Political Crossfire Forums

[smirnoff]

RM88 wrote: The United States does not need the UN. The United States has enough power to "survive" on its own.

So does the EU, but you dont see them complaining.

[RM88]

smirnoff wrote: RM88 wrote: The United States does not need the UN. The United States has enough power to "survive" on its own.

So does the EU, but you dont see them complaining.

Europeans complain about everything today. Only loser countries need the UN, and the EU is not a country.

[Canada_Rocks]

"LOSER COUNTRIES" :roll:

[RM88]

Canada_rocks wrote: "LOSER COUNTRIES" :roll:

Yes, there are many loser countries in the UN. :)

[narikimakoto]

RM88 wrote: smirnoff wrote: RM88 wrote: The United States does not need the UN. The United States has enough power to "survive" on its own.

So does the EU, but you dont see them complaining.

Europeans complain about everything today. Only loser countries need the UN, and the EU is not a country.

The UN, despite all its despicable problems and corruption, was able to prevent the Cold War for turning into a hot one. Also we haven't had a major World War in 60 years. Please try to give them credit for something

[RM88]

narikimakoto wrote: RM88 wrote: smirnoff wrote: RM88 wrote: The United States does not need the UN. The United States has enough power to "survive" on its own.

So does the EU, but you dont see them complaining.

Europeans complain about everything today. Only loser countries need the UN, and the EU is not a country.

The UN, despite all its despicable problems and corruption, was able to prevent the Cold War for turning into a hot one. Also we haven't had a major World War in 60 years. Please try to give them credit for something

Reagan prevented the Cold War. I will give the UN credit for making some countries feel they are important for "helping" the world.

[Canada_Rocks]

"Yes, there are many loser countries in the UN."

Do you clasify a loser counrty with a sinking economy, a hude deficit, trillions upon trillions in dept, botton 10 ranked education system, no healthcare, major unemployment rate, ..I think you should rethink your american analysis of the situation.

[Eton]

RM88 wrote: narikimakoto wrote: RM88 wrote: smirnoff wrote: RM88 wrote: The United States does not need the UN. The United States has enough power to "survive" on its own.

So does the EU, but you dont see them complaining.

Europeans complain about everything today. Only loser countries need the UN, and the EU is not a country.

The UN, despite all its despicable problems and corruption, was able to prevent the Cold War for turning into a hot one. Also we haven't had a major World War in 60 years. Please try to give them credit for something

Reagan prevented the Cold War. I will give the UN credit for making some countries feel they are important for "helping" the world.

How does one 'prevent' a cold war? Do you mean a 'hot war'? Do you mean ended the cold war? How did a senile old fart like Reagan do anything? Didn't he sleep through half of his presidency? I heard they didn't notice he was dead until he started to smell a bit three days later.

[RM88]

Eton wrote: RM88 wrote: narikimakoto wrote: RM88 wrote: smirnoff wrote: RM88 wrote: The United States does not need the UN. The United States has enough power to "survive" on its own.

So does the EU, but you dont see them complaining.

Europeans complain about everything today. Only loser countries need the UN, and the EU is not a country.

The UN, despite all its despicable problems and corruption, was able to prevent the Cold War for turning into a hot one. Also we haven't had a major World War in 60 years. Please try to give them credit for something

Reagan prevented the Cold War. I will give the UN credit for making some countries feel they are important for "helping" the world.

How does one 'prevent' a cold war? Do you mean a 'hot war'? Do you mean ended the cold war? How did a senile old fart like Reagan do anything? Didn't he sleep through half of his presidency? I heard they didn't notice he was dead until he started to smell a bit three days later.

Typical European attitude of being ignorant and showing no respect for great leaders.

[RM88]

Canada_rocks wrote: "Yes, there are many loser countries in the UN."

Do you clasify a loser counrty with a sinking economy, a hude deficit, trillions upon trillions in dept, botton 10 ranked education system, no healthcare, major unemployment rate, ..I think you should rethink your american analysis of the situation.

Countries that are not superpowers.

[Canada_Rocks]

OHHHHHHH,
countries that are not superpowers..OKAy

I see now.

[suns05]

shamus11 wrote:

Try one of my sites at
http://jamesbredin.tripod.com/numberfour/id16.html

oh ya that will be great help, he wants information on a particular countries position on UN REFORM, not on why you think the UN should be abolished.

[Canada_Rocks]

suns05 wrote: shamus11 wrote:

Try one of my sites at
http://jamesbredin.tripod.com/numberfour/id16.html

oh ya that will be great help, he wants information on a particular countries position on UN REFORM, not on why you think the UN should be abolished.

Ahhhh,

That web page brings back some great memories of high school when my HTML skills were mentally retarded and I would fool around on Geocities and Angelfire.

[emmorris]

Canada_rocks wrote: ebolish the UN..are you joking. The UN is needed to protect countires that dont spend a mega-ba-trillion dollars on defence...
I say reform it, If I see another rwanda happen again I'll barf.

In that case you shouldn't look at Sudan. And the UN's failure to call the situation a genocide. I guess millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands dead isn't important to the UN.

[Canada_Rocks]

How can you compare Rwanda to Somolia?

Rwanda was one of those things in history that falls in close second to the holocaust.

Please, America ignored the Rwanda situation too, they were too busy licking their wounds FROM Somolia.

[emmorris]

Canada_rocks wrote: How can you compare Rwanda to Somolia?

Rwanda was one of those things in history that falls in close second to the holocaust.

Please, America ignored the Rwanda situation too, they were too busy licking their wounds FROM Somolia.

Sorry, fingers acted independently of brain. I thought Sudan and typed Somalia.

[Canada_Rocks]

This is why advocate reform.

[emmorris]

Canada_rocks wrote: This is why advocate reform.

But what are you going to reform? The fact that the UN is full of despots and dictators who do the exact same things in their own countries? That France, Germany and virtually every other country is unable or unwilling to do anything? There is no reform that can change the situations and attitudes of the member countries.

[Chris29]

emmorris wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: ebolish the UN..are you joking. The UN is needed to protect countires that dont spend a mega-ba-trillion dollars on defence...
I say reform it, If I see another rwanda happen again I'll barf.

In that case you shouldn't look at Sudan. And the UN's failure to call the situation a genocide. I guess millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands dead isn't important to the UN.

the UN is actually doing something in there, they have called the situation the worst humanitarian crisis and they are trying people for war crimes and crimes against humanity (although I am afraid that the Congo is starting to take back the spot of the worst humanitarian crisis, but thats for another topic). Even the US who are opposed to the ICC have agreed to allow individuals to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As for wether or not the situation is genocide, well under the current internationally agreed upon definition, the situation is not genocide, there simply is no other way to put it. Also the decision as to wether the situation was or wasn't genocide did not come from the UN secretariat but rather from a team of international lawyers to determine what the situation really is. Also the UN has managed to accumulate 4.5 billion dollars of extra aid to go to the Sudan.

So as you can see the UN is doing far from nothing.

[Chris29]

emmorris wrote: Canada_rocks wrote: This is why advocate reform.

But what are you going to reform? The fact that the UN is full of despots and dictators who do the exact same things in their own countries? That France, Germany and virtually every other country is unable or unwilling to do anything? There is no reform that can change the situations and attitudes of the member countries.

well first off you can reform the structure of the UN so that proper action can be taken more effeciently and more often. You could also reform such things as voting so that the number of votes a country posses is determined by its population as opposed to the current one state one vote rule. Also it is extremely important to add that while dictators are still a very serious problem they increase in democracies around the world, particularly in Africa is going un noticed by much of the developed world and democracies are now the majority even in the third world. As for france and germany not doing anything, well they may not have wanted to do anything with regards to Iraq, thats a seperate issue and I am opposed to what they have done, but both France and Germany are two of the major players in the UN and have done alot in many other areas, particularly in third world debt relied and humanitarian aid. Also the positions of countries around the world is impacted by the larger global voice. This explains the more recent altruistic emphasis globally towards the third world crisis and the global unity we often see to fight the crisis. This is most evident in the UN's Millennium Development Goals of which all states agreed to.