I'm fed up with the UN - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
September 20th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 

Topic: Did you hear?


Did any one hear about the recent Oil for food scandal. This is yet another rediculous thing about the UN. Our three biggest opponents in the Iraq war and the ones that called us criminals are the real criminals. Tonight I watched the Fox News special report on the Oil for Food program, it was called Bloo Money. France, Russia, and China have been making billions of dollars off of Saddham Hussein in order to keep him in power and fund him. Much of this was found by both the 9/11 Commission and the Free Iraqi Press who have recieved several documents from former Baath party members who served under Saddham. There even mention of possible bribes to the current president of the Oil for Food program. When asked by the Fox News, the former president of Oil for Food blamed the US and the UK for not doing anything to stop it. He said it is all our fault, he did not even mention Saddham until the interviewer mentioned that he should recieve blame. He said that we should have stopped it when we noticed it, yet he did not place a bit of the blame on the president of Oil for Food nor the countries (France, Russia, and China) who were involved. The UN needs drastic reform, and I think that France, Russia, and China should lose their power in the Security council. It will not happen, and justice will never be served, and this is why I have lost all faith in the UN.
September 20th, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
I think we need to drop out and let them find someone else to spearhead their military conflicts. Every single time they get in trouble they come crying to us to send the troops in.
September 20th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
I think we need to drop out and let them find someone else to spearhead their military conflicts. Every single time they get in trouble they come crying to us to send the troops in.
Exactly, we've become a rent-a-army for the UN.
--
Boots
September 20th, 2004  
Airborne Eagle
 
 
I don't think we're rent-an-army.

When US interests coincide with the UN, we will push them. When US interests run counter to the UN, they hit a road-block.

It's more coincidence, in my opinion.
September 20th, 2004  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: U.N.


If the five-veto-power not implemented, wouldn't the most powerful country has say in anything. Wouldn't that country be considered as dictator? Do you think regular and new clear Arm race will start again?

If without U.N, every country will start doing their own thing. It can mean hell breaks loose.

I
September 20th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Z
I think we need to drop out and let them find someone else to spearhead their military conflicts. Every single time they get in trouble they come crying to us to send the troops in.
Amen to that.
Oh and by the way, the five countries in charge of everything is what makes corruption. Look, the cold war is over now, the Security Council will not keep another Arms Race from breaking out. In fact, we technically have a black market arms race going on at the moment. The veto system gives the power for five countries to decide what the rest of the world needs. You do not think that is corruption. The world can vote for itself, we no longer need this veto system.
September 20th, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
I agree with you there, the veto system makes decision making too slow and it only takes one veto to stop a decision even if most other countries are in support
September 20th, 2004  
Lupos
 
 
It is absoulutely rediculous is it not.
September 20th, 2004  
Eric
 
First of, the UN is an international organization...we can't even get things done nationally (like help Sudan on our own if we are so concerned...by the way, the French have started to a weeks ago while Powells and Annan debated the word "genocide") and we hope that the UN can achieve it.
Second, it has a security council with members that are the super powers of the cold war and veto each other all the time. Hard again for everybody to agree.
Tertio, the Un is a multitude of less known agencies that do wonders in the field.
The Un does not have a president and in the field, even for a mission that reached a consensus, countries just fulfill their own agendas, thus sabotaging the whole thing.
The UN is an international agency undermined by its own internationality!
When a country want some legitimacy for its agenda, it uses it and supports it.
When the same country does not get support, it just bashes it or sabotages it....
Too bad....it was a good concept!
Fortunately, some good comes out of the UN, success stories, relieved people, refugee camps, money to restore artifacts, money to help poor children in poor countries...
I say let's keep it because it still brings some good!
September 21st, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
well here goes..please pardon the post.

For all the faults of this organization, it still provides one of the few areas where international service to the people, either peaceful in nature, as an arbitrator between two parties that want to work out their differences, or final defensive measures for those too weak to resist aggression can be acquired. its not perfect: it is run by human beings, so it ain't superman. its as good as the support it receives.

what probly makes it unattractive is the potential for the establishment of a one world government, which most reliegous factions would view as the begining of the end of humanity, or governments founded on self rule would take as a threat to their sovereignty. while i do not adhere to this, i wouldn't go against belief: its a very powerful thing to avoid messing with.

just a thought.