Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Nations Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Should the US withdraw from the UN
Y. pestis    2/9/2003 3:37:07 PM
As noted on another thread the UN is a treaty organization. It has no authority in and of itself to do anything. It has no fiat-no ability on its own to impliment any of its resolutions which is why they are just that-resolutions. With this in mind, should the US withdraw from the UN. The US has been one of the biggest funders of the UN. We have been the de facto military arm of the UN - when it needs to bring out the 'big guns'. Without the US the UN is religated to small 'peace keeping' operations. It did nothing to to stop the killings in Rowanda, let the food aid be seized in Somalia, allowed warlords to terrorize Somalia's people - now that the US has left Somalia is the basket case it was before (where is the UN?) at least the US tried - to our own detriment. What did the UN or the EU do to stop the serbs from killing muslims-not much. Now the world and the UN (or at least 3 members on the security council and countless member states) has turned its back on the Iraq issue, Iraq will be the next chair on the disarmament council, and Syria is in charge of human rights. Has the UN ceased to be revelent?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3
bombard    RE:eh?   7/22/2004 8:14:04 PM
Are you insane? The reason for the veto in the security council was that there was no international need for war on Iraq, it was an internal domestic problem. The Veto from France and Russia was justified. As is becoming apparent. The UN is the source of legitimate military action. Doing something because you feel its in your national interest, brings us down the road to WW3. Who decides who has a seat in the UN? Not the US, anyway! Its United Nations, not "united countries the US likes." That means everybody. And someone said the UN owes the US 4 billion. Its the other way around. That money is needed for aid in third world countries and peacekeeping. not rebuilding some symbolic skyscraper.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a    RE:eh?   7/23/2004 5:19:02 AM
"The reason for the veto in the security council was that there was no international need for war on Iraq, it was an internal domestic problem." So was Kosovo. The UN...including France...saw no problem in intervening there. And I think they were right too. But of course France didn't have economic interests there. Russia did, which was why it never went to the Security Council. A tangled web we weave. "And someone said the UN owes the US 4 billion. Its the other way around. That money is needed for aid in third world countries and peacekeeping. not rebuilding some symbolic skyscraper" I wonder what your opinion would be if the Eiffel Tower had been successfully destroyed by Islamic terrorists in 1999. I imagine it would be different. In any case, rebuilding the WTC won't take four billion dollars, and the UN should also kindly remember on whose soil it has been living for the last 60 years--rent free, I might add.
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    Since I made my comments in Feb....   7/23/2004 12:39:03 PM
...the UN "food for oil for graft" program has been proven to be responsible for the death of innocent Iraqi's. While onegus was lamenting the death of Iraqi children, the UN was providing aid to French, German, and Russian thieves and murderers. The UN has "Stone-walled" the investigation into UN official?s behavior. The UN polio eradication program falls another decade behind schedule due to lack of funds. The original funds came from Rotary International and were consumed by UN officials "studying" (in NY restaurants) how to persuade Islamic clerics in Nigeria to allow inoculation of children. Since February the Sudan has descended further into genocide while Rwanda continues to cry for help. The UN is an utter disgrace, a criminal cesspool. Like the town drunk, or a suspected murderer, it needs to be watched carefully, kept under constant surveillance. Keep the UN in NY, appoint a third level bureaucrat as Ambassador, and restrict travel. Then ignore them.
 
Quote    Reply

Vapid    RE:Since I made my comments in Feb....   7/23/2004 3:46:39 PM
Hell..just withdraw. Why keep them around at all? It is a waste of our tax dollars and they pose no real threat to us. I'm not sure if it is worth the money just to be able to keep an eye on them. Vapid
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    Here is the value...   7/23/2004 10:48:26 PM
...as demonstrated by the UN's "International" court. The court exceeded its charter, heard a case against Israel it was not empowered to entertain, and rendered a preposterous decision. Without a counter-balance to that typical abuse, political foes of freedom and democracy would endlessly point to that decision (they already do) as justification for empowering and enabling their own and their fellow dictators and theocracies. It's not perfect, and anyone with the briefest exposure to my posts knows I consider then to be amoral murderers, thieves, child abusers, wife beaters and perhaps the largest threat to peace in the world today. I just want them where I can see them, and I want them to know I'm (we're) watching them all the time. Bottom Feeders!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy