[Politics] The United States needs to leave the corrupt UN!

[SUBMAN1]

Hezbolla in UN vehicle bribe UN to stay away while they kidnap Isreali soldiers. Then the UN covers it up and also becomes and accesory to kidnap and murder!

Nice.

-S

http://volokh.com/posts/1153523571.shtml

[SUBMAN1]

Another site to visit:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/

-S

[Yahoshua]

I'm not sure of the reliability of these sources, but what I've seen of the U.N.'s conduct in regions around the world (and on OUR soil). I am inclined to wonder if the U.N. has really fallen so low that they have become a terrorist organisation themselves (at least psychologically, wherein they promise help a country and then watch the innocents being massacred on television while they debate whether or not there really is a crisis).

[Spoon 11th]

The UN became a terrorist organization the day a few countries were granted a right to veto and the rest were not.

[STEED]

The U.N. is a corrupt organisation run by criminals for many years now, I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.

[joea]

Originally Posted by STEED

The U.N. is a corrupt organisation run by criminals for many years now, I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.

Do ouy really belive that Steed? I thought you were a pretty level headed guy, still do, actually.

[STEED]

Hey joea, a refresher for you from early this year.

UN's Promise to 'Save The World'
In Return For Global Government
January 31 2006

The London Independent reports,
The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.
The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.
The message is simple, sacrifice your national sovereignty and we will save the world!
Using the threat of environmental catastrophe and the implementation of a world tax, the UN is coming back for another bite at the cherry, an end run around national sovereignty.

Why should we even for a second consider signing over our freedom and sovereignty to a body that has been embroiled in one scandal after another?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor to be exploited as prostitutes?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when they imposed sanctions on Iraq in 1990 that directly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis, 500,000 of them children? Were they attempting to solve problems of poverty, disease and suffering when they unleashed this living hell? A price (half a million dead kids) that was "worth paying" according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright?

Were the UN attempting to save the world in 1994 when they withdrew their peacekeepers from Rwanda, an action that directly led to the butchering of 800,000 people?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war?
Were the UN attempting to save the world when pedophilia scandals involving their personnel emerged from all over West Africa and the Balkans? Were their intentions noble when they fired the individuals responsible for blowing the whistle and trying to save the children?

[kiwi_2005]

Yeah kiwi here, backward as ever but hey aren't the UN suppose to be the good guys?:hmm:

[Safe-Keeper]

The UN became a terrorist organization the day a few countries were granted a right to veto and the rest were not.

Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right?

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

I just wish England would also get the heck out of the U.N. which stinks and plots to take over the world.

First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice; they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party. And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration, the Downing Street Memos (more sources), or how the US has a huge debt it's not doing much at all to counter.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/

Couldn't you find a more biased and strange-minded site? "The Human Rights Council was Kofi Annan's flagship of UN reform. But only two weeks after it began, it took up where the discredited Human Rights Commission left off - Israel-bashing."

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

EDIT:
First of all, it's worth mentioning that the UN isn't a nation. In a sense, "the UN" didn't pull out of Rwanda, the member countries did.

What I'm trying to say is that the Rwanda pull-out isn't a problem with the UN, but with the individual member nations not caring about the conflict.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor to be exploited as prostitutes?

The link points to an unproven report. Speculation, no more.

Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war?

"Setting up a system of rape and torture" is pretty different from rogue peacekeepers raping and torturing. Nice try. Next time, don't link to an article that effectively disproves your statement:p.

*Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Read the quote on my post.

PS I am calm.

[Spoon 11th]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right?

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

No dude, I haven't done any research. I'm just babbling here for the fun of it. About the concept of veto: Too undemocratic to my taste. I used the definition 'terrorist organization' because the previous poster used that and it sounded fun. I don't have a gripe with the UN. There should be world government and only one language and one currency. And only lesser gods.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Would you care to explain what you mean by that? I assume you have done some research on this and thus are aware of why some countries cannot veto and some can, right? ...Right?

Fair enough if you have a gripe with the UN, and fine, dislike the veto system all you want, but to call them terrorists is a tad bit over-the-edge.

First, calm down. Get in your medical cabinet and find a 25mg chill pill. Then, tell me why you think the UN is plotting to take over the world.

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice; they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party. And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration, the Downing Street Memos (more sources), or how the US has a huge debt it's not doing much at all to counter.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

Couldn't you find a more biased and strange-minded site? "The Human Rights Council was Kofi Annan's flagship of UN reform. But only two weeks after it began, it took up where the discredited Human Rights Commission left off - Israel-bashing."

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

EDIT:
First of all, it's worth mentioning that the UN isn't a nation. In a sense, "the UN" didn't pull out of Rwanda, the member countries did.

What I'm trying to say is that the Rwanda pull-out isn't a problem with the UN, but with the individual member nations not caring about the conflict.

The link points to an unproven report. Speculation, no more.

"Setting up a system of rape and torture" is pretty different from rogue peacekeepers raping and torturing. Nice try. Next time, don't link to an article that effectively disproves your statement:p.

*Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

Well said, and you make some very good points here that are pretty hard to refute.

Sadly, too many have trouble wrapping their mind around the fact that the UN is not the United States of America but the United Nations, and thus they have trouble understanding why the UN sometimes tries to act in the common interest of all 192 member nations rather than bending to the will of just 1.

But I suppose we ought to expect as much at a time when even the US President can't tell the difference:

I need to be able to move the right people to the right place at the right time to protect you, and I'm not going to accept a lousy bill out of the United Nations Senate. -- G.W. Bush

John Thune has got a common-sense vision for good forest policy. I look forward to working with him in the United Nations Senate to preserve these national heritages. -- G.W. Bush

Any time we've got any kind of inkling that somebody is thinking about doing something to an American and something to our homeland, you've just got to know we're moving on it, to protect the United Nations Constitution, and at the same time, we're protecting you. -- G.W. Bush

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Actually, I wouldn't grieve too much if the USA did abandon the UN. It'd decrease the corruption significantly:p.

The US systematically vetoes every UN attempt at bringing Israel to justice; they don't follow UN regulations and rules; and they pretty much hate the whole organisaiton. Until the US government gets its act together, it shall not be missed*.

And to use corruption as grounds for leaving the UN is very hypocritical in the US's case, what with the US being ruled by the exceedingly corrupt Republican Party. And let's not get into the Guantanamo torture, ordered by the Bush Administration, the Downing Street Memos (more sources), or how the US has a huge debt it's not doing much at all to counter.

No. If the USA did leave the UN, the corruption would still be ever present. The oil for food program pretty much lined the pockets of UN officials. This money was supposed to be used to feed, clothe, and give medical supplies to Iraq's people. The USA had nothing to do with any of that. UN corruption is pretty deep without American involvement.

And the UN is virtually nothing without US involvement financially. Remember the tsunami relief disaster? The UN came to the USA with hat in hand begging for money and food aid. The US taxpayers came through. It's funny how those bags of rice had a big label on them that said "United Nations" when it was only possible due to US taxpayers. Not just the food, but it was delivered by US Navy ships. Do you even know how much of the UN budget the US ponies up for? It's quite significant.

But sure, let's bail poor old innocent USA out of the evil United Nations, lest they might be a bad influence.

Yes, let's do it. And the UN itself will cease to exist. That is unless the other remaining members make up the difference financially. And we're talking alot of money here. But one other thing....how would this new UN enforce it's own resolutions without US military power?:hmm: I'll tell you...they couldn't. Basically, this new America-free UN would be worthless. Well, more worthless than it is now.

So they think it's a bad thing that when Israel breaks just about every rule on warfare and occuption there is to break, the UN condemns them? Isn't that what the UN is supposed to do? Or is there some rule that I'm not aware of that makes Israel immune to all attack? Please link to it if that is the case - thanks in advance.

And what type of warfare rules are the opposing side breaking. Unlawful combatants. Do you think it's acceptable to allow 500-1000 rockets flying into Israeli towns, villages, shopping centers, and schools on a daily basis? What about the kidnapping of lawful combatants by terrorists? What does the UN say about those things? I'll tell you....nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. And just when Israel is in the process of eliminating these terrorists, the UN always steps in to save the terrorists. It's been happening for as long as I've been alive. The UN has never been a body that creates a lasting peace. It's a body that creates a fragile stalemate, and gives dangerous regimes and terrorist groups the time to regroup and re-arm. I can't believe people are still fooled into believing that the UN is a body that creates the conditions of peace.

Just in case someone feels inclined to call me anti-American, I've lived in Houston for three years and found the Americans to be a great bunch. It's the government

, namely the Republicans,I have something against.

The people are currently electing Republican leadership. And it doesn't look like that's going to change in the short term.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

I'm not sure of the reliability of these sources, but what I've seen of the U.N.'s conduct in regions around the world (and on OUR soil). I am inclined to wonder if the U.N. has really fallen so low that they have become a terrorist organisation themselves (at least psychologically, wherein they promise help a country and then watch the innocents being massacred on television while they debate whether or not there really is a crisis).

The reliability can't be disputed since it is derived from multiple independant media outlets and media stories. It is not created by the web site owners. The watch on the UN should turn your stomach a bit.

-S

[Ducimus]

Im only responding the the post title.


As long as there are nations, there will be war, and a need for an international body will always be there. The UN isnt the greatest, but its all we got. So, no, i dont think we should leave the UN. That in action would make us a rouge country, and thats not something i like the sound of.

I do however think we should greatly reduce the funding we provide to the UN as well as support in men and material. Other countries should anny up more, i dont see why we have to put forth as much as is expected of us. We need to concern ourselves with our own people more, and other people less. All that money we spend on other nations problems would be better spent on our own people.