PDA

View Full Version : UN actively trying to spread Islam


GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 05:11 PM
Hang on to your hats folks it seems like the United Nations is trying to directly support a religion:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432502,00.html

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:19 PM
I'm not suprised. They rarely side with the US anyway. Not that I'm against Islam. I again don't see in the near future them siding with us ever. I'd be real suprised if they tried to promote Christianity. And we are the country that provides much of their funding anyway.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 05:33 PM
Way to go UN....you once again prove that when trying to work together, you favor the little guy with a knife to your throat over the big guy with the gun he never uses.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:41 PM
Way to go UN....you once again prove that when trying to work together, you favor the little guy with a knife to your throat over the big guy with the gun he never uses.

And the fact the UN passes resolutions which are basically warnings in my opinion, and sanctions. And when we militarily have to act do they support us usualy? Nope. I think they should stand with their major financial supplier (The US). Because if we actually had the guts we'd stop funding them. Then we'd see how long it would take for them to finally stand with us.

Inyri
10-03-2008, 05:43 PM
I think they should stand with their major financial supplier (The US). Because if we actually had the guts we'd stop funding them. Then we'd see how long it would take for them to finally stand with us.Yes, because that makes for a fair an impartial panel.

I don't know what exactly is wrong with saying "hey, don't insult the Muslims because they'll probably cut out your tongue."

SW01
10-03-2008, 05:43 PM
This is a NON-BINDING resolution aimed at curtailing defamation of all religious groups, not just Islam (which has, you must admit, had some unfair generalisations made of it since 2001). I don't see how this can be viewed as support for any religion. 'Protection' may be a better term.

The right to freedom of speech is already subject to these sorts of restrictions in most countries, anyway, and bear in mind the difference between critique and defamation

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 05:50 PM
Yes, because that makes for a fair an impartial panel.

I don't know what exactly is wrong with saying "hey, don't insult the Muslims because they'll probably cut out your tongue."

Because isn't that cut tounge out statement a violent one. And yes I know you might say well America is violent. We defend and fight for freedom of religion as well as other things. Muslim extremests fight to have a country have Muslim religion only. No freedom of religion.

And since we made the UN to actually enforce military action when all else fails you'd think they'd do that. But they've rarely gone along with us. And rarely done military action. They are weak peaceniks who no spine in my opinion.

Inyri
10-03-2008, 05:56 PM
Let me just point out that the United States doesn't control the rest of the world. Other countries have their own laws -- some including anti-freedom of speech laws. The UN does not cater to the US, it caters to all the nations it serves. It also has to protect the citizens of all the nations it serves. If that means making resolutions that say you shouldn't defame Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, because US citizens don't seem to realize the world doesn't revolve around them, so be it. Someone's got to protect the stupid, after all.

SW01
10-03-2008, 06:00 PM
we made the UN to actually enforce military action

No...read. (UN Charter) (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

What can the UN really do when the biggest power blindly refuses to obey them? (Yet expects the rest of the world to obey.)

Muslim extremests fight to have a country have Muslim religion only.

I think that's the case with all religious extremists - hence extremists.

Astor
10-03-2008, 06:09 PM
And since we made the UN to actually enforce military action

That's just wrong. The UN was created after World War II so that nations would have a platform for peaceful negotiation, without resorting to war or military action.

I don't see what the problem with this resolution is. As SW01 says, it's designed to protect, not promote.

Arcesious
10-03-2008, 06:33 PM
First Great Britain, and now the United Kingdom? :\

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 06:39 PM
Let me just point out that the United States doesn't control the rest of the world. Other countries have their own laws -- some including anti-freedom of speech laws. The UN does not cater to the US, it caters to all the nations it serves. It also has to protect the citizens of all the nations it serves. If that means making resolutions that say you shouldn't defame Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, because US citizens don't seem to realize the world doesn't revolve around them, so be it. Someone's got to protect the stupid, after all.

Which does not fit our adgenda. Like I said they should go the way of the league of nations. They are wimpy, a bunch of thugs, food for oil scandal, and do not have the interests of their main financial provider (US) at heart.

Astor
10-03-2008, 06:41 PM
Which does not fit our adgenda. Like I said they should go the way of the league of nations. They are wimpy, a bunch of thugs, food for oil scandal, and do not have the interests of their main financial provider (US) at heart.

So they should just let America have it's way and the rest of the world can go hang? The UN isn't there simply to do as America tells them.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 06:43 PM
Which does not fit our adgenda. Like I said they should go the way of the league of nations. They are wimpy, a bunch of thugs, food for oil scandal, and do not have the interests of their main financial provider (US) at heart.

Nor should they. They're not supposed to. The whole POINT of the UN is to get everyone together on an EQUAL platform. They just need to stop being weak and taking ques from Europe and backing down to the first bit of Islamic pressure they get.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 06:54 PM
No... (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/)

What can the UN really do when the biggest power blindly refuses to obey them? (Yet expects the rest of the world to obey.)



I think that's the case with all religious extremists - hence extremists.



We are for freedom of religion. Not to simply have a country oppressing and having only one. And the UN can do something if they actually banded together against say Russia. But they won't because they are sissy. They hate the US. Not that I care what other countries that don't like us very much think. We are the leader of giving aid, money, lives, and we do it not expecting a thank you in return. That's what I believe.

Astor_Kaine]So they should just let America have it's way and the rest of the world can go hang? The UN isn't there simply to do as America tells them.

We've pulled you out of two world wars too.

Sarcasm: Mean bad ol America so evil and oppressive killing babies and mean. lol.

Nor should they. They're not supposed to. The whole POINT of the UN is to get everyone together on an EQUAL platform. They just need to stop being weak and taking ques from Europe and backing down to the first bit of Islamic pressure they get.

I agree they shouldn't be weak. I think they should consider force when resolutions and sanctions fail.

SW01
10-03-2008, 06:59 PM
The UN cannot avoid being weak when it's largest member refuses to support or obey it. That is what killed the League of Nations. As for lack of military action on their part:

'Since 1948, there have been 49 United Nations peacekeeping operations. 36 peacekeeping operations were created by the Security Council in the years between 1988 and 1998. There are currently 17 under way involving 14,453 peacekeepers at the end of August 1998. Over 750,000 military and civilian police personnel and thousands of other civilians have served in UN peacekeeping operations; 1,581 have died while serving in these missions up to the 31 August 1998.'
- http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/50web/2.htm

But that is not the issue.

Again, I will restate my argument that this does not, as it is, effect Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is qualified by restrictions regarding defamation, libel and slander - this is the UN attempting to make all nations act to protect their freedoms to exercise religious belief without fear of such attacks. And, again, reasonable and truthful critique does not fall under such headings.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 07:16 PM
The UN cannot avoid being weak when it's largest member refuses to support or obey it. That is what killed the League of Nations. As for lack of military action on their part:

Exactly. A lot of help they were in the world wars. lol. And that would be a bad move if they banded together against the US. We'd just cut off their funding. They should band together against actual oppressive nations like Russia. Not against generous, aid giving, lives giving US just because they hate us.

Again, I will restate my argument that this does not, as it is, effect Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is qualified by restrictions regarding defamation, libel and slander - this is the UN attempting to make all nations act to protect their freedoms to exercise religious belief without fear of such attacks. And, again, reasonable and truthful critique does not fall under such headings.

Again, some of the nations they support don't have freedom of speech or freedom of faith.

SW01
10-03-2008, 07:32 PM
First, the UN didn't exist during the World Wars. Second, the UN cannot move against a Security Council member in normal circumstances. Russia is a security council member. So was the Soviet Union.

The UN was sponsored by the US to broker peaceful negotiation. Not to wage war or support other nations in war. It does not help the Council's authority when states publicly defy their resolutions and marche to war without any consequence. If America expects the UN to be effective in dealing with other nations, it has to begin to obey too. Giving a large amount of funding to an oversight body is not an excuse to ignore it and do what you want with impunity.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 07:45 PM
First, the UN didn't exist during the World Wars. Second, the UN cannot move against a Security Council member in normal circumstances. Russia is a security council member. So was the Soviet Union.

The UN was sponsored by the US to broker peaceful negotiation. Not to wage war or support other nations in war. It does not help the Council's authority when states publicly defy their resolutions and marche to war without any consequence. If America expects the UN to be effective in dealing with other nations, it has to begin to obey too. Giving a large amount of funding to an oversight body is not an excuse to ignore it and do what you want with impunity.



My bad. I should've told you the obvous fact that of course the UN wasn't around back then. The league of nations was. And they were just as weak. Then when have they actually militarily backed the US and stood by us. And I think the UN should show some spine when it comes to Russia. If they don't what good are they to the rest of those that Russia considers it's former empire.

And yeah we helped make this UN. And not always can peaceful solutions work.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-03-2008, 07:58 PM
We've pulled you out of two world wars too.Damn right, the US single-handedly pulled the world from the depths of chaos without anybody else. Oh wait, the rest of Europe exists and so does Russia.

SW01
10-03-2008, 07:59 PM
The league of nations was. And they were just as weak.

Mainly due to a lack of US support, despite the fact that the US set it up, made the European powers join, then abandoned it.

Then when have they actually militarily backed the US and stood by us.

Korea? Remember that the UN is not a military body. It is a diplomatic and peacekeeping organisation. NATO is a military body.

Also, the UN has effectively sanctioned military force when resolutions and sanctions failed, in the run-up to the First Gulf War. (Resolution 678 - enforce the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait by 'all necessary means')

Back on topic, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the freedom of religious exercise at Art. 18. This is International law (though, yes, not always properly enforced.) This resolution can be seen as pursuant to that freedom.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 08:34 PM
We financially back them, and give them a place in New York. I think they should be more grateful and not allow scum like the president of Iran to bad mouth our allie and us.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 09:11 PM
We financially back them, and give them a place in New York. I think they should be more grateful and not allow scum like the president of Iran to bad mouth our allie and us.

Every other actual member nation ALSO pays UN dues. Do you think the UN should put a higher(than other nations that pay less) priority on Russian and Chinese ideas as well?

EDIT: we badmouth him all the time as well. Are you saying that because he's a jerk he doesn't have freedom of speech?

Ctrl Alt Del
10-03-2008, 09:28 PM
[The UN] They are weak peaceniks who no spine in my opinion.

When they can't stop a superpower from waging war for allegedly self-defense with reasons that turn out false, yes they're weak.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 10:02 PM
Every other actual member nation ALSO pays UN dues. Do you think the UN should put a higher(than other nations that pay less) priority on Russian and Chinese ideas as well?

I feel that yes they should listen to us more because we pay more, we let them be in New York, and we believe we have the worl's best interests at heart. Well we feel we know what's best because of what we do to help others through giving lives, money, and aid.

So yeah because we've done more we think they should care what we think more. Especially more than countries that are oppressive, let their people live in 3rd world conditions, have and support terror. So yeah we think the UN should listen to us more than them.

EDIT: we badmouth him all the time as well. Are you saying that because he's a jerk he doesn't have freedom of speech?


I don't think he should do it in the country he wants to be wiped off the face of the map. A man who is in a country with jews in it and he hates and wants all the news to die. Yeah I don't want him here. He can do his speeches elsewhere.

When they can't stop a superpower from waging war for allegedly self-defense with reasons that turn out false, yes they're weak.

Here we go again with Iraq. I don't care if there were or were not weapons. Saddam broke our cease fire agreement when he kicked the UN inspectors out. He refused us access even after 14 UN resolutions and sanctions they still didn't back us up when we invaded. Again another time they didn't stand by us. Again a time when their resolutions carried no teeth of backing us when we had to resoort to war.

More resolutions would'nt have changed Saddam's mind. All he had to do is show us where he destroyed the weapons if he did. We'd test for them, and check them off our list.

And if our intel was bad that wasn't Bush's fault. He just got in. Clinton made smaller our military and intel agencies which could've helped with Saddam. Did he act. Nope. All he did was bomb Saddam with cruise missiles sending him back a couple years.

I don't care if he had WMDs or not. He broke the agreement. It's like a child who brought a knife to school and threatened a kid. We take the knife away and tell the child we'll be checking their room to make sure they don't have any more knives in their room. They agree for a time. Then they say you can't come in. So we punish, and warn we'll come into their room if they don't let us in to check their room.

So in the in you have to go in because the child broke the agreement and was being dishonest. If he didn't have anything in his room why have a problem with it. He agreed earlier.

Same with Saddam. He got out of Kuwait, allowed inspectors in so we could make sure he doesn't have anything long range or anything to threaten his neighbors. He agreed for a time. Then he kicked us out. The UN gave sanctions and resolutions (warnings), and since it didn't work the only other course was war.

And if you are against the war in Iraq, don't worry 15 of 18 benchmarks have been done. So we'll be out soon. Scarcasm: Yes evil, mean bad, oppressive, bully America will be out soon.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 10:16 PM
I feel that yes they should listen to us more because we pay more, we let them be in New York, and we believe we have the worl's best interests at heart. Well we feel we know what's best because of what we do to help others through giving lives, money, and aid.

So yeah because we've done more we think they should care what we think more. Especially more than countries that are oppressive, let their people live in 3rd world conditions, have and support terror. So yeah we think the UN should listen to us more than them.
You didn't answer my question. Other countries contribute large sums of money to the UN, though they don't have the actual building on their property, are you suggesting that the UN should listen to the people who pay the most? What if Russia decided to give the UN say, 2x what we give it? Should the UN then listen to them?

If Europe decided to all agree on the same things, based on GDP, they pay more to the UN than we do, if the EU wanted to do something and they paid in more money than us, should the UN do what they want?

If you don't get it yet, what I'm trying to ask is: should the UN do whatever the guy who pays them the most says? Or should they only listen to the US 'cause we're big and bad?


I don't think he should do it in the country he wants to be wiped off the face of the map. A man who is in a country with jews in it and he hates and wants all the news to die. Yeah I don't want him here. He can do his speeches elsewhere.
We've made anti-Iran statements in the UN. Why do we have a right to do in an international building and not him? If you want to let somebody talk smack, everyone should be allowed to talk smack.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 10:37 PM
You didn't answer my question. Other countries contribute large sums of money to the UN, though they don't have the actual building on their property, are you suggesting that the UN should listen to the people who pay the most? What if Russia decided to give the UN say, 2x what we give it? Should the UN then listen to them?

Yes because we've paid more, have a building for them, given lives, money, and aid. So yes I do.

We've made anti-Iran statements in the UN. Why do we have a right to do in an international building and not him? If you want to let somebody talk smack, everyone should be allowed to talk smack.

Because we didn't go to Iran and start trash talking Iran on their own soil. He has the nerve to come to the country he wants off the map, trash talk about us on our soil, and talk in a country with jews. Jews that he wants dead.

So yeah he can do it elsewhere in my opinion.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 10:39 PM
Thing is the United States is a sovereign nation and to be honest how about the UN explain their taking kickbacks from Saddam.

Inyri
10-03-2008, 10:39 PM
International building = international soil, not US soil.

Saddam is dead, btw. No kickbacks there. If you meant in the past, please include a source.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 10:40 PM
International building = international soil, not US soil.

Technically the US owns mineral rights.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 10:43 PM
International building = international soil, not US soil.

Saddam is dead, btw. No kickbacks there. If you meant in the past, please include a source.

Because it is on our soil We've just allowed them to have it here. And we allow them to have our money.

I agree Garfield, yeah oil for food scandal. Garfield please get him some sources. It's late over here and how about you give him a source. After all you seem to be the source guy lately. Many times today you've saved me from having to get a headache looking up stuff. :) Thanks.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 11:00 PM
I agree Garfield, yeah oil for food scandal. Garfield please get him some sources. It's late over here and how about you give him a source. After all you seem to be the source guy lately. Many times today you've saved me from having to get a headache looking up stuff. :) Thanks.
please, it's not like we don't have our scandals. Everyone has scandals, it would only NOT have scandals if it didn't exist. Are you suggesting that our own government shouldn't exist because there are scandals?

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 11:06 PM
please, it's not like we don't have our scandals. Everyone has scandals, it would only NOT have scandals if it didn't exist. Are you suggesting that our own government shouldn't exist because there are scandals?

I think it was a big reason behind why they didn't want us to go into Iraq. Because they'd lose out in their deal with Saddam.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-03-2008, 11:11 PM
I think it was a big reason behind why they didn't want us to go into Iraq. Because they'd lose out in their deal with Saddam.Maybe it's because everyone knew it would turn into a cluster****? Hell, even Dick Cheney said it would turn into a quagmire.

Rogue Nine
10-03-2008, 11:24 PM
Because it is on our soil We've just allowed them to have it here. And we allow them to have our money.
Uh, we wanted them there. The UN made the decision as a whole to move to the US, so there were choices between New York and several other cities. New York was chosen, thanks to the Rockefellers.

They're here because we wanted them here. We gave money to them because we wanted them here. We agreed to make the UN international soil because we wanted them here. It's not US soil anymore, as it is governed by a different set of laws than those of New York and the rest of the US, all of which we agreed to.

Source (http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM)

SW01
10-03-2008, 11:32 PM
On one hand the UN is slated for reputedly showing favourtism towards Pre-invasion Iraq for some consideration, on the other it is slated for not giving America special consideration for its financial contribution. This smacks terribly of double standards.

Perhaps the UN didn't want an engagement in Iraq because it is a PEACEKEEPING body? Even after the invasion, the Coalition cannot show anything to justify the invasion. Not a shred of proof. Therefore the war could be called illegal, a wanton attack. Unsurprisingly, the worldwide peacekeeping force frowns on such things.

America does not control the UN. The UN is specifically arranged so that a large nation cannot control the Security Council (a representative of a Security Council state cannot become UN Secretary General). It is not a puppet of a superpower.

Web Rider
10-04-2008, 12:11 AM
I think it was a big reason behind why they didn't want us to go into Iraq. Because they'd lose out in their deal with Saddam.

probably, still, we had a pretty good deal going with Saddam before we decided we didn't like him.

Tommycat
10-04-2008, 01:49 AM
On one hand the UN is slated for reputedly showing favourtism towards Pre-invasion Iraq for some consideration, on the other it is slated for not giving America special consideration for its financial contribution. This smacks terribly of double standards.
Well it makes perfect sense... We're just paying the bills while someone else is getting them with sweet talk and candies.

Astor
10-04-2008, 04:23 AM
We've pulled you out of two world wars too.

Not this again. The First World War was practically won by the time you showed up.

And you didn't pull us out of the Second, either. Hitler's invasion failed, and we were holding them off pretty well with just Russia as an ally.

SD Nihil
10-04-2008, 08:30 AM
When the UN makes a resolution, a warning, and they don't back that up when it's broken that makes the resolutions in my opinion not mean so much.

Sorry I didn't respond last night. Some of us have to go to bed to get up because we have things to do the next day.

Anyway, I didn't address about why they should be disolved. If it were the oil for food scandal alone I'd say no don't disolve it. But that along with the fact they rarely back the US, follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people. Then yeah I ssaw all together the UN should go the way of the League of Nations.

But yes I believe because the UN had their oil for food agreement that's why they didn't want us to go into Iraq because they would lose out in their deal with Saddam.

We the US already didn't like Saddam. I don't believe in compromising on our resolutions for the sake ofmoney. To me that's like selling out on your convictions. And since the UN does not support what we feel is good and right that too makes them useless to us. We mean what we say when we go into war. Or at least most of the time, Veitnam being the exception. But the UN in my opinion when it caves on it's resolutions shows it has little to no spine.

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us. We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german. So your entitled to believe you didn't believe us, but for example the French we had to save from Hitler's take over.

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful. And not everyone like you believes they didn't need the US in WWI and WWII. There are those that are grateful we saved you Europe.

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

SW01
10-04-2008, 09:04 AM
When the UN makes a resolution, a warning, and they don't back that up when it's broken that makes the resolutions in my opinion not mean so much.

I've already shown the results of ignoring a UN resolution above - Resolution 678 which called for all action necessary to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

along with the fact they rarely back the US, follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people.

Again, money or not, it is not the UN's duty to back America, or anyone else, unless they need to be protected from an aggressive state. Also, International law as written by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly establishes the Human Rights enjoyed by most states in the Western world.

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us. We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german. So your entitled to believe you didn't believe us, but for example the French we had to save from Hitler's take over.

You are forgetting that Britain stood firm against Germany from 1939. Evidence: actions such as the Battle of Britain. Surviving the blitzkrieg. America didn't enter out of 'generosity', it entered after it was directly attacked in 1941. You are also missing the effect of the actions of the French Resistance.

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful.

Saved countries such as Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq...

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

Considering Britain was never conquered...

SW01
10-04-2008, 12:57 PM
Each nation involved with the UN should not have to ask for permission, so they can defend themselves from a forgeign threat. Period.

And so the US was able to respond to the Taleban threat. However, there was no evidence to justify attacking Iraq - which is why the UN refused to pass a resolution sponsoring an assault the way they did with Res. 678. The UN is there to try to prevent war breaking out.

Ctrl Alt Del
10-04-2008, 01:11 PM
United Nations should not promote a religion, but they should promote peace across religious bounderies. Anything else is just pathetic.

Are you saying that UNICEF, WHO, WFP and countless other UN affiliates shouldn't exist because they're not directly connected to promoting peace on the globe?

Corinthian
10-04-2008, 06:54 PM
The overall effect of the United States during World War 2 really isn't germane. Maybe without us the war would have gone in the other direction, maybe not. It's not really relevant to the present discussion, though, is it? I don't think any of us fought during that war, although I may be wrong about that.

The concern I have with this is the fact that the U.N. is overstepping it's bounds as a peacekeeping authority by promoting Religion in general and Islam in particular. Maybe I'm paranoid, but isn't the U.N. big on global civil rights, freedom and liberty for all, so on and so forth? Restricting Free Speech in any way, shape, or form is the first step towards the U.N. turning into some kind of fascist overstate.

I'm probably paranoid, I doubt it'll get that bad any time soon.

Yar-El
10-04-2008, 07:37 PM
And so the US was able to respond to the Taleban threat. However, there was no evidence to justify attacking Iraq - which is why the UN refused to pass a resolution sponsoring an assault the way they did with Res. 678. The UN is there to try to prevent war breaking out. Going by what our leaders had said at the time was important. If the people in charge come to a critical conclussion, the people living in the United States must have faith that we are being told the truth. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, and it just turned out that we were lied to by our leaders. Or, we got our information wrong. Lets move forward a few years after the war started. Would it be responsible for us to leave when things started to become chaotic? What type of opinion would people have of the United States if we broke Iraq and then we just left?

Within the next several months, our reasons for staying in Iraq will become different from going into Iraq. When the next president comes into office, he will see a different world than first imagined. Yes, we broke Iraq for contraversial reasons. The question that people should ask is - should we leave when innocent people's lives are in danger because of us? If you can answer yes to that question, I would rethink about your terminology of moral responsibility. Once we leave the region for any reason, other than its safe, we are going to put children and families in great danger. How will the world view the United States after that happens?

"We want out, we want out!" - Okay lets leave. Children and families die by the hundreds to thousands, and then we will say, "We need to help them! Let go back, lets go back!" Suddenly, the U.N. will be nocking at our door for humanitarian aid. If they are not willing to help now, what makes everyone think they have any set of morals. We need everyone's help in this chaos. If the world doesn't want to help with Iraq's moral delema, I say to hell with them.

Several of the members of the United Nations want us to leave for one reason. Since there will be no one watching the oil fields, there will be a free for all in trying to take over them.

jonathan7
10-04-2008, 07:59 PM
Split Off-topic threads to here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192743 Please continue discussion of WW2 there, please keep this related to the topic of UN and Islam - j7

Web Rider
10-04-2008, 08:02 PM
Since 5/6ths of my post had nothing to do with WWII, here's a repost of the UN SPECIFIC parts of it.

Anyway, I didn't address about why they should be disolved. If it were the oil for food scandal alone I'd say no don't disolve it. But that along with the fact they rarely back the US,
Weve repeatedly explained that it's an INTERNATIONAL orginization, and your former argument, that it's because we give them most money, you quickly drop as soon as you realize other countries can give the UN more money if they want to.

So why should they listen to the US? Because their building is here? That's a pretty bad argument. That means they should listen to Iran if Iran donated them a building. Because we contribute the most troops? We DONT have to do that you know, we do it because we WANT to, not because we're required. And UN peacekeepers are members from MANY nations who join the UN. Soldiers listen to their commanding officers, not the nations they come from.

follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people.
The UN follows through on a LOT of it's resolutions. Not all of them sure. And hey, the US backs a LOT of countries that are oppressive dictatorships. Lets see, Brazil, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, China, yeah, we back, either directly or indirectly, MOST of the nations the UN can do nothing about.

But yes I believe because the UN had their oil for food agreement that's why they didn't want us to go into Iraq because they would lose out in their deal with Saddam.
You know why Bush sr didn't take out Saddam? Because we still liked him.

We the US already didn't like Saddam. I don't believe in compromising on our resolutions for the sake ofmoney.
That's strange, if we never liked the guy, why did we put him in power?

To me that's like selling out on your convictions.
Oh yeah, we're real good at not selling ourselves out for a bigger buck. That'd be why we didn't outsource american jobs, that'd be why our electronics companies never sold their ideas to Japan, that'd be why the financial market isn't in tatters.

Oh wait, we did ALL those things in the name of MORE MONEY. Americans surely are paragons of how to make more money at the expense of others.

And since the UN does not support what we feel is good and right that too makes them useless to us.
You know, I can use that same argument to justify murder of republicans. So really, you don't want to go down the road of "they're useless because they don't agree with me." Because if you're not careful, you'll be the one on the wrong end of the barrel.

We mean what we say when we go into war. Or at least most of the time, Veitnam being the exception. But the UN in my opinion when it caves on it's resolutions shows it has little to no spine.
It's not like we're helping when we veto measures for UN intervention 'cause it would interfere with our desires.

GarfieldJL
10-04-2008, 08:43 PM
Last I checked Brazil and Columbia are not dictatorships....

Web Rider
10-04-2008, 08:55 PM
Last I checked Brazil and Columbia are not dictatorships....

fair enough I checked and realized I read out of the wrong section of my list of where countries rate in democracy according to the Economist(2006).