Thread: UN should be moved?

I think we should quit the UN and forget that it even exsists.

It should be moved to Switzerland, since they're neutral.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think we should quit the UN and forget that it even exsists.

Sad, but I almost agree with that.

The UN isn't really corrupted by the US. But, we don't give a damn about what the UN says. For example, we went to war with Iraq. The US doesn't care about preventing wars, unless the war will be against them. So, it doesn't matter, the UN can't do anything. Its just the US.

The United Nations is a great idea like many that does not work.
If all the powerful nations would work together it would act as such a powerful deterrent that I feel it would straighten this world out.
It would be unfortunate that there may be a rogue nation or two that the UN would have to make an example of to be taken seriously.
It is also unfortunate that you would almost have to dictate things in a manner that is very straight forward. You comply or you get punished.

Sounds so easy doesn't it.
I wish it were that easy.
regardless of how complicated it really is I still whole heatedly believe that a strong UN would be a great thing for global affairs.

To where it should be located. If it were arranged to be bipartisan in nature, it should not matter.

Does any one have a list of the countries that make up the UN?

Here it is [United Nations Member States]

Um no we don't want a strong UN. A strong UN would impose their rules on others. Which sounds nice except that also implies to us. They already trying to impose global laws on counties, which is totally unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Alric

Um no we don't want a strong UN. A strong UN would impose their rules on others. Which sounds nice except that also implies to us. They already trying to impose global laws on counties, which is totally unacceptable.

So you feel it would be better to disassemble and have every nation not working together in total discord?
Every nation imposes their will.
That is the point of many nations. Much like the founding fathers or the senate. or a security council. Proper intelligent decision are more likely to be made than if countries were to make their own. More over the nations that have proven they can't handle power.

The UN isn't really corrupted by the US. But, we don't give a damn about what the UN says. For example, we went to war with Iraq. The US doesn't care about preventing wars, unless the war will be against them. So, it doesn't matter, the UN can't do anything. Its just the US.

exactly is why the UN is corrupted by the US. When the USA defies united nations they dont do anthing no sort of retalition about what it does even though if it had been a different country in its place there would have been serious consquences.

The UN building itself is not bound by any nation's territorial claims, right? Therefore it shouldn't matter where it's based.

The UN building itself is not bound by any nation's territorial claims, right? Therefore it shouldn't matter where it's based.

I think saying the UN is a teritory or a country unto its own is just a symbolic thing. The fact is that its in the USA and no matter what anyone says about it being its own country or not part of the usa it still is. and therefore it cannot be completely unbiased at all.

So you feel it would be better to disassemble and have every nation not working together in total discord?
Every nation imposes their will.
That is the point of many nations. Much like the founding fathers or the senate. or a security council. Proper intelligent decision are more likely to be made than if countries were to make their own. More over the nations that have proven they can't handle power.

well the UN does impose its will as a whole but often it is the will of larger countries with more clought that is being represented. There is a disapropate amount of power distributed and more over for the secutiry council: why have nations liek china, USA russia germany making funamental disions that would affect countries that are geographically distent from them?? shouldn't people who are direclty affected have more of a say?

dont you think in a crisis those who're directly affected should be making the big decisions? or atleast more invlovled in the decision making process.

and plus if the USA doesnt want some country represented or some (political) leader/Ambassador to come to the UN and make his case all the americans have to do is phone JFK and deny that man or woman a visa.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

exactly is why the UN is corrupted by the US. When the USA defies united nations they dont do anthing no sort of retalition about what it does even though if it had been a different country in its place there would have been serious consquences.

With all due respect that is the problem. When has the UN done anything?
If you don't back up your boast nations will see this and consider you a joke.
One reason I said it is a great idea that is not working.
They don't implement action. There is no accountability for obvious improper actions.

Joseph_Stalin. IMO. yes

Yes thats what I believe because I believe countries should be able to make their own choices. In the past the UN has tried to pass things such as a world wide gun ban. At this point th UN really has no power to back it up but what if they did? The UN could ban americans right to bear arms, going against our constitution.

That is why we should never give anyone the power to override our countries laws. Same thing when they try to create international courts. If you get arrested for something in the US you have certain rights here, while in an international court you may or may not have said rights.

Thats why its important not to get to tangled up in the UN.

The UN needs the US. The league of Nations failed because the US did not join. The US is the country that punishes others if the UN wants to punish something. So if the US is the problem, we are not going to attack ourselves. The UN is pointless and can't do anything if the US doesn't want to. Moving it won't matter. The UN just can't do anything.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

well i think the UN should be moved from the USA because it could be argued (thats what im doing now) that an organization, commited to the "wellness of the world" and "preventing wars before they happen" would be in a country that that has its own global interests whtich could potentially corrupt the organization itself. With being in such a powerful country there is bound to be some sort of corruption or influence from the US government.

Maybe the U.N. can threaten the evil dictators of the world with the mighty forces of Spain. And the U.S. will corrupt the U.N. about like a scoop of ice cream will corrupt a bowl of rat poison. I once again apologize for all of the people my fellow Americans have died to liberate and for how we continually lead the world in giving foreign aid.

world wide gun ban? What?

The UN was meant to police the Global world against bigger things than a gun ban.

Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.

Our energy, our emphasis and our anger is directed against illegal weapons, not legal ones. Our priorities are effective enforcement, better controls and regulation, safer stockpiling, and weapons collection and destruction. Our targets remain unscrupulous arms brokers, corrupt officials, drug trafficking syndicates, criminals and others who bring death and mayhem to our communities, and who ruin lives and destroy, in minutes, the labour of years. To halt the destructive march of armed conflict and crime, we must stop such purveyors of death.

Yea they only ban the guns for the countries that are stupid enough to sign. Talk about spin. They have been trying to ban guns for years. I guess its the same for people in this country, no one wants to ban guns they just want to limit them to the point where almost no one can have one. I don't fall for it when they say it, I am not going to fall for it when the UN does.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Maybe the U.N. can threaten the evil dictators of the world with the mighty forces of Spain. And the U.S. will corrupt the U.N. about like a scoop of ice cream will corrupt a bowl of rat poison. I once again apologize for all of the people my fellow Americans have died to liberate and for how we continually lead the world in giving foreign aid.

We only lead in foreign aid to countries that can economicaly help us. Why did we give $80 million dollars to El Salvador back in the 80s, despite the fact they had massacred thousands of people who spoke out against there government? We didn't help these people, because we wouldn't gain a profit.

This country is terribly corrupt. Also, we stoped a revolution that was over throwing a dictator, because we made money off of that countries buisnesses. We keep cutting money to be spent on the poor to buy more useless weapons. The US doesn't care what happens to the rest of the world. We only overthrow dictatorships if it is a threat to out economy. We help establish dictatorships!

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

We only lead in foreign aid to countries that can economicaly help us. Why did we give $80 million dollars to El Salvador back in the 80s, despite the fact they had massacred thousands of people who spoke out against there government. We didn't help these people, because we wouldn't gain a profit.

This country is terribly corrupt. Also, we stoped a revolution that was over throwing a dictator, because we made money off of that countries buisnesses. We keep cutting money to be spent on the poor to buy more useless weapons. The US doesn't care what happens to the rest of the world. We only overthrow dictatorships if it is a threat to out economy. We help establish dictatorships!

In global politics, no nation does anything just out of "good will", only when there is something to gain.

On the note of moving the UN, who cares? The US takes on more missions and supplies more troops, relief, etc. than any other nation anyways.

And I totally disagree with what dragonoverlord said about how if the UN was in another nation that had defied it's ruling, there would be serious consequences...The UN could have been anywhere when we started the Iraq thing, it wouldn't have mattered. What are they going to do? Try to sanction us? Attack us and our interests? I dont think so. The UN has too much to lose to cross us as far as peace-keeping ops, etc. goes.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

We only lead in foreign aid to countries that can economicaly help us. Why did we give $80 million dollars to El Salvador back in the 80s, despite the fact they had massacred thousands of people who spoke out against there government? We didn't help these people, because we wouldn't gain a profit.

This country is terribly corrupt. Also, we stoped a revolution that was over throwing a dictator, because we made money off of that countries buisnesses. We keep cutting money to be spent on the poor to buy more useless weapons. The US doesn't care what happens to the rest of the world. We only overthrow dictatorships if it is a threat to out economy. We help establish dictatorships!

We give more in foreign aid period than any other country. That is a fact, and it has been one for a long time. It is also a fact that we have liberated more people than any other country. Of course you can find politics in a lot of such actions, but those facts are still facts. We give more in foreign aid to Africa than any other country gives them. You can't say that that is out of pure selfishness. Even if you could, we still do it, and that is my point. The dictatorships we have created were lesser of several evils style adjustments of old systems. You can see in present times what a bitch it is to get democracies off the ground in some places. Please tell me about one country that has been a greater force for positive revolution in the world over the past 100 years.

(By the way, I would love to never talk like that. I just feel obligated when people trash my country with nothing good to add. I never talked like that until the Hussein regime overthrow, which was exactly the point where the mass negativity regarding my country started flowing.)

Like the USA is still in the UN, in the way that it listens to its message of Peace and Human Rights.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Like the USA is still in the UN, in the way that it listens to its message of Peace and Human Rights.

Heck china and russia both have a permanent seat on the Security Council and have veto powers. China the government that runs organ farms where they lock religious people so they can harvest and sell their body parts to rich people around the world. Who will break into your home and do on the spot abortions often killing people because they accidently got pregnant. Talk about a sick country. Then we got russia who totally oppose almost everything we do and is a fascist nation. You disagree with their president and you 'disappear' the next day.

You know the only reason we picked the 5 nations on the secuirty council because at the time they were the only 5 with nuclear bombs. I mean, great way to pick them right?

Seriously if anyone thinks they are looking out for world peace your a moron. Half the countries in the UN would take a bribe to kill their own country men. You think they want to protect YOU?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We give more in foreign aid period than any other country.

The US took away money for welfare of other countries if that country votes against what the US wants to do in the UN. Thats not fair to other countries if they disagree with us, and that is really terrible corruption right there.

Also, being one of the richest nations in the world, we probably spend more money on foreign aid than any other country, because we have more to spend. We give a lot of foreign aid, but for the wrong reason. Thats the thing I don't like about the US.

The problem is we give to much aid for people to buy weapons and not enough for people to buy food. It sure sounds good to say we sent 50 million dollars to a country in aid. Untill you find out it was 48 million was for weapons with the country used to start a war with. I mean look at the 'aid' we sent to iraq when saddam was still in power. Nice one there.