|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 17:32:38 GMT -5
This thread will be devoted to debating the real-life United Nations. Is it worthwhile, or just a waste of time?
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 17:34:29 GMT -5
Depends what you mean.It can be good and a waste of time at least on Nationstates in real life it's usually good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siko Michael on Feb 20, 2005 17:36:37 GMT -5
AGREED ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 17:37:21 GMT -5
Personally, I think that the UN is a corrupt, scandalous, and useless organization. Corrupt and scandalous because of the Oil-For-Food Scandal, combined with the laughable presence of cruel dictatorships like Sudan on Human Rights Councils. Useless, because it failed to prevent the genocide in Kosovo in the '90's, along with its many "peacekeeping" missions that end up failing miserably.
I also resent the fact that the UN forces nations to give up a little of their sovereignity. I believe that the UN is the precursor of a global government, which, when it comes, will undoubtedly be the end of the world as we know it.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 17:37:43 GMT -5
I mean the real life UN.
|
|
|
|
Post by Siko Michael on Feb 20, 2005 17:43:26 GMT -5
Honestly, i think the UN is the one world government that bibles talks about so techinally(sp) the UN is evil! but they did do alot of goods things after WWII to help rebuild germany and japan
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 17:43:38 GMT -5
It's a miracle me and Siko Michael agreed!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 17:49:34 GMT -5
I think that the UN is accreditted with things that it didn't do or did poorly; and on the One World Gov't. thing, I'm with you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chocolate Bar on Feb 20, 2005 18:08:24 GMT -5
UN=worthless
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 18:10:15 GMT -5
nobody listens to it anyway unless it supports them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 21:32:46 GMT -5
True, but a lot of times the UN just spouts a bunch of nonsense and really doesn't take any decisive action. One thing the UN is good in is humanitarian stuff, at lease I THINK it is, some of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 20, 2005 21:35:18 GMT -5
and on dictators it usually doesn't stand for that
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 20, 2005 21:51:02 GMT -5
I suspect that it was sympathetic to Saddam, though, in light of the "Oil-For-Food" scandal. Not too strong on Kim Jong-Il of N. Korea, either. All in all, I don't like it a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Feb 21, 2005 12:05:30 GMT -5
Well, this might sound hyppoctitical (sp) coming from your U.N. Delegate, but.......
I dislike the United Nations.......deeply.
Don't get me wrong, though. I believe that we do need a world body so that nations can discuss problems and work for a greater planet Earth, but this is not the way to do it.
The United Nations made Saddam's Iraq the head of the Humanitarian Commision...please!
They need a backbone...and they need to stop cosying up to dictators and the like. Free and Democractic nations only, I say.
Also, we should NEVER have a system where each nation gives up its soveriegnty. Also, there should be no Earth Military force. What would the good of it be unless we were attacked by Martians or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 21, 2005 12:08:07 GMT -5
The "good" of it would be to take over the world, like I believe the Antichrist will eventually. Some people think that's good, I guess?
Hey, you're not hypocritical, because I'm the Ast. Delegate, and I don't like the UN either!
And, yes, we do need an international forum, but just make it so it has no sovereign power.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Feb 21, 2005 12:11:10 GMT -5
Also, everyone in my local Republican party thinks that we (the US) should withdraw from the U.N. Not smart. That will create huge resentment and then the whole world will start ganging up on us. You may see a US v. UN war if that happens. We need to stay in the U.N. so that we can try to re-construct it. It my opinion, though, we need to start over.
We do need the U.N. out of New York.....how about Paris?
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Feb 21, 2005 12:25:20 GMT -5
;DYeah, then someone will get the bright idea to move it to Rome or something. Then, we all know what happens . . .
Maybe we shouldn't withdraw . . . yet. I say that right now, though, we take a stand and say "no" to the UN's senseless activities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chocolate Bar on Feb 21, 2005 12:27:56 GMT -5
Also, everyone in my local Republican party thinks that we (the US) should withdraw from the U.N. Not smart. That will create huge resentment and then the whole world will start ganging up on us. You may see a US v. UN war if that happens. We need to stay in the U.N. so that we can try to re-construct it. It my opinion, though, we need to start over. We do need the U.N. out of New York.....how about Paris? NO! I don't like the French. What about London? |
|
|
|
Post by GDL on Feb 21, 2005 12:37:49 GMT -5
I'd like to go to London and New York and Paris.I don't travel much but when I do I love it,and I don't really know where the U.N. is and isn't needed the most.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Titania (TD) on Feb 21, 2005 12:49:03 GMT -5
Yeah, if it moves to Rome, well......
|
|
|
|
Post by Geberia on Mar 30, 2005 11:55:45 GMT -5
Personally, I think the UN is worthless. I think Paris would be a good place to put them ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zedonius on Mar 30, 2005 17:18:02 GMT -5
Technically, the UN fufills it's designed purpose, to attemt to solve all conflicts peacably through it's heavy influence. I think they need to solve conflicts aggressivly if peace negotiations fail...but the Frence and the Germans prolly wouldnt like that.
|
|
