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.

 

Rightwing Republicans say boot UN out of US

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Move it to? Paris


Paris? Why Paris? Don't we have enough problems from the French? Having the U.N. headquartered in Paris would be like giving Islamic terrorists nuclear technology!

Hell would be a good place for the U.N. Send the U.N. to hell! Hell I say! U.N., go to Hell!!!




posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Obviously, anything that gets in the Bush administration's way (the UN, the French, etc.) is going to be pounded into submission.

We might as well all surrender to the almighty United States right now. It'll save time.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
And Interearthling - I guess this can also go to Hell, then:

www.unicef.org...



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Tell me, where are the UN HQ?



Frosty the United Nations Headquarters is in New York click the image if you want to know more or the link to thier news center.



United Nations News Centre



[edit on 26/11/2004 by Sauron]



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling


Paris? Why Paris? Don't we have enough problems from the French? Having the U.N. headquartered in Paris would be like giving Islamic terrorists nuclear technology!

Hell would be a good place for the U.N. Send the U.N. to hell! Hell I say! U.N., go to Hell!!!


yeah just like giveing them chemical weapons? wonder who could have done that hmmm?
if we are sending anyone to hell lets send the god dammed politions that gave iraq WMD before GW1 ! oh look what nationalitly they are?



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
evilwasp says:

“the UN is not out for the US its out for the world.”

I guess it depends on how you define “world”. When I look at things the UN’s pushing I see one part of the world -- the so-called “developing nations” -- getting the benefit and countries like the US paying the fees

Rrobert5425 says:

“What is so bad about the UN? Does it not give a forum for nations to come together and express their complaints, views, and opinions? Who doesn't want something like that?”

Hey, Rrobert, I wouldn’t mind if the UN were a debating society as you envisage it. I mean it’d still be worthless, but at least it wouldn’t have any negative impacts to my country. But when I look at the UN expecting the United States to subsidize reconstruction schemes, sent their troops into battle, or support other troops with logistics and money -- with no perceived benefit to the United States -- I fail to see why we should even be involved with them.

Sauron says:

“Kicking the U.N. out of the USA won’t make the UN any better, mind you there would be a lot of countries that would jump at the chance to host the United nations.”

Sounds like a plan to me, Sauron, but I haven’t heard any nation volunteer. Maybe Otts can put in a good word for Canada. Speaking of which:

Otts says:

“- the problem is, the United States and other Western countries have pumped and continue to pump these Third World countries dry of their resources.”

Lots of Western countries did things badly in the 19th and early part of the 20th century, but they also provided goods in exchange for the “pumping” of Third-World nations -- including jobs.

Now I know it is politically correct these days to bewail the fact that Indonesians or Mexicans do not get the same wage as their American or Canadian counterparts. But basic economics tells you that, were the developed countries to pay Third-World workers on the par with their own workers, there would be no sane reason to export those jobs anyway, and, instead of Indonesians and Mexicans working for low wages, they’d not be working at all.

“… the West got the WTO to overturn subsidized coffee production in Latin American countries, so that peasants don't get paid too much.”

What makes you think that subsidized coffee production results in higher wages to the workers? Look at the wages of the coffee and tobacco farmers in that Worker’s Paradise of Cuba! Subsidized prices mean the government props up the price of coffee with the same money that it could use to build clinics, schools, and roads. And the subsidies typically go to the bureaucrats themselves.

And God forbid these people learned to read and write - they'd want to govern themselves, can you believe that aberration?

Are you saying that the United States and Canada are behind some plot to keep the Third World illiterate? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for that assertion?

”And as for the U.S. paying 30 percent of the costs at the UN... there's the pesky question of about 4 percent of the world's population (most of it in North America) consuming about 80 percent of the world's resources...

What sort of cause and effect is that, Otts? We consume 80 a lot of the word’s resources because we buy those resources! Are you saying that, because we’re a huge market for anyone who wants to sell us their resources, we should be punished by being forced to pay more money to the UN? I don't thnk so.

Actually, the 30 percent of the UN courses is irrelevant. I believe we have a moral obligation to pay the UN what we get from it, just like we have a moral obligation to pay the producers of resources what we get from them.

For the goods and services that the UN provides the United States, I’d say that we owe them -- roughly --

Zero.



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I'm not saying there's a plot to keep children in Third World countries uneducated. I'm saying that supporting fair trade will increase the income coffee planters get (I believe that Cuba's subsidized trade is a specific case all in itself) and the more money the planters have, the more disposed they'll be to send their kids to school. That's the problem I saw in Africa - poor parents don't send their kids to school because A) they can't afford to, B) they need the kids' help in the fields, and C) they don't really believe their kids need an education.

In the case of C), someone is helping promote education for all and helping parents understand the importance of sending kids to school... and that's UNESCO, a part of the United Nations.

In the case of A) and B)... the West may pay for what it buys from Third World countries, but the price it pays is ridiculously small. In the case of coffee, the profit doesn't go to the planter - he gets about 10 percent of the price we pay for coffee. The biggest part - 35 percent - goes, in a huge part, to Nestle, Sara Lee or Proctor & Gamble.

www.americas.org...

In a world where we use natural selection and survival of the fittest as the basic rule, it wouldn't be a problem to leave things as they are. But in that world, we also wouldn't have rescued the Jews from the Nazis. Civilization is about the stronger ones setting aside the laws of the jungle and helping the weaker ones - especially if the stronger ones have spent decades wooling the weaker ones.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Otts says:

"I'm saying that supporting fair trade will increase the income coffee planters get (I believe that Cuba's subsidized trade is a specific case all in itself) and the more money the planters have, the more disposed they'll be to send their kids to school."

How do you define "fair trade"?



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
…………..
if we are sending anyone to hell lets send the god dammed politions that gave iraq WMD before GW1 ! oh look what nationalitly they are?

By WMD are you referring to the nuclear plant or the chem bio?


Originally posted by Otts
……………..And as for the U.S. paying 30 percent of the costs at the UN... there's the pesky question of about 4 percent of the world's population (most of it in North America) consuming about 80 percent of the world's resources...
so why shouldn’t the UN then support the continued distribution of resources according to current trends? After all if were toting the bill then why shouldn't the UN do our bidding?




[edit on 28-11-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   


After all if were toting the bill then why shouldn't the UN do our bidding?

Europe pays ca 50% of the UN. Why shouldn´t the UN do OUR bidding?
Because it would make the UN pointless.
It is not supposed to be a Plutocracy(thats what the non UN Part of the World already is) but tries to give the states and nations a platform for discussion.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
If one more person sain the US is foting the bill for the UN...

they are one of the biggest debters.

Ok in the last year or so they have really payed alot of it.. BUT NOT ALL!

So please take the "we foot the bill argument" and er... well.. just do something with it please coz it just isn't working



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:27 AM
link   
The US view that the UN does nothing for their country is one of the most dangerous opinions to have. It's a view based on ignorance regarding the rest of the world.

The UN is generally regarded as the only institution that the US has to answer to. At the moment, the rest of the world sees the UN as a check against US ambition (rightly or wrongly). Without the UN, the US would be seen as operating outside the mandate of what is accepted by the rest of the world.

Remove it and there are dozens of countries out there who will be more fearful of the US. And what does fear breed, boys and girls? Yep - conflict and terrorism.
Leave the UN and it's open day on America. And there can be no come back - there would be no forum in which the US could cajole it's allies or state it's point. No dialogue or mediation. Just military action.

"We hate the UN because we never get our way". Oh yeah? The US has managed to weedle billions by pushing through Resolutions at the UN. It sits on the most powerful body (the Security Council) and has managed to influence world affairs to it's interests which it could only do by force if this option were not available. Events in the Middle East, the Cold War, Globalisation, all major world moves have been played out and won by the US within the boundaries of the UN.
Just because one or two things don't go the average American's way (in their perception) it doesn't hide the fact that the US has gained massively from the UN. Just because the US doesn't get everything from the UN doesn't make the Organisation bad. After all, if America got it's own way every time, we wouldn't need a UN anyway would we? And believe me, without the UN, the world would be a much #tier and more dangerous place. And let's not even mention the work that the UN does for the smaller countries shall we? Let's not even mention that it is sometimes the only way that other countries can get a voice and be heard.

That's not to say that the UN is perfect - far from it. It needs a radical overhauling. But at the moment it's the only Organisation that is able to unite the world under one banner (even if not always perfect unity). The Rest of the World recognises the UN and gives it a serious respect and the US generally gains a legal and moral advantage in foreign eyes when it acts within the confines of the UN.
If the US pulls out of the UN it loses the protection that this unity affords.


Of course, big, bad America is tough enough to go it alone. But that's just how America wil be viewed by the Rest of the World. Big and Bad.


[edit on 29-11-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes

By WMD are you referring to the nuclear plant or the chem bio?


chem bio.
i dont think there was or will be any nukes in iraq.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Get the US out of the UN and bring our troops home. This war is unconstitutional. There was no good reason to go there in the first place.

And no, I'm most definitely NOT a liberal.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Get the US out of the UN and bring our troops home. This war is unconstitutional. There was no good reason to go there in the first place.

And no, I'm most definitely NOT a liberal.

uhh since when is the UN backing anything the US does?
its not the UN's fault the US doesnt behave civilised.
also i think your right about the war and our troops should be home.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I think they should fix the Un but the right wing scares me with this new trend of getting rid of it .

the thing that pops into my head is ''it makes me wonder what they will gain for doing so ?''

I think its worth fixing up and keeping around .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join