Let's just put the Iraq situation behind us for this thread at least because somewhere down the line it will have to be behind us and we will have to move forward. Knowing what we now do about the UN Oil for food program and other UN scandals what should our policy be regarding the UN? Mainly looking for people who oppose the Republicans, Bush, Rumsfeld 1st please. Should we go through the UN and get any actions approved by the UN? Should the defense of the USA be approved through the UN? Should our foreign policy go through the UN? Should we just blow off the UN and do whatever Congress and the president decide to do? What are the Democrats and the anti Republican, Bush, Rumsfeld people think we should do? Thoughts, Questions, Answers?
Maybe right, but i'm trying to figure out where the other side is coming from and just where they stand, I already know where some of us stands and it would be helpful to get the other side first.
i personally think the un is like a pretty dress that doesn't change the ugly as **** girl that is wearing it. by that i mean they don't do what they are supposed to do except in aid(some times) but thats it. lets not forget that the republicans tried to get the un ok before going to war but went without it and doesn't change that they tried to. if i had the decision i would only have the un deal with aid and thats it. even though there will always be things like the oil for food program that will be mismanaged the un still helps a lot of countries with aid that they wouldn't get otherwise. just because i know how you feel about kerry i will add that kerry would not have let the un decide how to defend this country.
I think the UN is worthless personally. they are spineless and crooked as Uncle Jed's teeth. I think as a nation, we need to worry about the USA, and no one else at this point. We need to close our borders to immigrants from suspect and questionable countries. We need to question everything suspect the UN suggests. Actually, we need to overhaul the UN totally and protect our interests. without the USA's presence in the world humanitarian scene, the rest of the world would be in chaos. maybe we should let them be in chaos for awhile and learn to appreciate exactly how important the USA is to them.
Although I don't put labels on myself (republice, democrat, liberal. conservative) I tend to stay somewhere in the middle with maybe a slight lean to the left. In answer to your questions, I say "no" to all. In answer to what we should do, it's simple, but will never be adhered to because its easier said than done because everyone has an agenda and it's too broad of a scope to. But, we should put aside all partisan politics and unite as a country (like right after 9/11), try to find some middle ground to compromise on, and, most importantly, use common sense when making decisions that affect the lives of millions.
Well, I'm a Republican Bush-backer, but I'll throw in... The UN is dead. It exists for nothing more than the perpetuation of it's own existance. It is here because it is here. And it accomplishes nothing, except to give tinpot dictatorships a forum for bashing America and nutjob Arabs and Muslims a forum for bashing America and Israel. It puts nations like Sudan and China in charge of the Human Rights Commission. And it is now ignored by everyone; nations do whatever they wish to do with or without UN approval (U.S. in Iraq, France in Ivory Coast, Sudan ignores orders to stop genocide, etc., etc.). Personally, I would like the UN completely thrown off U.S. soil and the U.S. to withdraw and begin our own international organization. The new organization (I'll call it Earth Alliance) has one requirement for membership; all members must be democracies or representative republics/commonwealths, with elected govts. accountable to their own people. This organization would truly be more representative of the will of nations of the world, instead of the opinions of ruling juntas, theocracies, and dictators. When that happens, we'll really get an accurate picture of good guys (the EA) and bad guys (the UN) and how the map of the world really looks as it relates to the side of good. It won't happen anytime soon, of course; too much vested interest in the status quo by too many people.
People like this are ignoring economics. Economically, the USA is better off as the rest of the world is better off. As international as business is today, it would be catastrophic for the USA if the rest of the world went into chaos. Sure, we could support ourselves for the most part but not at the level of wealth that we currently operate under. However, I agree that the UN is worthless and needs to be overhauled. Simply put, no agency will ever be of any use without power to enforce anything. It is just a large beauracracy which has lost sight of its own goals and reason for its creation. What's the solution? I'm not sure there is a feasible one. The world will always have flawed attempts at peace keeping organizations, we just have to keep in mind how flawed this one is.
Earth Alliance? Except it only contains members of certain groups.... As much as we may want to, we can't ignore the fact that there are dictators out there - these are the people who make their countries decisions, they must be included any program representing the "Earth". We should mind you keep in mind that when these people speak or make decisions it is in their own best interests, not necessarily the best interest of the country. Or we could do your idea... a democracy masturbation party. "YAY for democracy, we're so wonderful. Everybody wishes they could be us - We're so cool that we have an elite golf club just for us democracy leaders" This "Earth Alliance" would have no more power or authority than the UN. In fact, it would have less credibility because it wouldn't include all countries. It still doesn't have the power to make decisions - it still can't enforce anything. IT'S STILL WORTHLESS.
