying....well for the peacekeeping portions at least.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join