THE UNITED NATIONS- Are they any use?


JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1
This outfit strikes me as being a world leader when it comes to parasites. Is it time to "deep six" them? Any ideas? What would it take to get rid of them?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#2
They are just an interim government until the NWO is in place.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+1
#3
The UN, like the League of Nations before them, is a largely toothless organization when it comes to enforcing anything but at the same time, I think it does provide a valuable platform as a place for the nations of the world to at least table/discuss disputes. It ultimately failed to stop something like the US invasion of Iraq but it provided a place for both countries to make a case for the international community/press, and to be honest the failure as much in the intractibility of its members as the organization itself, although some members do go pretty far in wanting to influence the sovereignty of others.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

They are just an interim government until the NWO is in place.

When is it going to happen and who is going to be in charge?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

When is it going to happen and who is going to be in charge?

Probably won't happen in our life time. We'll see how this North American Union thing pans out first.
 
Liberalman
#6
NWO is a Conservative dream
 
Blackleaf
+1
#7
The UN was set up following World War II to ensure that no other Hitler ever comes to power in any country again. Therefore the UN should have SUPPORTED the War in Iraq, in which Saddam was ousted and hanged, rather than have been against it. An equivalent stance in 1939, if it had been around then, would have seen it not supporting Britain and France's declaration of war against Nazi Germany.

A BBC poll in 2004 showed that a majority of Britons thought that there should be times when Britain should go to war, if it was for a good reason, even if the UN was against it.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The UN was set up following World War II to ensure that no other Hitler ever comes to power in any country again. Therefore the UN should have SUPPORTED the War in Iraq, in which Saddam was ousted and hanged, rather than have been against it. An equivalent stance in 1939, if it had been around then, would have seen it not supporting Britain and France's declaration of war against Nazi Germany.

A BBC poll in 2004 showed that a majority of Britons thought that there should be times when Britain should go to war, if it was for a good reason, even if the UN was against it.

My sentiments exactly, good to see someone with good sense when it comes to Iraq and Saddam.
 
jsiooa
-1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The UN was set up following World War II to ensure that no other Hitler ever comes to power in any country again. Therefore the UN should have SUPPORTED the War in Iraq, in which Saddam was ousted and hanged, rather than have been against it. An equivalent stance in 1939, if it had been around then, would have seen it not supporting Britain and France's declaration of war against Nazi Germany.

A BBC poll in 2004 showed that a majority of Britons thought that there should be times when Britain should go to war, if it was for a good reason, even if the UN was against it.

Saddam was gassing his people for decades, the Americans supported Saddam through this. It was only when he invaded Kuwait and interfered with the oil is when the Americans had a problem. Not when he was destroying his own people.
 
Curiosity
#10
JLM

Love love love the topic and your assessment with which I am in full agreement.

I loathe the moneygrabbers who have lost their primary purpose and have become
a mockery of all the good nations who support them and their "work".

Alternatively I believe the concept of a smaller representation of all the nations in
the world could still be a factor in searching for peace, inter-relationships, cooperation, uplifting of nations and all the other "good" things the U.N. have
neglected for years, but I would be adamant that their meetings were televised or
put up on the internet with reliable translation for the world to read and digest.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

TA BBC poll in 2004 showed that a majority of Britons thought that there should be times when Britain should go to war, if it was for a good reason, even if the UN was against it.

Sounds like a musty remnant of the old empire oblige.

However, the majority of the British public was against the Iraq War! Did you forget the marches?

O yes, during the Suez fiasco when Britain and France were prepared for war, Canada's Pearson through the UN...

Honestly, you should be reporting history honesty!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by jsiooaView Post

Saddam was gassing his people for decades, the Americans supported Saddam through this. It was only when he invaded Kuwait and interfered with the oil is when the Americans had a problem. Not when he was destroying his own people.

Ever hear of "the straw that broke the camel's back"?
 
Tonington
#13
I always feel compelled to mention that without the UN, humans would not have successfully wiped out a disease.

It's very easy to sit here, in our affluent nations, away from civil wars, corrupt governments, and ponder on the worth of such an organization that feeds, hydrates, gives access to sanitation and medicine, amongst many other projects.

Everyday people who live in countries whose resources (natural, capital, human) have been wiped out by unfortunate circumstances, are given access to the basics that we take for granted. Some also seem to take for granted that there is such a thing as good government and bad. Mugabe anyone?

The Security Council for instance, is a joke. I think that needs to go. It can't be reformed. If we get rid of the UN, what parts are worth saving? How do you keep them functioning? How do you reform those that need it?
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#14
The UN is just as usefull as the USA.
 
AnnaG
#15
I think there are aspects of the UN that are useful. If it were me, however, I would be a lot more choosy about which countries were members.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
-1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

I think there are aspects of the UN that are useful. If it were me, however, I would be a lot more choosy about which countries were members.


The fact that it is a meating place for nations to discuus issues you comment makes no sense.

All or none.
 
AnnaG
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

The fact that it is a meating place for nations to discuus issues you comment makes no sense.

All or none.

Only to you, I think. Why would I, as the UN, want to consider the words of countries that do nothing but abuse their populations? Why would I not kick them out of the room and exclude them from further discussion amongst reasonable countries?
All or none. Either or. You sound like Bush: " if'n yew isnt wiff us, yew is aginst us."
 
Colpy
Conservative
#18
Crovitz: The U.N.'s Internet Sneak Attack - WSJ.com (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Crovitz: The U.N.'s Internet Sneak Attack - WSJ.com (external - login to view)

The truth hurts, I guess. Some countries just can't handle freedom of info.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#20
Th UN still has a large roll to play in world affairs. It is the release valve where countries can
use the diplomatic efforts of each other in order to prevent more serious situations in the world.
As for NWO yes it is a Conservative dream not only that it was one of Hitlers great slogans
that and Turn Back the Clock.
As for the WTO that too will eventually fade with time and world affairs.

This world is in a mess economically and the trade issues will come to the fore. We are going
to see the world slowly drift into political and economic uncertainty that will divide the world on
the same old ground. Trade.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#21
I have always admired UNESCO, WHO, IAEA, IMO, peacekeeping, etc. And, it's a safety valve. Some hawks and empire loyalists may not. Pity.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#22
Engaging in dialogue and preparing timetables to schedule discussions to adopt a motion to debate the meaning of genocide since 1945
 
Kathie Bondar
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68View Post

The UN, like the League of Nations before them, is a largely toothless organization when it comes to enforcing anything but at the same time, I think it does provide a valuable platform as a place for the nations of the world to at least table/discuss disputes. It ultimately failed to stop something like the US invasion of Iraq but it provided a place for both countries to make a case for the international community/press, and to be honest the failure as much in the intractibility of its members as the organization itself, although some members do go pretty far in wanting to influence the sovereignty of others.

How right you are. And above all, it provides the US with an international platform to advertise how noble they are. I say, give Obama another Nobel Peace Prize so he can pretend some more
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#24
I'd like to know how much of our taxes go to "running" the U.N. and what the salary is of the head honcho.
 
MHz
#25
I'd like to see the big 5 have their voting rights taken away that way the rest of the nations won' t mind funding the place because they will get something for their money, right now all they get to do is listen to what the 5 dictate . They can supply the bodies when war with sharp sticks is the decision 'of the Nations'
 
EagleSmack
#26
Hey I'm all for dissolving the Big 5 too! And not paying as much as we do. Make everyone pay the same while you're at it.

When it comes to providing soldiers... count us out as well.

Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I have always admired UNESCO, WHO, IAEA, IMO, peacekeeping, etc. And, it's a safety valve. Some hawks and empire loyalists may not. Pity.

Peacekeeping... lmao. Rebel forces just rolled right UN Peace Keepers in the Congo earlier this month. Another example of the uselessness of UN Peace Keepers and the UN in general.

Congo rebels seize eastern city as U.N. forces look on | Reuters (external - login to view)
 
petros
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Probably won't happen in our life time. We'll see how this North American Union thing pans out first.

It's coming along just fine.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#28
Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Panama first; Canada next.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Micronesia, Palau, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Panama first; Canada next.

What do you mean "Next". Harpo voted as his puppet masters told him to.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Hey I'm all for dissolving the Big 5 too! And not paying as much as we do. Make everyone pay the same while you're at it.

When it comes to providing soldiers... count us out as well.

It must chafe US hawks. The UN is like a leash holding back their ambitions of unbridled warfare and exploitation.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
#30
Yeah, the majority of UN member states just made it clear that privacy needs to be written into a bunch of constitutions, fast.

Kind of takes the bite out of some news when it is placed in a thread with a bunch of people celebrating the equivalence (in their mind) of Saddam's Iraq = Third Reich and using that imagined equivalence to argue against the UN.
 

Similar Threads

2
The United Nations Wants You !!!
by Curiosity | Aug 1st, 2007
20
Why the United Nations?
by Retired_Can_Soldier | Apr 17th, 2006
24
United Nations
by Jersay | Mar 21st, 2006
22
What's going on at the United Nations?
by shamus11 | Jan 30th, 2006
no new posts