Eliminate the UN

A weak, irrelevant and impotent United Nations coupled with weak international resolve has allowed Saddam to strengthen. The whole organization is laughable. How is it that the worlds largest democracy and soon to be most populous nations is not a permanent member of the security council? Why are there no African nations? Why does Europe have two (arguably 3 with Russia) members? Perhaps the same idiocy that puts Libya in charge of human rights and has Iraq lined up to be in charge of disarmament.

We just saw a pathetic display of the United Nations Security Council trying to convince the world that it still had a degree of relevance in world politics. Over a decade and 17 unenforced resolutions ... with nothing to show. Now, we have claims of relevance and the near begging for respect like a 15 year old claiming they are adults.

People cry about the US acting unilaterally on Iraq although dozens of other nations are acting with us. Of course the nations that are doing it are criticized as unimportant by those supporting the status quo. But they feel those nations should have equal voice in the UN. Again more brain dead reasoning by UN supporters.

The US foots almost 25% of the bill for the UN and now the UN is looking for a sweet mortgage deal from the US to build a new structure. If the UN truly felt we are all on equal footing, then make all dues the same, have every nation be a vetoing member. The whole organization would still be the same. A bunch of people sitting around whining and complaining while getting nothing done except wasting money.

Its time to let the UN crumble away just like the building that they are in is doing.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Ya know, I dont like the UN either, and they very well should have backed up the threats they made towards Iraq, but to not have them would only hurt the world. If they did not exist, what would stop any country from just starting war with another? The war that is about to begin would have already started had it not been for the UN.

In my opinion, The UN plays an important role in today's world.

If the UN had backed up its own resolutions as soon as Sadam broke them, we wouldn't be were we are today. People will always say hindsight is 20/20 but its a spineless organization. It let millions die in Africa because it wouldn't act. It refused to back up its own resolutions. It appoints terrorist nations as leaders. Its a sole purpose anymore is to make itself relevent with a lot of talk and paperwork.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Very well said, Yogs!!

If the UN wasn't there then the world would be a shit-hole- Bush would have steam rolled Iraq, terrorists would be hitting the US and the nations of the world would not have a forum to discuss all relevant issues. Whehter you like it or not- the UN stays :rolleyes:

Originally posted by 450HPviper
In my opinion, The UN plays an important role in today's world.


and it should be respected!!!

Originally posted by Jimster
If the UN wasn't there then the world would be a shit-hole- Bush would have steam rolled Iraq, terrorists would be hitting the US and the nations of the world would not have a forum to discuss all relevant issues. Whehter you like it or not- the UN stays :rolleyes:

So the UN is stopping terrorists from attacking the US now??? Bush isn't attacking Iraq despite the fact that the UN doesn't condone it??? Sure the UN is a forum to discuss issues, but that is all that it does...talk about them and do nothing. The nations can "talk" about things at anytime whether the UN exists or not. So what is the point of it existing if it can't/won't do anything?

Originally posted by Jimster
If the UN wasn't there then the world would be a shit-hole- Bush would have steam rolled Iraq, terrorists would be hitting the US and the nations of the world would not have a forum to discuss all relevant issues. Whehter you like it or not- the UN stays :rolleyes:

I'm still waiting for a list of UN accomplishments that that couldnt be done by an ad-hoc coalition of nations. There aren't any.

I brought up again the whole structure of the security council that is fixed on five nations that exclude entire continents. No good answer why Britain and France remain both remain there (I am still humored as to how France got there in the first place). Or why Russia still have 3 votes considering it was the Soviet Union who had the votes and the Soviet Union collapsed. Why didn’t the Ukraine get one of those? Or why didn’t they give it up?

The answer is simple – the organization is unwilling to change from the bickering cluster of ineffective bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to give themselves relevance. The world will not change because the UN collapses.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Originally posted by inferno


So the UN is stopping terrorists from attacking the US now??? Bush isn't attacking Iraq despite the fact that the UN doesn't condone it??? Sure the UN is a forum to discuss issues, but that is all that it does...talk about them and do nothing. The nations can "talk" about things at anytime whether the UN exists or not. So what is the point of it existing if it can't/won't do anything?


You my friend have just explained the concept of diplomacy- Think/talk it out before you act

Originally posted by Jimster



You my friend have just explained the concept of diplomacy- Think/talk it out before you act

Interesting....so France stalling attempts to get a vote in the UN on the subject and then declaring that any resolution that condoned force against Iraq would be vetoed no matter what, is also a clear example of diplomacy at its best as well right?

And Yogs spews forth his hatred for the U.N. again.:rolleyes: How very original.

Originally posted by inferno


Interesting....so France stalling attempts to get a vote in the UN on the subject and then declaring that any resolution that condoned force against Iraq would be vetoed no matter what, is also a clear example of diplomacy at its best as well right?


Yes- Chirac is a diplomat, he feels there are better ways for this issue with Iraq to be sorted- Which is correct.

Originally posted by Jimster



Yes- Chirac is a diplomat, he feels there are better ways for this issue with Iraq to be sorted- Which is correct.

The sad part about that is that I think you actually believe that.

Originally posted by taranaki
And Yogs spews forth his hatred for the U.N. again.:rolleyes: How very original.

And Naki having no rebuttal arguement other then lame blatherings - totally expected.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Originally posted by taranaki
And Yogs spews forth his hatred for the U.N. again. How very original.

Originally posted by YogsVR4

And Naki having no rebuttal arguement other then lame blatherings - totally expected.


Ah, so much love:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jimster

Yes- Chirac is a diplomat, he feels there are better ways for this issue with Iraq to be sorted- Which is correct.
Yes, do NOTHING, and buy oil cheap!
Brilliant diplomat. I see why you were so enamored with Clinton, he did NOTHING!