You and draqon have complained about the UN and it's actions. What exactly do you guys propose instead? How about we let you izoot run the world?
The UN exists, because it's very important for the world to have an internaional body, to help keep countries out of conflict and to stop atrocities. And it's generally setup to be a democracy, where, for the most part countries are on something close to a level playing feild.
The UN, I think weeds out extremism. If each country or culture gets it's vote, and a majority wins......and it says something is "right" or "wrong", most likely....it is. Lets say, just for the purposes of argument, that there are 9 main cultures in the world. And because we have the UN, each got 1 vote. On a specific issue, lets say 8 out of 9 cultures found something to be extremly unethical, and the other 1 said it was "right". 8 out of 9, would more likely to be correct than that 1. The other option, is letting whoever happens to have the biggest guns, do absolutely whatever they want.
I tried to address all of your questions specifically, however I don't know enough about most of them to really speak about them.
But I will address what you then said about Iraq.
"
This is another example of their failure...they agreed to stand together in a stance against Sadaam
#1441. Sodumb was given an ultimatum... Disarm or else.
Did he disarm? No. It wasn't the direct job of the inspectors to go into Iraq and SEARCH for arms...they were supposed to be turned over. They were not. France and germany led their pack in going back on their words in 1441 and were defending iraq.... give them more time give them more time...12 years is enough and what 30-40 resolutions agaist iraq? Why should Sodumb comply? They no consequences that truly affect him.
France and Germany and Russia and China have shown the world just how ineffecdtive the UN is. They chose to defend their Billions in investments instead of the well being of the iraqi people and the world. We all see it its all documented,
they are protecting their investments through the UN."
Iraq was disarming. And even if they weren't totally, so what? Do you propose.....everytime someone does something against the wishes of the UN, it gets taken over in a bloody invasion? Actually aren't we right now, defying the UN? So now shouldn't they take us over in a bloody seige, according to you?
Iraq was complying almost completely with 1441, and even if they were supposed to fully......that doesn't automatically mean they get taken over in a bloody seige. What exactly is your position? If someone you really don't like, isn't 100% defenseless against you, you take them over? Iraq was doing just about everything the UN was asking, and the US was characterizing their efforts as next to nothing.
And it's almost funny you should accuse all of doing what they're doing because of money or resources. You say that as if they're the ones who are doing the extremeist thing, or they are the one's out of whack with popular opinoin? No France isn't out of line with the world population opinoin......YOU sir are.
The United States best support, the UK, has less than 10% of it's citizens supporting our war efforts without UN backing. That's our closest friend.
But back to you accusing these countries of doing what they are for economic gain.....is it more likely that the US is doing that, or.....that LIST of countries you gave? They are the ones in line with popular PHILSOPHICAL will. The United States is the one already contracting out who will get to run the oil wells after we take Iraq over (dick cheneys' old company Halo burtain). The US are the ones trying to bribe people into helping support our efforts even though it's against the will of their population. The US is the one threatening to take away humanitarian AID packages, to try to force other countries not to vote with their philsophical ideals. You are denying the obvious, right in front of your face....The United States is the one doing this for economical reasons.
You don't like the UN izoot, but the other option is having the country with the best military totally run the show - and I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted that, now being that the people who do happen to have the biggest bombs right now, totally support your unpopular beliefs. But what if Saddam was the one with 10,000 nukes, and we were the ones trying to go to a worldwide vote (and had them on our side)?
Democracy is more likely to weed out extremist views, than just letting the guy on the block with the biggest guns do whatever they want. It's more likely for 1 country to go off the deep end, than the majority of civilizations and cultures in the world.
Originally posted by izoot
Quaddfi chairing the Council for Human rights? ( A terrorist in his own right )
Syria chairing the security council? ( on list of terrorist supporting nations, rumored to be hiding WMD for Sodumb )
Among numerous other things....Hmmm...
UN troops videtaping the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by terrorists and denying it. Then being called out and admitting that they did have the tapes but were going to release them...then only releasing them after editing the terrorist faces out.
To this day not revealing information that could at the very least send the bodies home to their families. I'm missing something what is the honor in protecting terrorists that are listed in the world list of violators? Seems to be the opposite of what the UN is meant for....UN peacekeepers ..ya right.
why isn't Kofi doing anything about the atrocities in the sudan? What 2 million dead in ten years?
What about the active slave trade, why isn't that being addressed?
What about the abuse of women in countries that are members in "good standing" of the UN?
the Useless nations are very selective on which causes they pick up and why. They may offer a number of programs that help in various areas. But as a whole the UN is a failure. They keep proving over and over.
This is another example of their failure...they agreed to stand together in a stance against Sadaam #1441. Sodumb was given an ultimatum... Disarm or else.
Did he disarm? No. It wasn't the direct job of the inspectors to go into Iraq and SEARCH for arms...they were supposed to be turned over. They were not. France and germany led their pack in going back on their words in 1441 and were defending iraq.... give them more time give them more time...12 years is enough and what 30-40 resolutions agaist iraq? Why should Sodumb comply? They no consequences that truly affect him.
France and Germany and Russia and China have shown the world just how ineffecdtive the UN is. They chose to defend their Billions in investments instead of the well being of the iraqi people and the world. We all see it its all documented,
they are protecting their investments through the UN.
As to the terrorists and rascist comments the many members of the UN have been shown and proven as terrorists and supporters of terrorist factions.
You can deny the facts all you would like but the truth is the truth and denial will never change it.
