Kick the UN out!

[Wooz]

Some of you should realize the UN isn't limited to the security council or the blue helmet "peacekeeping" troops.

Before you start bitching about the UN, and that goes especially for you imbecile yankee trash types, (aegis), do some research on the UNDP, Umbrella, UNESCO and UNICEF foundations.

Gah. Illinois nazis. I hate Illinois nazis.

 

[PsychoSniper]

Good point Wooz, we need to find a way to diembowel the UN while keeping orginisations such as UNICEF operationable.

 

[John Uskglass]

Some of you should realize the UN isn't limited to the security council or the blue helmet "peacekeeping" troops.

Before you start bitching about the UN, and that goes especially for you imbecile yankee trash types, (aegis), do some research on the UNDP, Umbrella, UNESCO and UNICEF foundations.

Gah. Illinois nazis. I hate Illinois nazis.

Dude, I'm in MUN, I totally realize that. But at the same time, the Security Council is an exercise in futility.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Some of you should realize the UN isn't limited to the security council or the blue helmet "peacekeeping" troops.

Before you start bitching about the UN, and that goes especially for you imbecile yankee trash types, (aegis), do some research on the UNDP, Umbrella, UNESCO and UNICEF foundations.

Gah. Illinois nazis. I hate Illinois nazis.

When did you become such a UN-loving pussy, Wooz?

 

[John Uskglass]

Sense his family was involved in the UN at pretty high levels.

 

[PsychoSniper]

The UN lower level charity orginisations do quite a bit of good, but the upper echelons, especily the security counsil, are a waste of effort considring the lack of effectivness.

 

[Jebus]

I think they just got to remove USA's veto from UN, since they just say "no" when people are trying to find a way to peace in the middle east.
Because they do not want to loose a single vote from a jewish voter.

Riiight...another example of a complete moron.

Link or STFU. Everytime you say?

I was trying to find PH the proof that what stOlve said is actually not far from correct - but I seem to be unable to locate the UN resolution database. I can find the database of all passed resolutions, but in this case that doesn't really help much.

I know what Stolve says is the truth, though. The US and Israel have voted against practically every resolution that condems Israeli occupation and the trampling of Palestine individual rights. I KNOW those resultions are out there, since I read through dozens of them last year, for an assignment I did on the Palestine question. Perhaps someone with more search talent than I could search the UN site to find this man the proof he needs?


Also - I advise all of you UN-haters to snoop around on that site to see the mountains of work the UN does each day. It's easy to bash them if you don't know what they do.
Trying to ensure happiness for all 6 billion humans isn't an easy task.

 

[Wooz]

Lower level charity organizations

"Lower level"? Man, those are gigantic organizations nonetheless. Huge funds involved, huge material, huge work.

The fact not much people seem to realize is that one of the goals achieved by aiding poor countries in their development, those organizations marginalize the feeling of backward nations to be ostracized from the worlld community, a feeling that, if strong enough amingst the population, may lead to terrorism being the said country's national sport.

And Ratty, what's up with the UN bashing? I realize the Security Council and its measures have to be restructurized into something more effective, that the peacekeeping troops in former Yugoslavia didn't make a great job, but why bash the whole concept of nations co-working peacefully for a better world?

When did you become such a UN-loving pussy, Wooz?

When did you start bashing "commie pinko pussies"?

[EDIT] Whoops, just noticed CCR's post.

Dude, I'm in MUN, I totally realize that. But at the same time, the Security Council is an exercise in futility.

I know you know. That post wasn't adressed at you. I didn't say "Byzantophile teenagers" or "Soulless minions of Orthodoxy", but

Imbecile yankee trash types

.
Despite the evidence, not all gringos are trash in my book.

Look at Joseph Smith, for instance. Great guy.

Heha, not.

 

[Briosafreak]

Israel never complied with a resolution from the Security Council, even those the US let through.

But i don`t defend the idea of a special relation because of electoral gains, because Jewish vote remains more pro-Democratic. The bible belt christian fundamentalists are strong supporters of Isreal, for religious reasons, they think the Armagedon is coming and Isreal will be it´s place of start, and in the end the Jews that were alies of the good americans will all convert to Christianity (that`s really offensive to the Jews really, this is the 60 Minutes version of that strange aliance, you can find more info on Google) and that is understood by the Bush administration, but the electoral argument per se isn`t enough.

And Constipated that`s really really cool, friends of mine already went a few times abroad to participate in the world events, very interesting role play, a very interesting model.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Jebus, he said Middle East.

I don't know about the rest of you, but MY world map doesn't say Israel/Palestine is called the Middle East. I don't know, maybe it's just me and my country's propoganda machine trying to divert signing a piece of paper that says PEACE in big letters and MIDDLE EAST at the bottom.

And God forbid someone should want to protect their ally. The US's calls for action(s) have been vetoed before, but you don't see me crying a river.

And I do ask you do not become a FoxFan and make their stupid mistakes. RESEARCH!

Teh Eval Amerikhans?

 

[Sander]

I don't know about the rest of you, but MY world map doesn't say Israel/Palestine is called the Middle East. I don't know, maybe it's just me and my country's propoganda machine trying to divert signing a piece of paper that says PEACE in big letters and MIDDLE EAST at the bottom.

Geographically perhaps not, but almost everyone uses Middle East in a meaning that includes Palestine and Israel, it's more of a cultural and political term than anything east, but you can use it as both. Both Jebus and st0lve were obviously using the political and cultural meaning, especially when you consider 'because they don't want to lose a single jewish voter.'
Go read properly yourself, next time.

Also, this:

And God forbid someone should want to protect their ally. The US's calls for action(s) have been vetoed before, but you don't see me crying a river.

is an example of bullshit argumentation. 'They're our allies, so we must always support them!'
Tschyeah, right. By this bullshit argument, anyone should support an ally no matter what they do. Might I point out that this can lead to atrocious things? Allies aren't there to be protected no matter what, they're there to help eachother, but not to turn a blind eye when something bad happens. Or at least that's how it should work. Obviously, that's not how it does work.

 

[Gonzalez]

UN obstructing the war on terrorism?

Bullshit!

United States DID attacked a foreign country without authorization of the UN and not have founding the weapons of mass destruction.

Now, I don't give a damn about what Saddam did or not did. If the United States attacks any country as they please, it means they can anyone at anytime, having the most powerful and better founded military organization and no one will do something about it.

I don’t care for Saddam's regime or his connections to the terrorist, he was a pig and he deserves what he got. But the United States had no justification to attack that country or proof that Iraq had or was developing weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to them.

The invasion of Iraq means that tomorrow they can "SUSPECT" that any other country they want to attack has weapons of mass destruction and attack it without any restriction.

The United States are in no position to say that the UN obstructs the war on terrorism, when actually the UN did nothing when the US attacked Iraq and should have in fact done something.


Now about the UN projects around the world: I am personally involved in an UN project for resources administration to overcome the lack of fossil energetic in the years to come.

 

[PsychoSniper]

Actualy, America and England have HAD reason to go in.


US/Brit planes patroling the no-fly zones were regulary shot at. That noone was killed was pure luck.

 

[welsh]

You guys often forget that the UN was, basically, an US idea with the intention of maintain a stable world order and preventing another world war.

The ideas behind the UN can trace back to every type of successful international organization or treaty system in all the years that preceeded it.

Ok, so the Security Council doesn't always work- but that's because it was felt that it was better of the major powers to come together at a table and work out their differences or share common policies rather than go it alone. This is especially relevant in a nuclear age.

Then you got organizations ranging from the WHO, the UN High COmmissioner for Refugees (and how millions of refugees exist?), UNICEF, UNEP, UNDP, UNCTAD and even the world bank system works in conjunction with the UN. You have regulation on the use of the sea, on telecommunications, on space exploration, on labor and human rights standards.

As Wooz points out, the UN does a whole lot more than blue helmet peacekeeping operations. And in many of those missions it's the policies of the great powers that hamstring their effectiveness. Peacekeepers are distinctive from peacemakers. And yes sometimes it doesn't work out well, but sometimes international politics is a messy business.

The UN was a unique creation following the end of the second world war meant to stop future major wars. That, plus nuclear weapons, have generally done the job. Yes, occassionally you have humanitarian disasters and you have wars between marginal international players, but generally it keeps world peace.

Is it perfect? No. Hell, half the world suffers rampant corruption, but that's consistent with states throughout history. (For those who read, check out Tilly- statemaking and war making as organized crime- at this site- https://toolkit.itc.virginia.edu/cg...SION:110273099913811:82151301654903/materials - which also has a lot of good academic articles on war. Give it a few minutes- CCR-there's a turkish article there and Briosa- some of this is up your ally)

Americans might consider that with the incrediable cost in lives and money and commitment of our national security assets in Iraq, (which is a minor war), it pays to have an organization that keeps the peace elsewhere.

 

[Briosafreak]

Er welsh:

Login required. Enter your userid and password or
the CLASS userid and password.

 

[Roshambo]

Actualy, America and England have HAD reason to go in.

US/Brit planes patroling the no-fly zones were regulary shot at. That noone was killed was pure luck.

If there were repercussions for that instead of the WMD lie, then maybe people wouldn't be waving the bullshit flag.

Lt. Col. Gonzalez brings up a good point. Yes, Saddam was a prick to his own countrymen, and to disgusting lengths (many incidents were told to me from a family that fled from there). The reason for invading should have been something other than what obviously makes it into a series of war crimes ranging from invading and overthrowing another country's govt. on a fraudulent basis (which used to be something the US was completely against, publicly) to active war profiteering at the expense of troop welfare.

The act might have been needed, but the reason and the execution were handled grotesquely.

 

[aegis]

Some of you should realize the UN isn't limited to the security council or the blue helmet "peacekeeping" troops.

Before you start bitching about the UN, and that goes especially for you imbecile yankee trash types, (aegis), do some research on the UNDP, Umbrella, UNESCO and UNICEF foundations.

Gah. Illinois nazis. I hate Illinois nazis.

whatever dude, i'm not even close to a yankee let alone nazi.

the UN are the ones involved in that oil for food fiasco arent they?


i don't understand how you can defend the people who are supporting the terror to the level of infestation for thier own good?
(read jebus linked article to be sure)

 

[welsh]

Oh aegis- that's kind of bullshit. Look, Sadam gets money from the oil-for-food program because he's the sovereign head of state. Than that money moves through a variety of secret bank accounts and goes to support the families of sucide bombers.

But using your analogy, we should bomb the US because Tony Soprano uses a variety of shady schemes to defraud HUD.

The problem with sanctions is that it puts the domestic economy under the thumb of the government- and if the government is more like the mafia than the servent of the people, bad things will happen.

Briosa- try student in both Class Id and password. Should work. If not let me know.

 

[aegis]

Oh aegis- that's kind of bullshit. Look, Sadam gets money from the oil-for-food program because he's the sovereign head of state. Than that money moves through a variety of secret bank accounts and goes to support the families of sucide bombers.

But using your analogy, we should bomb the US because Tony Soprano uses a variety of shady schemes to defraud HUD.

i dont know who the fuck is HUD , but you are still defending fucking terrorists and calling it "SHADY SCHEMES"???read the article-the connection between the fucks and the UN families has been proven, what bullshit is that?wtf?

The problem with sanctions is that it puts the domestic economy under the thumb of the government- and if the government is more like the mafia than the servent of the people, bad things will happen.

so by your logic, if bad things happen we should all go back to where it started-meaning leaving them where they are and not involving the world in domestic affairs-HAH! that's the fucking UN man that you support.

 

[Sander]

i dont know who the fuck is HUD , but you are still defending fucking terrorists and calling it "SHADY SCHEMES"???read the article-the connection between the fucks and the UN families has been proven, what bullshit is that?wtf?

What article? I've read every article given in this thread, for as far as I could see, and I could not find a single article proving anything in that regard.

Welsh, by the way, is not defending "fucking terrorists", as you so eloquently put it, he is defending people who in their judgement were helping the Iraqi people, but who were taken advantage of by Saddam. Saddam abused the gifts given him, this is probably in part an error of judgement on the side of the UN, but this in n o way makes the UN "fucking terrorists". It makes Saddam an evil son of a bitch (wow, what news), and it makes the UN having made an error of judgement. That is all.

so by your logic, if bad things happen we should all go back to where it started-meaning leaving them where they are and not involving the world in domestic affairs-HAH! that's the fucking UN man that you support.

No, by his logic putting bad measurements into effect is a bad thing. He said nothing about not doing something other than those sanctions, that's what your logic and poor debating skills make of it. You won't get off with straw-men and other logical fallacies here, people are too attentive and too smart for that. Come back when you can make a good argument.

PS: Thanks for the link, welsh.