Originally posted by: CPA
End of the UN - And this is a bad thing?
They do more than just talk about war. There are huge humanitarian issues at stake also.
Andy
Originally posted by: CPA
End of the UN - And this is a bad thing?
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?
Like have a huge humanitarian effort.
Andy
like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?
Originally posted by: Wino
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?
Like have a huge humanitarian effort.
Andy
Largely funded by about 3 countries. =)
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
yeah like deny food to starving people too
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Wino
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Originally posted by: Nitemare
good riddance.
It has become simply an open forum for countries to express how much they hate the US
Wholly untrue. It does a lot more than sanction wars.
Andy
like? sit around the table and pass resolutions that mean nothing?
Like have a huge humanitarian effort.
Andy
Largely funded by about 3 countries. =)
Your point is? Where is all the wealth of the world? And the poverty? Its more than just 3 countries!
Andy
Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.
There's not then a moral obligation to being the wealthiest and helping the poorest? Without the UN every country would only throw there money where it would do themselves the most good. Screw the suffering would be the attitude.
That would be a sad day for the world (it probably wouldn't make it any safer either).
Andy
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Who pays for the vast majority of all this "humanitarion aid" - thats right the good ol USA. You talk about wealth in the world, of course the US is the wealthiest - we don't have a dictator running this country and we are free to use the resources we have to make ourselves better.
There's not then a moral obligation to being the wealthiest and helping the poorest? Without the UN every country would only throw there money where it would do themselves the most good. Screw the suffering would be the attitude.
That would be a sad day for the world (it probably wouldn't make it any safer either).
Andy
And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.
I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.
The US already gives way to much money to all these "poor" countries outside of any UN direction.
I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.
I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.
So it is wrong for the UN to be involved with wealth ditribution? Why?
france, russia and germany have their own viewpoints on whether the war the US is so keen on is actually necessary to disarm Iraq at this time. They want to give the NEW UN inspections a few more months (more resources and 120 days or somehting to that effect I believe). They also believe that the inspectors themselves are the people to make the decision "we cannot make any progress here" - which would lead to military action. That is their viewpoint. It does not "kill" the UN's ability to enforce its own resolutions. In fact they are working within the UN framework. If the US doesn't like the way the UN works - it should make attempts to change it, not "throw the baby out with the bath water".
Andy
ps your actual point was "end of the UN". On a wider note than the security council there is no reason (even from the American point of view as far as I can see - to completely shut down the UN because of lack persuasion of the security council. My reasons for this are very clear from my above posts.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
And thus you have illustrated what went wrong with the United Nations. It went from a forum for diplomacy of potential rival states (it's reason for existance after WW2), to a vehicle for wealth distribution.
I guess we now go back to my original point. France, Russia, and Germany have killed the U.N.'s ability to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq. Well, I guess it's still good for wealth distribution! That reminds me, I need to start getting my tax papers together.
So it is wrong for the UN to be involved with wealth ditribution? Why?
Originally posted by: Fencer128
The US already gives way to much money to all these "poor" countries outside of any UN direction.
My arguement is that IMHO without the UN countries would only distribute their wealth based on the effect it will have on them - regardless of suffering. I applaud the humanitarian work the US carries out.
I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.
So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.
Andy
Franky, I do object to the U.N. being involved with wealth distribution. A concerned individual should have every right to help out his fellow man and create *private* organizations to do so. Such private organizations tend to be very effective (and wholey voluntary). Being forced to do so by his government is wrong. Having a global organization he has no voting power over force his government to force him to take money out of his pocket to help 'humanitarian efforts' he may or may not *morally* agree with himself is wrong.
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Franky, I do object to the U.N. being involved with wealth distribution. A concerned individual should have every right to help out his fellow man and create *private* organizations to do so. Such private organizations tend to be very effective (and wholey voluntary). Being forced to do so by his government is wrong. Having a global organization he has no voting power over force his government to force him to take money out of his pocket to help 'humanitarian efforts' he may or may not *morally* agree with himself is wrong.
I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the charity of others enough to place the starving, suffering people of the world in it. The amount of money being spent (as you probably already know) is far in excess of the charitable donations given by indivduals. The sums of money required to make real differences are only attainable by governments. Governments act selfishly - that is why I believe we need a UN humanitarian mission.
I can't even believe this is a debatable point.
Andy
I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.
So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.
Andy
Actually I didn't say anything about the aid financing dictators, I believe what I said was that maybe the dictators should use some of their own wealth and help the poor in their own countries instead of relying on the US to bail them out.
What our government takes from it citizens, forces them to do, and prevents them from doing should ALWAYS be debatable subjects. =)
Originally posted by: Fencer128
I think that the dictators running these countries should maybe build one less mansion a year and give that money to the poor and impoverished in their own countries. How many mansions does that nice guy in iraq have now? The level of wealth of the average iraqi is not very high yet the iraq driven by hussein has loads of money.
So your point is that all UN aid goes to finance dictators. Please provide some proof of this as I am not so sure. IMHO the UN does much more positive humanitarian work than is offset by any bad financial decisions.
Andy
Actually I didn't say anything about the aid financing dictators, I believe what I said was that maybe the dictators should use some of their own wealth and help the poor in their own countries instead of relying on the US to bail them out.
IMHO by saying that dictators (receiving UN aid obviously, as this was the point of the post) should build one less mansion a year and spend the money on their people - you infer that UN money is financing dictatorships, as it is going into the pockets of the dictator and not the people.
Andy
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Still waiting... (sure its coming though )
Andy
Originally posted by: Fencer128
What our government takes from it citizens, forces them to do, and prevents them from doing should ALWAYS be debatable subjects. =)
True - I should have used the word "objectionable". Sorry.
Andy