Jump to content
calm2chaos

Geting Out Of The Un

Recommended Posts

I want to know who believes the US should get out of the UN. I myself think it is time for this to occur. I see no reason why we as a nation should leave security issues to others. The UN is basically toothless when it comes to any type of conflict or dispute. Humanitarian aid is about there ownly real use. And this can be put into doubt with OfF and the Kofi scandle. France and Germany as a matter of course will never agree or back us. Which you kind of expect from france. I thinkwe should let all nations figure out there own problems. If they can't they they will go up in smoke. The strong will survive, seems to be natures way. And this way no matter what happens it's not our fault. Well we would still get blamed for it i'm sure, but thats just the way it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Darwanism at it's finest.

 

It's obvious that we don't really take what the UN says to heart anyway (as was shown in Iraq). So I don't see the validity in saying we should get out so we can have our own security to deal with. I also dont' think the effectiviness of the UN should be judged by the fact that some nations don't agree with us.

 

I think the world community is too connect that just individual nations have problems, and those problems that don't effect the world community I don't think are brought up to the UN. Our actions do have consquences, and they do effect the rest of the world, so I think it's valid that they have concerns with what we do. I'm not exactly sure what your saying we won't get blamed for, or what we are being blamed for, but we'd still have a responsibility to our fellow man with or without the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing about the United Nations is that it's terrible at solving conflicts, which it was designed for, but is (usually) good when it comes to humanitarian crises, which was never an original goal of the organisation.

 

It's just a debate society and it needs reform.

 

I would start by removing any state that isn't a transparent liberal democracy. States should have to earn the right to sit at the international table, and not be automatically accepted simply based upon being a part of Earth (thank you, Paul Martin, Sr.) :angry: The fact that Syria or Saudi Arabia have an equal say in the UN General Assembly as the US or Canada basically legitimizes tyrannical regimes and erases any moral authority that the UN might have. (Not to mention states like these ludicrously being in charge of committees like the Human Rights commission. ;))

 

The UN also needs to be far more accountable financially to its member states. I really hope this Oil for Food scandal blows the doors open on that, but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if every country was more concerned with Humanitarian Aid and not "security issues", we'd all be better off.

 

If anything, the US should be kicked out of the UN. A huge part of the reason the US has to worry about security issues is due to their actions in the past and present. They're currently creating a whole new generation of security concerns.

 

And comparing Syria and Saudi Arabia to the US in a weak argument. If Syria and Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to have a say because of their actions, that the US sure as shit shouldn't have a say because their actions are just as bad.

 

Okay, go ahead, start attacking this comment now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing, there are plenty of Americans that think they should leave the UN (and, of course, leave it to fall to pieces since the U.S. isn't there to keep everyone thinking straight), because of the way the UN didn't agree to the invasion of Iraq, and since, for once, the UN said "no" to the U.S.'s demands, that it's good for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US President George W Bush asked a skeptical UN General Assembly today for help in Iraq reconstruction and said it was time to set aside past differences over the US-led invasion.

 

"Now the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid - and all nations of good will should step forward and provide that support," Bush said, six months after the United States and Britain went to war without UN backing.

 

In a speech defending his effort in Iraq, holding out the possibility that weapons of mass destruction may yet be accounted for, Bush also resisted a speedy transfer of Iraqi sovereignty as urged by some key allies, saying he wanted an orderly process that should not be hurried.

 

"The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self government for the people of Iraq, reached by orderly and democratic means. This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis - neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties," Bush said.

 

The US president, appearing at the General Assembly one year after he said the United Nations risked becoming irrelevant if it did not take a stand against Iraq, made no apologies over the chaotic postwar situation nor the failure to find weapons of mass destruction used to justify the war.

 

Bush said he recognised that "some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions" but said unity remained on the fundamental principles and objectives of the United Nations.

 

"So let us move forward," he said.

 

Bush said the war was justified by what has been learned about the cruelty of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

 

"As we discover the killing fields and mass graves of Iraq, the true scale of Saddam's cruelty is being revealed," he said.

 

"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world," Bush said.

 

"We are now interviewing Iraqi citizens and analysing records of the old regime, to reveal the full extent of its weapons programs and long campaign of deception," he added.

 

Bush spoke as the United States sought support for a new UN resolution creating a multinational force for Iraq, offering a role for the United Nations that appeared to be more limited than some leaders prefer.

 

He said the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants and conducting free and fair elections.

 

- Reuters

 

© That site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if every country was more concerned with Humanitarian Aid and not "security issues", we'd all be better off.

 

If anything, the US should be kicked out of the UN. A huge part of the reason the US has to worry about security issues is due to their actions in the past and present. They're currently creating a whole new generation of security concerns.

 

And comparing Syria and Saudi Arabia to the US in a weak argument. If Syria and Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to have a say because of their actions, that the US sure as shit shouldn't have a say because their actions are just as bad.

 

Okay, go ahead, start attacking this comment now.

Comparing Syria to the United States is fair. Which country has free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, women's rights, and which one doesn't? Why should a government like Syria's have an equal voice in the general assembly? States which oppress their people and are not based upon popular consent are not legitimate and do not deserve a say within the international community.

 

I disagreed with the war in Iraq, also, but 50 million people are rid of a dictator and if a democratic government can successfully be established there's no doubt it will have positive consequences for the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US oppresses, they're just sneakier about it. (ie. FOX News and such).

 

True, the US had freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't go against go against the current administration.

 

Free press, not really, although they like to make us think that.

 

Women's rights, okay, I'll agree with that, Saudi Arabia sucks there.

 

Free elections? Yeah, okay sure, I think that that may still be up in the air too. Remember 2000?

 

I guess I just disagree with how you see the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fine line between conspiracy theorist and logical thinker. I also find it disgusting with the speed any idea that suggest any amount of foul play is instantly labeled an impossible conspiracy.

 

Freedom of press in the US only exists in a limited form, as most news organizations are owned by a few corporations, and all of these corprations want to get the big name political guests, esspecially of the party in power, and in doing so, can't nessisarily report. The days of the reporting digging up a story seem to have gone to the wayside, which is a tragic thing. Freedom of speech also exists in a limited form, when your "speech" can insight an FBI investigation based on passing comments, or you can be arrested simply for wearing a T-Shirt. Even women's rights are being attacked.

 

Free elections, also, both the 2000 and the 2004 elections had a lot of elements that should have been FIXED and not just looked over. Take for example the new computer voting machines. There is no logical reason why they shouldn't have a paper reciept so you can do a hand count of them, as they stand now, there code isn't open sourced and the only way to do a recount is simply to trust the original results. Thats one of the big reasons the fuss was brought up in the Senate yesterday, not to change the election, no matter what Bush will be president (at best it goes to a vote in the senate and the house, and republicans have a majority there, so any argument that democrats were just trying to get the election changed is completely illogical). If we allow things like this to go unchecked in our election, the validity of our "democracy" will be in great danger.

 

As for countries having say in the UN, the UN should be reformed, and it should act as a global community and it should represent the people's voice, not nessisarily the party in power of each nation. But to say certain countries shouldn't have say in the UN, could be dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for countries having say in the UN, the UN should be reformed, and it should act as a global community and it should represent the people's voice, not nessisarily the party in power of each nation. But to say certain countries shouldn't have say in the UN, could be dangerous.

You're right there. When countries aren't allowed in the U.N., they're going to raise a fuss about it, instead of being good little boys and girls and reforming themselves. The current leaders of dictatorships want to stay in power, and aren't interested in anything but themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad this is still a peaceful respectful debate. Nice work all!

 

And with regards to being a conspiracy theorist, I'm not. The tin foil hat is just a new fashion trend I'm starting. The fact that it stops them from reading my mind is just an added bonus. Really. My dog has one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of press in the US only exists in a limited form, as most news organizations are owned by a few corporations, and all of these corprations want to get the big name political guests, esspecially of the party in power, and in doing so, can't nessisarily report. The days of the reporting digging up a story seem to have gone to the wayside, which is a tragic thing. Freedom of speech also exists in a limited form, when your "speech" can insight an FBI investigation based on passing comments, or you can be arrested simply for wearing a T-Shirt. Even women's rights are being attacked.

When I say freedom of the press, I mean freedom from government interference. Yes, the establishment media is owned by about 5 or 6 corporations (Disney, Viacom, General Electric, NewsCorp, AOL-Time-Warner...), but there is more out there. When was the last time you got your news from only those sources, anyways? The vast amount of print sources available (especially now with the internet) allow us to get many perspectives of news stories and I would say that the monopoly that these corporations have is weakening. Blogs are another new innovation that are really changing the way people get their news.

 

The days of reporting digging up a story are still very much with us. CBS and New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh broke the Abu Graib story. It's good to view the media critically, but it's possible to be over cynical.

 

And can you show me proof that the FBI arrested someone for simply wearing a t-shirt or saying something, or where women's rights are being attacked? I'm not going to comment one way or another about that until I can read evidence, but I know the Constitution is still very much alive.

 

Free elections, also, both the 2000 and the 2004 elections had a lot of elements that should have been FIXED and not just looked over. Take for example the new computer voting machines. There is no logical reason why they shouldn't have a paper reciept so you can do a hand count of them, as they stand now, there code isn't open sourced and the only way to do a recount is simply to trust the original results.

 

I totally agree with you about the computer voting machines with no paper trail. I can't believe there isn't more of an uproar over these, because there is such a large opportunity for fraud (the CEO of the company who makes these machines is a Republican supporter.)

 

However, I still stand by the assertion that the US, until proven otherwise, is a million times better than any dictatorship any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of press in the US only exists in a limited form, as most news organizations are owned by a few corporations, and all of these corprations want to get the big name political guests, esspecially of the party in power, and in doing so, can't nessisarily report. The days of the reporting digging up a story seem to have gone to the wayside, which is a tragic thing. Freedom of speech also exists in a limited form, when your "speech" can insight an FBI investigation based on passing comments, or you can be arrested simply for wearing a T-Shirt. Even women's rights are being attacked.

When I say freedom of the press, I mean freedom from government interference. Yes, the establishment media is owned by about 5 or 6 corporations (Disney, Viacom, General Electric, NewsCorp, AOL-Time-Warner...), but there is more out there. When was the last time you got your news from only those sources, anyways? The vast amount of print sources available (especially now with the internet) allow us to get many perspectives of news stories and I would say that the monopoly that these corporations have is weakening. Blogs are another new innovation that are really changing the way people get their news.

 

The days of reporting digging up a story are still very much with us. CBS and New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh broke the Abu Graib story. It's good to view the media critically, but it's possible to be over cynical.

 

And can you show me proof that the FBI arrested someone for simply wearing a t-shirt or saying something, or where women's rights are being attacked? I'm not going to comment one way or another about that until I can read evidence, but I know the Constitution is still very much alive.

 

Free elections, also, both the 2000 and the 2004 elections had a lot of elements that should have been FIXED and not just looked over. Take for example the new computer voting machines. There is no logical reason why they shouldn't have a paper reciept so you can do a hand count of them, as they stand now, there code isn't open sourced and the only way to do a recount is simply to trust the original results.

 

I totally agree with you about the computer voting machines with no paper trail. I can't believe there isn't more of an uproar over these, because there is such a large opportunity for fraud (the CEO of the company who makes these machines is a Republican supporter.)

 

However, I still stand by the assertion that the US, until proven otherwise, is a million times better than any dictatorship any day.

Well, there is proof of someone being arrested for wearing something.

 

I remember a few months back, a guy decided to dress up as that guy in the black cape from the Abu Ghraib photos and stand outside a military recruitment centre.

 

He was arrested, with police saying he looked as though he was going to detonate a bomb or posed some sort of threat.

 

Matt posted a link to a story in his blog awhile ago, I'm not sure if it's still there, as the archives have been deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that the US is better than a dictatorship.

 

In many ways it is far ahead of a country like Syria or Saudi Arabia. I just think it's a little unfair to say that those countries should have no say in the UN.

 

And with the points presented earlier, the US is not so innocent. Especially in the last couple decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France and Germany as a matter of course will never agree or back us. Which you kind of expect from france. I thinkwe should let all nations figure out there own problems. If they can't they they will go up in smoke. The strong will survive, seems to be natures way. And this way no matter what happens it's not our fault. Well we would still get blamed for it i'm sure, but thats just the way it goes.

Social Darwinism I feel is not really what you can call your opinion. For it to be social darwinism each state would have to have started and continued to be seperate from one another. This simply is not what has happened in history and never will. To all of a sudden stop helping or hindering other countries would be detrimental to both the U.S. and the other states that are apart of the UN. I agree that the UN is basically useless, but to allow countries to figure things out for themselves would mean that the US would have to end trade relations with every state it currently feeds and exports off of. Because of course, if there isnt enough oil in the US, its the US's fault and can figure it out on its own right? And If its in need for some lumber than maybe they should start planting some tree's now right? The impression im getting from your post is that the US should be able to do whatever it wants in order to survive, but must do nothing to help any other country with its problems. And then subsequently not get blamed for its actions. The ironic thing is that this is what largly has been happening, first world nations in general have been rapeing countries for years and not really getting blamed for it, and at the same time, largly allowing them to figure out there own problems. Of course we help out a little bit, but in the grand scheme of things is not relative to what these countries have given us. For example, the amount of wealth that was made in the US as a result of slavery is quite large. Now if we put that amount of money into helping aids in Africa would that be equal in trade? I think it would be, but the point is, we don't do that do we? Infact looking at some of the numbers:

"Black Equity In The U.S. Slave Industry

In a paper published two decades ago in the Review of Black Political Economy, Jim Marketti, an economist sought to calculate the income appropriated from blacks during slavery. Using the tools of capital theory and historical data on the slave population and the prices paid for slaves over the period of slavery in the United States, Marketti concluded that the then present day value of unpaid black equity in the U.S. slavery industry reached between $448 billion and $995 billion. This estimate did not include the contribution of blacks as labor and capital to the development of the United States. Marketti argues that the $448-$995 billion in black equity should be seen as the baseline amount of exploited income that was deposited in the nation's social bank

account where it has been and should continue to draw interest until it is repatriated. What price slavery? A minimum of $448 to $995 billion plus interest compounded until reparations are paid!! Julian Simon's and Larry Neal’s estimates ranged from $96.3 billion to $9.7 trillion!"-What Price Slavery? What Price Freedom?

By Howard Dodson

Edited by supercanuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious: it's the Reagan administration that initiated the backlash towards the UN, right???

It was the neo-conservative Jeane Kirkpatrick that was the US ambassador to the UN during the first part of Reagan's presidency that fostered these views. Unfortunatly, my book with the article I wish to reference is at work so I cannot give direct quotes.

 

The United Nations is a failed international regime. I encourage everyone to take a look at The United Nations Is Evil, a subsection of Capitalism Magazine.

 

I completely agree that the US is better than a dictatorship.

 

That's quite a charge, buddy. Typical Leftist remark from someone who is blind to the facts. Although the United States is far from perfect, I would question anyone's intellectual honesty who says it's a "dictatorship". Go and read more Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

 

I don't understand why illegitimate governments deserve a voice.

 

Quite correct. Amaziingly, nations like Iran, North Korea and Syria have just as many votes as the United States and Israel. The UN's lowest point was United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism.

Edited by toolboxnj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.