Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question For Anti-UN People  
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Posted (9 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 1619 times:

I've got one simple question to help me understand why exactly some people oppose the UN so vehemently. So please tell me, what has the UN done to make you oppose it?

Please keep it civil, especially in case you comment on another a.net member's opinion. The question was kept that general on purpose.

[Edited 2004-12-31 01:57:04]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 1608 times:

I'm not anti the UN, but I am exasperated at it constantly trying to be "all things to all men".

Rather than its closure I'd like to see meaningful dialogue from all sides about how it can be reformed and improved for the new century and beyond. The current talking shop where nothing gets done and vested interest reigns serves nobody except career diplomats and their staffs on huge salaries and benefits.

The EU Parliament is just as bad. Another powerless talking shop without any coherent direction or purpose.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1591 times:

Most of its "critics" don´t have the faintest idea what the UN actually is, so they can´t make any meaningful remarks beyond cursing fire and brimstone upon it and ducking away from imagined black helicopters...  Insane

User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

The U.N has done nothing to make me oppose it. It has simply not done anything to make me favor it. The U.S pays a large sum of the U.N money, and gets nothing in return. It is simply useless.

[Edited 2004-12-31 02:17:06]

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1577 times:

"It has simply not done anything to make me favor it."

Would I then be correct in concluding that you don't like things (or also people) that have done nothing for you?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Bravo7e7: The U.N has done nothing to make me oppose it. It has simply not done anything to make me favor it. The U.S pays a large sum of the U.N money, and gets nothing in return. It is simply useless.

Thank you for illustrating my point.  Insane


User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

That is correct. Especially if I pay for them with my tax dollars. If I have a cleaning lady and pay for her, and she does not clean the house properly, then there is no point in having her.

User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

The U.N has done nothing to make me oppose it. It has simply not done anything to make me favor it. The U.S pays a large sum of the U.N money, and gets nothing in return. It is simply useless.

There's me thinking that the purpose of the UN was for the good of the whole world not just the good old USA.



British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1540 times:

Gman94, you are correct. But the U.N has literally done nothing for the U.S. Definitely not on 9/11 when we needed them.

User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

"Especially if I pay for them with my tax dollars."

A 16-20 year old student.....  Insane



Word
User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Hello, I also have a job.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

Bravo7e7: Gman94, you are correct. But the U.N has literally done nothing for the U.S. Definitely not on 9/11 when we needed them.

You´re undermining your already precariously weak stance on the issue ever more...

The UNSC immediately gave full support to the US and as soon as required also for the necessary response against the Taleban. The US has received everything they could ask for - and more - after and related to 9-11.

It was only the totally unrelated (and unjustified) Iraq invasion where the Bush administration met resistance (which was justified as we all know by now).

Sorry, but no lollipop - again.  Nuts


User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

You are so right. They went the extra mile and did EVERYTHING they could. Thanks U.N! Big grin

User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17363 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

"So please tell me, what has the UN done to make you oppose it?"

That would require the UN to actually *do* something wouldn't it? It's precisely their complete inaction in the Sudan, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, etc, etc, combined with their absolutely toothless decrees that make me questions it's use. Has the UN ever followed through on any threat it's made?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Bravo7e7: You are so right. They went the extra mile and did EVERYTHING they could. Thanks U.N!

You simply fell full flat on your face, just above. Sorry, but you asked for it.

What you seemed to mean was the disagreement about Iraq between the US Bush administration and most governments of the world as represented in the UN. And yes, UNSG Kofi Annan wasn´t thrilled as well, but in practice, he didn´t have a say in the UNSC decisions.

And again, after 9-11, both the UN - as represented by Annan - and practically all member nations were fully behind the USA.

Your ill will against the UN is only surpassed by your ignorance about the UN, what it is, what it stands for and what actually happened with its organs.

It is a sad confirmation of my reply 2 above.  Sad


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17363 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

That too...

It's a corrupt, bloated, toothless, expensive waste of time.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineStowAway From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 640 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Well, the Oil For Food scandal isn't helping the UN's case much. You probably expected that to come up, and probably have heard plenty on it. So I won't mess around with explaining it further.

I simply think that the UN has a jaded view on the way the world is now. Not to get back to the Iraq War, but I disagreed with the UN's final stance.

The primary purpose of the UN is:
The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.

That sounds well and good, but I think that they have overstepped the bounds a little. Example: Publicly calling the US stingy regarding our aid in the disaster. Where does that fall into place within the set purpose? The UN should not be a central government, but just a place for communications between countries.

I am curious. (This is not a setup, I really don't know the answer.) We, as well as other nations, are currently in talks with North Korea regarding their nuclear program. Is the UN helping with this?




A monkey's ass always talks crap.
User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1486 times:

Lets face it. Their Oil-For-Arms money scandal makes them the largest terrorist supporting organization in the world, and the U.S should not be harboring terrorism or any terrorism financing organizations.

User currently offlineGman94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1482 times:

That would require the UN to actually *do* something wouldn't it? It's precisely their complete inaction in the Sudan, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, etc, etc, combined with their absolutely toothless decrees that make me questions it's use. Has the UN ever followed through on any threat it's made?

Or maybe it's the silly security council veto's which stop the UN doing anything really constructive for example sanctions against Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians.

The blame for the UN's lack of strong action where it's needed lies at the feet of the member nations and their own selfish reasons not to act for the greater good.



British Airways - The Way To Fly
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

Finally... Progress on the topic at least...

StowAway: Well, the Oil For Food scandal isn't helping the UN's case much. You probably expected that to come up, and probably have heard plenty on it. So I won't mess around with explaining it further.

I simply think that the UN has a jaded view on the way the world is now. Not to get back to the Iraq War, but I disagreed with the UN's final stance.


"The UN" is not a separate governing body. It is a forum of its members.

Its actual decision (and much of the more controversial groundwork) is politically carried or carried out by its member nations (which is also largely true for the oil for food program).


StowAway: The primary purpose of the UN is:
The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.


Sure. But the UN never takes the necessary decisions by itself. It´s always the member nations who make those decisions, not Secretary General Annan.


StowAway: That sounds well and good, but I think that they have overstepped the bounds a little. Example: Publicly calling the US stingy regarding our aid in the disaster. Where does that fall into place within the set purpose?

The UN official reminded all western nations they´re rather "stingy" despite their considerable wealth. And he even referred to those nations as "we". Please look at the actual quotes instead of a few out-of-context sound bytes.


StowAway: The UN should not be a central government, but just a place for communications between countries.

So you´d be happier if all the coordinating and aid organisations stopped working immediately?

[Edited 2004-12-31 03:06:33]

User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

This is a bias source, but please just read a little bit of it.
http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm


User currently offlineStowAway From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 640 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Klaus, I think this was meant to be an intelligent, rational conversation, and not a place for your preset biased rantings.

It was only the totally unrelated (and unjustified) Iraq invasion where the Bush administration met resistance (which was justified as we all know by now).

That says it all right there.....




A monkey's ass always talks crap.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8697 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Holy cow... I didn't know I'd spark this!  Sad


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

StowAway: Klaus, I think this was meant to be an intelligent, rational conversation, and not a place for your preset biased rantings.

The factually false rants of Bravo7e7 above sadly necessitated a response.


Klaus: It was only the totally unrelated (and unjustified) Iraq invasion where the Bush administration met resistance (which was justified as we all know by now).

StowAway: That says it all right there.....

It´s verifiably correct in every single point. Whether you´re happy with that or not. Sorry for being blunt.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

The UN is only as good as its members. Considering the security council consists of the US, UK, China, Russia and France permanently, and is the UN's most powerful body, the US has to take a lot of the blame if people critisise the UN.

I simply think that the UN has a jaded view on the way the world is now. Not to get back to the Iraq War, but I disagreed with the UN's final stance.

The UN is merely made up of nations, of which the US is the most powerful. If you disagree with it, you disagree with the world.

That sounds well and good, but I think that they have overstepped the bounds a little. Example: Publicly calling the US stingy regarding our aid in the disaster. Where does that fall into place within the set purpose? The UN should not be a central government, but just a place for communications between countries.

The UN never said that, a UN official said the UN and the rest of the Western world were stingy with aid.

If the US hates the UN so much, leave. There is nothing stopping you.


25 Post contains images Klaus : Bravo7e7: This is a bias source, but please just read a little bit of it. That is a joke, right? You can´t seriously pretend to take that kind of fac
26 777236ER : I am curious. (This is not a setup, I really don't know the answer.) We, as well as other nations, are currently in talks with North Korea regarding t
27 MaverickM11 : "It was only the totally unrelated (and unjustified) Iraq invasion where the Bush administration met resistance (which was justified as we all know by
28 777236ER : The US told Saddam he has 48 hours to fess up or clear out because we'll kick his a$$. And after 48 hours we beat the sh!t out of him, as promised. Th
29 Klaus : MaverickM11: Not to turn this into anything about the Iraq War but here's the difference: We´ve gone over this enough times already, don´t you think
30 MaverickM11 : "Ultimately, what was the right course of action to take? Was Saddam a threat to the US?" Doesn't matter. Find a different thread if you want to answe
31 777236ER : Doesn't matter. Find a different thread if you want to answer that. It clearly does matter. The UN wanted to send in weapons inspectors again, as the
32 MaverickM11 : "It clearly does matter. The UN wanted to send in weapons inspectors again, as the weapons inspectors didn't know whether he had WMD" OMG stop. I shou
33 Springbok747 : The same question could be asked of the umpteen useless threats to the Sudanese government. Or what about Rwanda? What did the UN do there? Forget Rwa
34 Post contains links StowAway : 777236ER, Nearly all the talks with North Korea and Iran have been initiated and mediated by the UN. Proof please, not just your word.... I did a litt
35 Post contains images Klaus : MaverickM11: Doesn't matter. Find a different thread if you want to answer that. The same question could be asked of the umpteen useless threats to th
36 Post contains images Gman94 : You Yanks need to get a grip on reality, the reason the UN fails to take decisive action is the fault of the member nations including the US. The way
37 MaverickM11 : "Forget Rwanda...look at our neighbor..Zimbabwe. It is in a bloody mess, and what the hell is the UN doing? People have been literally thrown out of t
38 Post contains links 777236ER : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604437.stm Check out just how much the IAEA and UN had to contribute. All the six nations talks were me
39 777236ER : "Forget Rwanda...look at our neighbor..Zimbabwe. It is in a bloody mess, and what the hell is the UN doing? People have been literally thrown out of t
40 Springbok747 : I thought you got rid of dictators? Well, we haven't. And why should the US do anything? The US is just one country..its not the UN. And, what is the
41 Gman94 : WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED -to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untol
42 777236ER : Well, we haven't. And why should the US do anything? The US is just one country..its not the UN. And, what is the damn purpose of the UN anyway? "It's
43 Springbok747 : I don't think someone from/live in South Africa can really take any form of moral high ground. What does that mean 777236ER? Really, I'm confused. By
44 777236ER : Reasons the UN is good: CEB, CTBTO, CEB, ECA, ECE, ECLAC, ESCAP, ESCAW, FAO, UNCTAD-UNDP, HLCM, HLCP, IACSD, IANWGE, IAPSO, IAWG, IAEA, IBRD, IBE, ICG
45 5NEOO : Yes, I think there should be someone (the UN), who tries to uphold these ideas, but what the hell are they (the UN) doing? They are no better than our
46 Springbok747 : Let me guess, you are definitely not a Black South African are you? No, but what does that have to do with this discussion anyway?!
47 777236ER : I don't think someone from/live in South Africa can really take any form of moral high ground. What does that mean 777236ER? Really, I'm confused. It
48 5NEOO : I for one am happy the UN exists. Organisations like UNICEF (UN Children's Fund), UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), UNDP
49 5NEOO : No, but what does that have to do with this discussion anyway?! Just asking a simple question my man.
50 Post contains images Springbok747 : Just asking a simple question my man. Ah...no worries then It means that not so long ago, South Africa was stuck in the midst of Middle Age racism. Ok
51 Thumper : "If the US hates the UN so much, leave. There is nothing stopping you." Thank God, First time in years I have read something from 777236ER that I agr
52 F9Widebody : People keep listing grievances with the UN and the response has repeatedly been "it is the fault of the Member Nations, not the UN." If this is the ca
53 Newark777 : If it is the member nations doing everything and not the UN, then what is the UN actually accomplishing? You make it sound as if the UN is just an org
54 Bravo7e7 : Let me make one thing clear. I beliueve that the UN as such is a great idea to unite the world. I am for the UN if some serious restructuring is done.
55 B747forlife : I really shouldn't enter this argument, but I feel the need to say this. The one reason why the US should not leave the UN is that the moment the US l
56 Newark777 : The UN is a great organization when it comes to humanitarian aide (lets hold off the Sudan situation for the moment), but the problem is that they try
57 MaverickM11 : ""It's", son, "it's"." Condescension and nit-picking...nice.[Edited 2004-12-31 08:44:42]
58 MaverickM11 : "The UN is a great organization when it comes to humanitarian aide (lets hold off the Sudan situation for the moment), but the problem is that they tr
59 Sebolino : The EU Parliament is just as bad. Another powerless talking shop without any coherent direction or purpose. I don't get this one. First that is out of
60 MD11Engineer : Themain reason why the UN is often powerless, are the old rules about the right of veto for the 5 permanent members of the security council. Using thi
61 OYRJA : I have one question to this debate...... Wasn't it UN who helped the US soldiers out of Mogadishu in 1992??? Yup. They are really bad. They should hav
62 GKirk : You could always ask a different question; Why do so many Europeans hate the US?
63 Post contains images OYRJA : That's a good question Kirke, I think I know the answer. And You probably do as well. Personally I don't hate the US. It's one of the greatest countri
64 Post contains images GKirk : OYRJA, yes I know the answer. A lot of Europeans on these forums are stubborn, arrogant idiots who think that they are better than everyone
65 Post contains images OYRJA : OYRJA, yes I know the answer. A lot of Europeans on these forums are stubborn, arrogant idiots who think that they are better than everyone LMAO Well
66 Post contains images GKirk : OYRJA, but your just stupid There, thats my anti EU rant over for the day
67 Iakobos : What many (US of A) Americans do not comprehend or do not want to understand, and which is smartly played out by their own administration, is that the
68 777236ER : It's amazing when the people complaining about the UN's lack of power are Americans - coming from the country that has used its security council veto
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question For You Married People posted Fri Jun 27 2003 09:01:34 by Tbar220
A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy posted Mon Nov 6 2006 00:25:44 by Matt D
Question For People In Cleveland posted Sun Nov 14 2004 04:56:34 by TACAA320
Question For German People posted Thu Mar 7 2002 23:51:21 by Gr325
Question For Trains Experts. posted Sun Dec 10 2006 03:31:35 by Acheron
Question For The Unemployed, Retired Or Wealthy posted Wed Dec 6 2006 09:38:07 by B737-112
Question For Blackberry 7100 Users posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:41:04 by Corey07850
Question For Shinkai? posted Sun Nov 19 2006 00:57:47 by 9V
Question For Photo Gurus posted Thu Nov 16 2006 00:36:02 by KaiGywer
Question For London Residents posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:00:09 by AA787823