Why does no one care that the UN is corrupt except the USA

Why does no one care?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on December 5, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[Luther Dark]

Wasn't it just recently discovered that the US may have planted listening devices in the UN?

[OTYLIA]

the only reason we know is because the u.n. and before that the league of nations were our ideas so we know how it should work

[Pomety]

regane

ThomasFyreClaw

Why the hell does no one outside the USA really care about the UN corruption or the scandles on a multi billion dollar scale? I mean they are supposed to be the peackeepers and enforceres of national law right? When was the last time they had successfully done either. I don't see the UN dealing with Defur, why do they suddenly feel they need to remind us of an international law that they don't even enforce? Why are they doing nothing about North Korea? They used to be so great at peace keeping, enforcing international law and then they suddenly stop being so successful and in the end fail to do what it was desighned to do. To make the world a better place. Any one care to explain to me why such a lack of anger about this corruption?

the UN does good work in bosnia, for one, and what are you talking about man, usa isnt keeping the peace. the usa is a warmongering nation(or at least the president is) usa shouldnt even be a member of it for violating human rights with the patriot act,

edit: sorry for that, i get edgy when people say a group of nationes is corupt, one of wich my own, without reason to asume that urs is the only one suposidly not corupt

Tell that to North Korea, Saudi arabia, Iran, Syria, France germany Russia and probebly a number of other nations becuase at some point in time have violated UN regulations some not so badly others how ever have gone against sanctions that would should be in record books ranging from economic corruption to crimes against humanity in forms of mass genocide, opression, inhuman punishments and so on. But no body cares becuase its "not our business"

[stalebsicuit]

because the rest of the nations that hol dany ground in the UN are the ones who started the corruption

[Unsex Me Here]

Maybe because it isn't?

[regane]

ThomasFyreClaw

Why the hell does no one outside the USA really care about the UN corruption or the scandles on a multi billion dollar scale? I mean they are supposed to be the peackeepers and enforceres of national law right? When was the last time they had successfully done either. I don't see the UN dealing with Defur, why do they suddenly feel they need to remind us of an international law that they don't even enforce? Why are they doing nothing about North Korea? They used to be so great at peace keeping, enforcing international law and then they suddenly stop being so successful and in the end fail to do what it was desighned to do. To make the world a better place. Any one care to explain to me why such a lack of anger about this corruption?

the UN does good work in bosnia, for one, and what are you talking about man, usa isnt keeping the peace. the usa is a warmongering nation(or at least the president is) usa shouldnt even be a member of it for violating human rights with the patriot act,

edit: sorry for that, i get edgy when people say a group of nationes is corupt, one of wich my own, without reason to asume that urs is the only one suposidly not corupt

[Ellizar]

Politics and politicians are all corrupt, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[AdmH]

The UN works, it just needs a lot of reform. The UN is a good forum for nations to discuss their issues without military action and is decently capable of humanitarian aid.

Of course, this corruption must be rooted out. We can't have corrupt people in the UN because it would compromise all that it stands for.

[VladmirKovolchenkov]

kiironobara

Oh, good grief.

If anyone should be reprimanded by the UN, it should be the U.S. We threaten smaller countries economically for extra votes. We finally got thwarted when other big countries decided to go after their own economic gain and ignore ours, and now we're whining about it.

Personally, I look forward to the day that the Euro takes over as an international currency, and the dollar crashes and burns. I will laugh and say "I told you so."

Fact is, our money isn't going to mean s**t if we keep up our neoliberal idiocy. Oh, poo. We can't buy votes in the UN anymore. crying

Idiot.

The UN is a puppet bullshit international police organization that's as effective to Binocluars to a blind man.

Where do the weapons and food for other countries coem fomr?

The US.

Who funds it most?

The US.

THe UN hasn't done s**t since the First Gulf War..no..wait I'm sorry...Bush Sr led that..and did a damn good job and even obeyed UN requests to not go into IRaq.

So the UN hasn't done s**t since SOmlia..

[Shaviv]

By the way: SDI, the missile defence program, cannot work. There are only two plausible methods of WMD attack against the United States: a missile barrage, or sneaking a warhead in under cover of legitimate commerce. The first is problematic because if just one warhead makes it through, it's essentially game over; the second is problematic because it's undetectable - at least, by radar and ELINT.

[Jinjo]

Quote:

UN wants to be a world government because liberals believe a world government leads to peace.

So what? We both agree it never will be, so what's the big deal?

Quote:

Bioweapons are not needed anymore. But, its a just in case thing. Most likely will be gone in a decade or so.

It's not a just in case thing when they simply are not needed at all. I don't think it even matters, then, if they'll be gone in ten years. Prove we'll need them in that time.

Quote:

The France, Germany, and Russia were using the UN as leverage to prevent the US from going to Iraq because it was in their interest to keep saddam in power. The UN was also an accessory to this which is why you got the oil for food scandel.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/
watch first then talk about iraq.

Saddam was keeping things stable by killing everyone. There were hundreds of thousands of people killed. You want order that way?

how convenient
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

Then all you've shown is that France, Germany and Russia are big a** faces, not that the UN is bad. Plus, reforms check this argument back.

I don't think Sadaam should kill people, no, but I'm just weighing the pros and cons of US action vs UN action. I don't think the US should be keeping things stable by killing everyone, either.

And I already addressed that survey in the original post it was posted in, the sampling is all from one city, the results don't show a MAJORITY of Iraqis supporting democracy, and most of the Iraqis are afraid and hateful of the coalition forces, as that survey points out.

[ninjabastard jr]

I don't got any more time. I'm bullet pointing this

UN wants to be a world government because liberals believe a world government leads to peace.

Bioweapons are not needed anymore. But, its a just in case thing. Most likely will be gone in a decade or so.

The France, Germany, and Russia were using the UN as leverage to prevent the US from going to Iraq because it was in their interest to keep saddam in power. The UN was also an accessory to this which is why you got the oil for food scandel.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/
watch first then talk about iraq.

Saddam was keeping things stable by killing everyone. There were hundreds of thousands of people killed. You want order that way?

how convenient
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf

[Jinjo]

Quote:

Yes, it didnt pass it because it has the power to say no.

The tready is telling the US you can't do something. Why should the US give up something like that if there is value in it? The tready shows the intent of trying to prevent the US from doing something it wants to. Granted these treadies have no binding laws. But it makes the US look bad by not signing these.

Our veto checks back any argument that the United Nations exist to harm American interests. Enough said.

Quote:

You might not like detarence theory, but that is the cold war. You need something to bargain with. If you have bioweapons, it would be retarded to use that on a state that could recipraite.

My argument is that even if you like deterence theory, that Biological weapons aren't needed for it. It's like having an M16 and getting upset when peashooters are banned -- we have way more nuclear weapons than anyone else, explain why those would not deter but biological weapons would.

Quote:

What the Un wants and what is reality are two different things. I'm saying if the Un had its way.

Explain to me why the UN would want to be a world government. Explain to me how it could become a world government. And please explain why it matters what the UN would do if it can't in the first place.

Quote:

Did you watch the ******** pbs link? It gives it reasons. And read the Dullfer report. It gives a good highlighting how the Iraq was breaking containment with the help the French, Germans, and Russians.

Whine, whine, whine. The place was a shithole before the US even got there. You're telling me life under saddam was better? Why is it that people don't care about civilians deaths unless it makes the US look bad. Where were you during saddams killings? So, I take it allowing a dictor to stay in power while France, Germany, and Russia get money off people's lives is ok?

Also the area that is unstable is the Suni area. They were favored by saddam. They are not the majority or else they would have submitted to the new government. This is a last effort to get a better deal in the government since they're scarred that the shittes are going to ******** them. They have more to gain by fighting at this point.

Sadaam at least kept the area stable. Now it's a cesspole of violence and such. Check out some documentation on that if you don't believe me. Also, the United States has caused more terrorism by invading. If we'd have let the UN handle it, like they intended to, there would have been much less civilian death, much less terrorism targeted at the United States, and a much more legitimate international effort that doesn't totally drain US resources. Any argument you make that the UN wouldn't have taken care of it is subsumed by the fact that your gung-ho, gun-crazy yuppie ideologues invaded the country before the UN had a chance to act -- so we'll never know.

I still don't see how the Iraq crisis has anything to do with the UN trying to take stabs at the US, anyway.

[ninjabastard jr]

Raick Whirlblade

Quote:

Why should the US agree to ban missle defenses? What good does limiting itself do?

First, the measure hasn't passed anyway, so what's the problem?

Second, you haven't shown how this is directed at hindering the United States or undermining it. Just because it may add to global stability doesn't mean it's specifically aimed at harming the US.

Yes, it didnt pass it because the US has the power to say no.

The tready is telling the US you can't do something. Why should the US give up something like that if there is value in it? The tready shows the intent of trying to prevent the US from doing something it wants to. Granted these treadies have no binding laws. But it makes the US look bad by not signing these.

Quote:

Deterence theory is simply awful. Besides, why do you need less powerful weapons than ones you're still allowed to have to deter attacks? You can still develop cures without making biological weapons, you know.

You might not like deterence theory, but that is the cold war. You need something to bargain with. If you have bioweapons, it would be retarded to use that on a state that could recipraite.

Quote:

Why would the UN want to be a world government? This of all arguments makes the least sense to me. Where's the rational behind your charge that the UN wants to control the world? It wants to make the world a safer place. Since the US can veto ANYTHING brought to the security council that might lead to it becoming a world government, I'd also like to see you explain why the US would blatantly allow such a bad thing to happen. The organization is only as powerful as the credibility it carries with it.

What the Un wants and what is reality are two different things. I'm saying if the Un had its way.

The UN is trying to be a world body representing everyone. The global tax showed the UN's intent of being a more formal body. Alot of people feel that insitutions are the way to solve problems.

[ninjabastard jr]

Quote:

I'd like to see your analysis or evidence as to why France, Germany and Russia opposing invading a country we now know has no WMDs is trying to get at the United States. What are the warrants for such a claim?

As for doing something outside of complaining, at least they didn't charge in without planning, end up killing a lot of innocent civilians, and make the area more politically unstable and full of terrorists than before. So yeah, I think I prefer the UN's solution.

Did you watch the ******** pbs link? It gives it reasons. And read the Dullfer report. It gives a good highlighting how the Iraq was breaking containment with the help the French, Germans, and Russians.

Whine, whine, whine. The place was a shithole before the US even got there. You're telling me life under saddam was better? Why is it that people don't care about civilians deaths unless it makes the US look bad. Where were you during saddams killings? So, I take it allowing a dictor to stay in power while France, Germany, and Russia get money off people's lives is ok?

Also the area that is unstable is the Suni area. They were favored by saddam. They are not the majority or else they would have submitted to the new government. This is a last effort to get a better deal in the government since they're scarred that the shittes are going to ******** them. They have more to gain by fighting at this point.