UN actively trying to spread Islam

[GarfieldJL]

Hang on to your hats folks it seems like the United Nations is trying to directly support a religion:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432502,00.html

[SD Nihil]

I'm not suprised. They rarely side with the US anyway. Not that I'm against Islam. I again don't see in the near future them siding with us ever. I'd be real suprised if they tried to promote Christianity. And we are the country that provides much of their funding anyway.

[Web Rider]

Way to go UN....you once again prove that when trying to work together, you favor the little guy with a knife to your throat over the big guy with the gun he never uses.

[SD Nihil]

Way to go UN....you once again prove that when trying to work together, you favor the little guy with a knife to your throat over the big guy with the gun he never uses.

 

And the fact the UN passes resolutions which are basically warnings in my opinion, and sanctions. And when we militarily have to act do they support us usualy? Nope. I think they should stand with their major financial supplier (The US). Because if we actually had the guts we'd stop funding them. Then we'd see how long it would take for them to finally stand with us.

[Inyri]

I think they should stand with their major financial supplier (The US). Because if we actually had the guts we'd stop funding them. Then we'd see how long it would take for them to finally stand with us.

Yes, because that makes for a fair an impartial panel.

 

I don't know what exactly is wrong with saying "hey, don't insult the Muslims because they'll probably cut out your tongue."

[SW01]

This is a NON-BINDING resolution aimed at curtailing defamation of all religious groups, not just Islam (which has, you must admit, had some unfair generalisations made of it since 2001). I don't see how this can be viewed as support for any religion. 'Protection' may be a better term.

 

The right to freedom of speech is already subject to these sorts of restrictions in most countries, anyway, and bear in mind the difference between critique and defamation

[SD Nihil]

Yes, because that makes for a fair an impartial panel.

 

I don't know what exactly is wrong with saying "hey, don't insult the Muslims because they'll probably cut out your tongue."

 

Because isn't that cut tounge out statement a violent one. And yes I know you might say well America is violent. We defend and fight for freedom of religion as well as other things. Muslim extremests fight to have a country have Muslim religion only. No freedom of religion.

 

And since we made the UN to actually enforce military action when all else fails you'd think they'd do that. But they've rarely gone along with us. And rarely done military action. They are weak peaceniks who no spine in my opinion.

[Inyri]

Let me just point out that the United States doesn't control the rest of the world. Other countries have their own laws -- some including anti-freedom of speech laws. The UN does not cater to the US, it caters to all the nations it serves. It also has to protect the citizens of all the nations it serves. If that means making resolutions that say you shouldn't defame Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, because US citizens don't seem to realize the world doesn't revolve around them, so be it. Someone's got to protect the stupid, after all.

[SW01]

we made the UN to actually enforce military action

 

No...read. (UN Charter)

 

What can the UN really do when the biggest power blindly refuses to obey them? (Yet expects the rest of the world to obey.)

 

Muslim extremests fight to have a country have Muslim religion only.

 

I think that's the case with all religious extremists - hence extremists.

[Astor]

And since we made the UN to actually enforce military action

 

That's just wrong. The UN was created after World War II so that nations would have a platform for peaceful negotiation, without resorting to war or military action.

 

I don't see what the problem with this resolution is. As SW01 says, it's designed to protect, not promote.

[Arcesious]

First Great Britain, and now the United Kingdom? :\

[SD Nihil]

Let me just point out that the United States doesn't control the rest of the world. Other countries have their own laws -- some including anti-freedom of speech laws. The UN does not cater to the US, it caters to all the nations it serves. It also has to protect the citizens of all the nations it serves. If that means making resolutions that say you shouldn't defame Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc, because US citizens don't seem to realize the world doesn't revolve around them, so be it. Someone's got to protect the stupid, after all.

 

Which does not fit our adgenda. Like I said they should go the way of the league of nations. They are wimpy, a bunch of thugs, food for oil scandal, and do not have the interests of their main financial provider (US) at heart.

[Astor]

Which does not fit our adgenda. Like I said they should go the way of the league of nations. They are wimpy, a bunch of thugs, food for oil scandal, and do not have the interests of their main financial provider (US) at heart.

 

So they should just let America have it's way and the rest of the world can go hang? The UN isn't there simply to do as America tells them.

[Web Rider]

Which does not fit our adgenda. Like I said they should go the way of the league of nations. They are wimpy, a bunch of thugs, food for oil scandal, and do not have the interests of their main financial provider (US) at heart.

 

Nor should they. They're not supposed to. The whole POINT of the UN is to get everyone together on an EQUAL platform. They just need to stop being weak and taking ques from Europe and backing down to the first bit of Islamic pressure they get.

[SD Nihil]

No...

 

What can the UN really do when the biggest power blindly refuses to obey them? (Yet expects the rest of the world to obey.)

 

 

 

I think that's the case with all religious extremists - hence extremists.

 

 

 

We are for freedom of religion. Not to simply have a country oppressing and having only one. And the UN can do something if they actually banded together against say Russia. But they won't because they are sissy. They hate the US. Not that I care what other countries that don't like us very much think. We are the leader of giving aid, money, lives, and we do it not expecting a thank you in return. That's what I believe.

 

Astor_Kaine]So they should just let America have it's way and the rest of the world can go hang? The UN isn't there simply to do as America tells them.

 

We've pulled you out of two world wars too.

 

Sarcasm: Mean bad ol America so evil and oppressive killing babies and mean. lol.

 

Nor should they. They're not supposed to. The whole POINT of the UN is to get everyone together on an EQUAL platform. They just need to stop being weak and taking ques from Europe and backing down to the first bit of Islamic pressure they get.

 

I agree they shouldn't be weak. I think they should consider force when resolutions and sanctions fail.

[SW01]

The UN cannot avoid being weak when it's largest member refuses to support or obey it. That is what killed the League of Nations. As for lack of military action on their part:

 

'Since 1948, there have been 49 United Nations peacekeeping operations. 36 peacekeeping operations were created by the Security Council in the years between 1988 and 1998. There are currently 17 under way involving 14,453 peacekeepers at the end of August 1998. Over 750,000 military and civilian police personnel and thousands of other civilians have served in UN peacekeeping operations; 1,581 have died while serving in these missions up to the 31 August 1998.'

- http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/50web/2.htm

 

But that is not the issue.

 

Again, I will restate my argument that this does not, as it is, effect Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is qualified by restrictions regarding defamation, libel and slander - this is the UN attempting to make all nations act to protect their freedoms to exercise religious belief without fear of such attacks. And, again, reasonable and truthful critique does not fall under such headings.

[SD Nihil]

The UN cannot avoid being weak when it's largest member refuses to support or obey it. That is what killed the League of Nations. As for lack of military action on their part:

 

Exactly. A lot of help they were in the world wars. lol. And that would be a bad move if they banded together against the US. We'd just cut off their funding. They should band together against actual oppressive nations like Russia. Not against generous, aid giving, lives giving US just because they hate us.

 

Again, I will restate my argument that this does not, as it is, effect Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is qualified by restrictions regarding defamation, libel and slander - this is the UN attempting to make all nations act to protect their freedoms to exercise religious belief without fear of such attacks. And, again, reasonable and truthful critique does not fall under such headings.

 

Again, some of the nations they support don't have freedom of speech or freedom of faith.

[SW01]

First, the UN didn't exist during the World Wars. Second, the UN cannot move against a Security Council member in normal circumstances. Russia is a security council member. So was the Soviet Union.

 

The UN was sponsored by the US to broker peaceful negotiation. Not to wage war or support other nations in war. It does not help the Council's authority when states publicly defy their resolutions and marche to war without any consequence. If America expects the UN to be effective in dealing with other nations, it has to begin to obey too. Giving a large amount of funding to an oversight body is not an excuse to ignore it and do what you want with impunity.

[SD Nihil]

First, the UN didn't exist during the World Wars. Second, the UN cannot move against a Security Council member in normal circumstances. Russia is a security council member. So was the Soviet Union.

 

The UN was sponsored by the US to broker peaceful negotiation. Not to wage war or support other nations in war. It does not help the Council's authority when states publicly defy their resolutions and marche to war without any consequence. If America expects the UN to be effective in dealing with other nations, it has to begin to obey too. Giving a large amount of funding to an oversight body is not an excuse to ignore it and do what you want with impunity.

 

 

 

My bad. I should've told you the obvous fact that of course the UN wasn't around back then. The league of nations was. And they were just as weak. Then when have they actually militarily backed the US and stood by us. And I think the UN should show some spine when it comes to Russia. If they don't what good are they to the rest of those that Russia considers it's former empire.

 

And yeah we helped make this UN. And not always can peaceful solutions work.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

We've pulled you out of two world wars too.

Damn right, the US single-handedly pulled the world from the depths of chaos without anybody else. Oh wait, the rest of Europe exists and so does Russia.

[SW01]

The league of nations was. And they were just as weak.

 

Mainly due to a lack of US support, despite the fact that the US set it up, made the European powers join, then abandoned it.

 

Then when have they actually militarily backed the US and stood by us.

 

Korea? Remember that the UN is not a military body. It is a diplomatic and peacekeeping organisation. NATO is a military body.

 

Also, the UN has effectively sanctioned military force when resolutions and sanctions failed, in the run-up to the First Gulf War. (Resolution 678 - enforce the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait by 'all necessary means')

 

Back on topic, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the freedom of religious exercise at Art. 18. This is International law (though, yes, not always properly enforced.) This resolution can be seen as pursuant to that freedom.

[SD Nihil]

We financially back them, and give them a place in New York. I think they should be more grateful and not allow scum like the president of Iran to bad mouth our allie and us.

[Web Rider]

We financially back them, and give them a place in New York. I think they should be more grateful and not allow scum like the president of Iran to bad mouth our allie and us.

 

Every other actual member nation ALSO pays UN dues. Do you think the UN should put a higher(than other nations that pay less) priority on Russian and Chinese ideas as well?

 

EDIT: we badmouth him all the time as well. Are you saying that because he's a jerk he doesn't have freedom of speech?

[Ctrl Alt Del]

[The UN] They are weak peaceniks who no spine in my opinion.

 

When they can't stop a superpower from waging war for allegedly self-defense with reasons that turn out false, yes they're weak.

[SD Nihil]

Every other actual member nation ALSO pays UN dues. Do you think the UN should put a higher(than other nations that pay less) priority on Russian and Chinese ideas as well?

 

I feel that yes they should listen to us more because we pay more, we let them be in New York, and we believe we have the worl's best interests at heart. Well we feel we know what's best because of what we do to help others through giving lives, money, and aid.

 

So yeah because we've done more we think they should care what we think more. Especially more than countries that are oppressive, let their people live in 3rd world conditions, have and support terror. So yeah we think the UN should listen to us more than them.

 

EDIT: we badmouth him all the time as well. Are you saying that because he's a jerk he doesn't have freedom of speech?

 

I don't think he should do it in the country he wants to be wiped off the face of the map. A man who is in a country with jews in it and he hates and wants all the news to die. Yeah I don't want him here. He can do his speeches elsewhere.

 

When they can't stop a superpower from waging war for allegedly self-defense with reasons that turn out false, yes they're weak.

 

Here we go again with Iraq. I don't care if there were or were not weapons. Saddam broke our cease fire agreement when he kicked the UN inspectors out. He refused us access even after 14 UN resolutions and sanctions they still didn't back us up when we invaded. Again another time they didn't stand by us. Again a time when their resolutions carried no teeth of backing us when we had to resoort to war.

 

More resolutions would'nt have changed Saddam's mind. All he had to do is show us where he destroyed the weapons if he did. We'd test for them, and check them off our list.

 

And if our intel was bad that wasn't Bush's fault. He just got in. Clinton made smaller our military and intel agencies which could've helped with Saddam. Did he act. Nope. All he did was bomb Saddam with cruise missiles sending him back a couple years.

 

I don't care if he had WMDs or not. He broke the agreement. It's like a child who brought a knife to school and threatened a kid. We take the knife away and tell the child we'll be checking their room to make sure they don't have any more knives in their room. They agree for a time. Then they say you can't come in. So we punish, and warn we'll come into their room if they don't let us in to check their room.

 

So in the in you have to go in because the child broke the agreement and was being dishonest. If he didn't have anything in his room why have a problem with it. He agreed earlier.

 

Same with Saddam. He got out of Kuwait, allowed inspectors in so we could make sure he doesn't have anything long range or anything to threaten his neighbors. He agreed for a time. Then he kicked us out. The UN gave sanctions and resolutions (warnings), and since it didn't work the only other course was war.

 

And if you are against the war in Iraq, don't worry 15 of 18 benchmarks have been done. So we'll be out soon. Scarcasm: Yes evil, mean bad, oppressive, bully America will be out soon.