Close Topic Options

United Nations or USA's Nations? - Page 13

QUOTE

Did they have other option?

I think they did.  Spain, Poland, the Eastern European republics.  Turkey.  They all can see that terrorism is aimed at everyone, not just the US.  They also can see that the US is the only country in the world that is taking any steps to stop it.

QUOTE

I absolutly disagree with that statement!. The job as the President of the United States of America who by the way is one of the most powerful countries in the world, is to take care of the citizens of his country and see that all of them enjoy the rights and benefits of their citizenship.

We will have to disagree.  I think that Pres. Bush is very diplomatic.  He gave the UN almost a full year to do something about Iraq.

QUOTE

Respect is something you earn, you cannot demand it. Now the question would be? did he earn it?

I think he has.  Iran, Libya, Syria, even France and Germany are now thinking a little more.  North Korea has gotten a bit quieter lately.  He said he would do something, he gave them all chances to do their parts, and when they dithered, he went ahead and did what he said he would do.

QUOTE

Based on the above statetements, who is really the bully?

Saddam Hussein.  North Korea.  Iran.  Sudan.  Zimbabwe.  China.

Once again, the US went in to enforce the UN resolutions that the UN didn't have the guts to do anything about.  We [b]put our lives on the line[b].  We put our security on the line.  We put our economic wellbeing on the line.

Unlike our previous president, this one actually did something.  And he did it incredibly well.

QUOTE

they can leave any time they want  but I know they will never will....why?

No, we can't leave.  The Social Democrats who run both parties have the same agendas as the UN.  But then they don't really have the good of the US in mind either.

NightHawk

Nations USAs Nations United

QUOTE

....so diplomacy is escential for any President, even more for the President of the United States.  There is not such a thing as a job to be 'respected'. Respect is something you earn, you cannot demand it. Now the question would be? did he earn it?. Feared? then we are talking about another Saddam Husseim who used fear as method to get what he wanted. Is that what Bush wants?.

Couldn't have said it better myself, LDS.  ;)

United Nations or USA's Nations? History & Civil Business Politics

QUOTE

 I think that Pres. Bush is very diplomatic.  He gave the UN almost a full year to do something about Iraq.

That he did, but only after the rest of the so-called allies (Britain, etc.) urged him to take the UN route. It was not HIS diplomatic tendencies or prowess. It is perfectly clear he lacks diplomacy.

QUOTE

I think he has.  Iran, Libya, Syria, even France and Germany are now thinking a little more.  North Korea has gotten a bit quieter lately.  He said he would do something, he gave them all chances to do their parts, and when they dithered, he went ahead and did what he said he would do.

Just highlighted the trigger-happy cowboy mentality of this President.

QUOTE

Once again, the US went in to enforce the UN resolutions that the UN didn't have the guts to do anything about. Â

I think we should remember that the UN is a world body comprising all the member nations. As such it depends on the contibutions in funds, manpower and such to function. If member countries (including the most powerful one) do not give hoots to its existence, then what is all that expectation for it to 'enforce' the resolutions on the rouge nations? It is not possible!

The effectiveness of the UN depends on the willingness of its member nations to play their roles accordingly, and in the interest of the general good of the world community. Definitely not just for self-interest of any particular member nation.

The only reason the US can act in such belligerent manner with regards to the UN and all those treaties (Kyoto Protocol, ICJ, etc,) is because it is the only superpower left with no counterbalance of that immense power. The Cold War era had that counterbalance. I am not condoning communism or such but just stating a fact.

As I observe, all great empires come to pass - Greeks, Roman, British .....

Page 13 Nations USAs Nations United

QUOTE

Just highlighted the trigger-happy cowboy mentality of this President.

As opposed to the wimpish, appeasement mentality of France, Russia, Germany, and the UN.

Bush got something done.  Everyone else just sat on their hands and hoped that Iraq would like them so that the Iraq-funded terrorists wouldn't attack them.  Didn't work for Bali, did it?

QUOTE

The effectiveness of the UN depends on the willingness of its member nations to play their roles accordingly, and in the interest of the general good of the world community. Definitely not just for self-interest of any particular member nation.

So, when the UN is completely opposed to the self-interest of a particular member nation, that nation is supposed to just roll over and like it right?

The people of the US have begun to realize (finally) that the UN is opposed to the wellbeing and liberty of the US.  We are beginning to hold our leaders' feet to the fire.

President Bush had almost an 80% approval for going in to Iraq when he did.  The majority of the people were upset with him for giving the UN as much rope as he did.  We saw the UN quibble, appease, and wimp out.

The UN said, in effect, in 1991, "give up your weapons, or we will take them."  Iraq ignored them.  So, they said it again.  And Iraq ignored them.  They did this 17 times.  And Iraq ignored them.  And the UN whimpered.  "Oh, poor me."

QUOTE

The only reason the US can act in such belligerent manner with regards to the UN and all those treaties (Kyoto Protocol, ICJ, etc,) is because it is the only superpower left with no counterbalance of that immense power.

Could it also be because those are all BAD treaties?  The are all written in ways to try to destroy the sovereignity and economic wellbeing of the US.  They are direct attacks against the people of the US.  Shall we just sit back and let it happen?  We have already done that with NAFTA, the various "environmentalist" treaties, and so forth.

Because of these, our lumber industry is in the tank.  Our manufacturing is shrinking.  Our small farmers are almost gone (I grew up in farming, and now work in manufacturing).  Our religious liberty is under attack by Europe.  Our right to speak is under attack by Europe.  All due to the auspices of the UN.

When the US goes down, it isn't going to help the rest of the world.  Nobody else has the infrastructure to take up the slack.  It is going to drag the world down, and it is going to be a VERY hard landing.

So, yes,

QUOTE

As I observe, all great empires come to pass - Greeks, Roman, British

Just don't look forward to it too much.  It will hurt you as much as it does us.

NightHawk

Nations USAs Nations United

QUOTE

The people of the US have begun to realize (finally) that the UN is opposed to the wellbeing and liberty of the US.  We are beginning to hold our leaders' feet to the fire.

So then why is the US still part of it and even has its' headquaters in New York?

United Nations or USA's Nations?

Because most of us have only begun to realize this.

There is an email making the rounds, supposedly attributed to Robin Williams (the comedian) about how we should kick out the UN and leave the rest of the world to see how well it can get along without us.  The ideas are extremely popular.

It is going to take a few more obvious moves by the UN against US interests before the left and the middle begin to realize just how anti-US the organization is.

NightHawk

United Nations USA's Nations - Page 13

QUOTE

So, when the UN is completely opposed to the self-interest of a particular member nation, that nation is supposed to just roll over and like it right?

No, they don't have to...they do not have to be so foolish to ask them help in the first place! : but because the UN did not rule as expected then is not good anymore. Like other members said in this thread, if they do not like how the UN operates the US is more than free to leave ...but they don't for whatever, therefore in my opinion without trying to sound harsh or mean, they have put their butts on their seats and shut up if they plan to stay there. Listen, I' m not defendinf the UN at all, my whole point is when they are needed and they rule in favour to the US then the US is happy when they don't then the US says 'oh they're only a bunch of old people' They sound like they're spoiled rotten.

QUOTE

President Bush had almost an 80% approval for going in to Iraq when he did.  The majority of the people were upset with him for giving the UN as much rope as he did.  We saw the UN quibble, appease, and wimp out.

Well of course he had 80% of support plus because of what happened in September 11th but did you see the numbers now? the support for his actions is decreasing in huge steps...now he has only 47 %! why? because Americans (and they have all the rights to complaint) they see huge amounts of money spending on this war and hundreds of US soldiers being killed...they are tax payers and they see their money being misused. Even members of the Republican party istelf rejected the idea of a grant for the reconstruction of Iraq. They want it as a 'loan'. So the 80% is history long time ago...

QUOTE

The UN said, in effect, in 1991, "give up your weapons, or we will take them."  Iraq ignored them.  So, they said it again.  And Iraq ignored them.  They did this 17 times.  And Iraq ignored them.  And the UN whimpered.  "Oh, poor me."

That's so true...that's why Bush took charge in going to a war that is making him look so foolish. Anyhow, I still wondering why Pres. Bush was so serious about Iraq and their weapons and he's not having the same 'urgency' with North Korea who openly said they have the weapons and they're buiding even more because they see the US has a threat. Now what do you tell me about that?. Is Bush concerned that North Korea will use those weapons? I think he is...the answer now is why if NK is so openly talking about it he's not doing with 'urgency' to stop them of building such weapons?. (we have two thread in this same board to discuss further if you want).

QUOTE

When the US goes down, it isn't going to help the rest of the world.  Nobody else has the infrastructure to take up the slack.  It is going to drag the world down, and it is going to be a VERY hard landing.

Exactly, why do you think the whole wide world is telling the USA what the heck are you all doing?!!!!!!!!

QUOTE

It is going to take a few more obvious moves by the UN against US interests before the left and the middle begin to realize just how anti-US the organization is

This anti-US thing now is very recent...actually it was because of the reaction that the UN had about Iraq and the war thing. Because before september 11th I have never heard it that the UN is anti-US....
That's something particularly bothers me because I'm not a US citizen, I respect all US citizens like I respect people from any nationality and I respect the country like I respect any other country, just because the way they think or act I don't agree with it doesn't make me anti-US. I said this because I notice Americans are quick to judge people as Anti-Americans when you're openly in disagreement with their policies or action. I think we need to be more open mind if we will ever really start a serious fight against terrorism.

United Nations USA's Nations Politics Business Civil & History - Page 13

QUOTE

This anti-US thing now is very recent...actually it was because of the reaction that the UN had about Iraq and the war thing. Because before september 11th I have never heard it that the UN is anti-US....

Actually, a lot of us who are more on the "right" on the political spectrum have been saying that the UN is anti-US for a long time.  While it may be true that the Security Council, and maybe even the general body of the UN generally keep it low-key, the "arms" of the organization, the associated organizations, are generally extremely socialist in attitude.  Many of them actively seek to usurp or degrade US sovereignity on a variety of subjects.

QUOTE

just because the way they think or act I don't agree with it doesn't make me anti-US. I said this because I notice Americans are quick to judge people as Anti-Americans when you're openly in disagreement with their policies or action.

You are right.  It doesn't make you anti-US.  What makes the UN anti-US is the actions it takes that are directly opposed to US interests.  The socialist agendas to take away property rights, to limit personal liberty, to dictate to US legislature, to control US courts.  These are the anti-US attitudes of the UN.  A good example is the Kyoto treaty, which is based on extremely shaky science.  The Kyoto treaty would have subjected the US to severe restrictions and fines, but allowed China, which is a far, far worse polluter, to not only go free, but to be the recipient of the US fines!

Perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder.  But in my eye, the UN is just about the worst thing in the world.

NightHawk