UN actively trying to spread Islam

[Web Rider]

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.

You didn't answer my question. Other countries contribute large sums of money to the UN, though they don't have the actual building on their property, are you suggesting that the UN should listen to the people who pay the most? What if Russia decided to give the UN say, 2x what we give it? Should the UN then listen to them?

 

If Europe decided to all agree on the same things, based on GDP, they pay more to the UN than we do, if the EU wanted to do something and they paid in more money than us, should the UN do what they want?

 

If you don't get it yet, what I'm trying to ask is: should the UN do whatever the guy who pays them the most says? Or should they only listen to the US 'cause we're big and bad?

 

 

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.

We've made anti-Iran statements in the UN. Why do we have a right to do in an international building and not him? If you want to let somebody talk smack, everyone should be allowed to talk smack.

[SD Nihil]

You didn't answer my question. Other countries contribute large sums of money to the UN, though they don't have the actual building on their property, are you suggesting that the UN should listen to the people who pay the most? What if Russia decided to give the UN say, 2x what we give it? Should the UN then listen to them?

 

Yes because we've paid more, have a building for them, given lives, money, and aid. So yes I do.

 

We've made anti-Iran statements in the UN. Why do we have a right to do in an international building and not him? If you want to let somebody talk smack, everyone should be allowed to talk smack.

 

Because we didn't go to Iran and start trash talking Iran on their own soil. He has the nerve to come to the country he wants off the map, trash talk about us on our soil, and talk in a country with jews. Jews that he wants dead.

 

So yeah he can do it elsewhere in my opinion.

[GarfieldJL]

Thing is the United States is a sovereign nation and to be honest how about the UN explain their taking kickbacks from Saddam.

[Inyri]

International building = international soil, not US soil.

 

Saddam is dead, btw. No kickbacks there. If you meant in the past, please include a source.

[GarfieldJL]

International building = international soil, not US soil.

 

Technically the US owns mineral rights.

[SD Nihil]

International building = international soil, not US soil.

 

Saddam is dead, btw. No kickbacks there. If you meant in the past, please include a source.

 

Because it is on our soil We've just allowed them to have it here. And we allow them to have our money.

 

I agree Garfield, yeah oil for food scandal. Garfield please get him some sources. It's late over here and how about you give him a source. After all you seem to be the source guy lately. Many times today you've saved me from having to get a headache looking up stuff. Thanks.

[Web Rider]

I agree Garfield, yeah oil for food scandal. Garfield please get him some sources. It's late over here and how about you give him a source. After all you seem to be the source guy lately. Many times today you've saved me from having to get a headache looking up stuff. Thanks.

please, it's not like we don't have our scandals. Everyone has scandals, it would only NOT have scandals if it didn't exist. Are you suggesting that our own government shouldn't exist because there are scandals?

[SD Nihil]

please, it's not like we don't have our scandals. Everyone has scandals, it would only NOT have scandals if it didn't exist. Are you suggesting that our own government shouldn't exist because there are scandals?

 

I think it was a big reason behind why they didn't want us to go into Iraq. Because they'd lose out in their deal with Saddam.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I think it was a big reason behind why they didn't want us to go into Iraq. Because they'd lose out in their deal with Saddam.

Maybe it's because everyone knew it would turn into a cluster****? Hell, even Dick Cheney said it would turn into a quagmire.

[Rogue Nine]

Because it is on our soil We've just allowed them to have it here. And we allow them to have our money.

Uh, we wanted them there. The UN made the decision as a whole to move to the US, so there were choices between New York and several other cities. New York was chosen, thanks to the Rockefellers.

 

They're here because we wanted them here. We gave money to them because we wanted them here. We agreed to make the UN international soil because we wanted them here. It's not US soil anymore, as it is governed by a different set of laws than those of New York and the rest of the US, all of which we agreed to.

 

Source

[SW01]

On one hand the UN is slated for reputedly showing favourtism towards Pre-invasion Iraq for some consideration, on the other it is slated for not giving America special consideration for its financial contribution. This smacks terribly of double standards.

 

Perhaps the UN didn't want an engagement in Iraq because it is a PEACEKEEPING body? Even after the invasion, the Coalition cannot show anything to justify the invasion. Not a shred of proof. Therefore the war could be called illegal, a wanton attack. Unsurprisingly, the worldwide peacekeeping force frowns on such things.

 

America does not control the UN. The UN is specifically arranged so that a large nation cannot control the Security Council (a representative of a Security Council state cannot become UN Secretary General). It is not a puppet of a superpower.

[Web Rider]

I think it was a big reason behind why they didn't want us to go into Iraq. Because they'd lose out in their deal with Saddam.

 

probably, still, we had a pretty good deal going with Saddam before we decided we didn't like him.

[Tommycat]

On one hand the UN is slated for reputedly showing favourtism towards Pre-invasion Iraq for some consideration, on the other it is slated for not giving America special consideration for its financial contribution. This smacks terribly of double standards.

Well it makes perfect sense... We're just paying the bills while someone else is getting them with sweet talk and candies.

[Astor]

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

 

Not this again. The First World War was practically won by the time you showed up.

 

And you didn't pull us out of the Second, either. Hitler's invasion failed, and we were holding them off pretty well with just Russia as an ally.

[SD Nihil]

When the UN makes a resolution, a warning, and they don't back that up when it's broken that makes the resolutions in my opinion not mean so much.

 

Sorry I didn't respond last night. Some of us have to go to bed to get up because we have things to do the next day.

 

Anyway, I didn't address about why they should be disolved. If it were the oil for food scandal alone I'd say no don't disolve it. But that along with the fact they rarely back the US, follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people. Then yeah I ssaw all together the UN should go the way of the League of Nations.

 

But yes I believe because the UN had their oil for food agreement that's why they didn't want us to go into Iraq because they would lose out in their deal with Saddam.

 

We the US already didn't like Saddam. I don't believe in compromising on our resolutions for the sake ofmoney. To me that's like selling out on your convictions. And since the UN does not support what we feel is good and right that too makes them useless to us. We mean what we say when we go into war. Or at least most of the time, Veitnam being the exception. But the UN in my opinion when it caves on it's resolutions shows it has little to no spine.

 

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us. We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german. So your entitled to believe you didn't believe us, but for example the French we had to save from Hitler's take over.

 

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful. And not everyone like you believes they didn't need the US in WWI and WWII. There are those that are grateful we saved you Europe.

 

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

[SW01]

When the UN makes a resolution, a warning, and they don't back that up when it's broken that makes the resolutions in my opinion not mean so much.

 

I've already shown the results of ignoring a UN resolution above - Resolution 678 which called for all action necessary to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait.

 

along with the fact they rarely back the US, follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people.

 

Again, money or not, it is not the UN's duty to back America, or anyone else, unless they need to be protected from an aggressive state. Also, International law as written by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly establishes the Human Rights enjoyed by most states in the Western world.

 

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us. We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german. So your entitled to believe you didn't believe us, but for example the French we had to save from Hitler's take over.

 

You are forgetting that Britain stood firm against Germany from 1939. Evidence: actions such as the Battle of Britain. Surviving the blitzkrieg. America didn't enter out of 'generosity', it entered after it was directly attacked in 1941. You are also missing the effect of the actions of the French Resistance.

 

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful.

 

Saved countries such as Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq...

 

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

 

Considering Britain was never conquered...

[SW01]

Each nation involved with the UN should not have to ask for permission, so they can defend themselves from a forgeign threat. Period.

 

And so the US was able to respond to the Taleban threat. However, there was no evidence to justify attacking Iraq - which is why the UN refused to pass a resolution sponsoring an assault the way they did with Res. 678. The UN is there to try to prevent war breaking out.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

United Nations should not promote a religion, but they should promote peace across religious bounderies. Anything else is just pathetic.

 

Are you saying that UNICEF, WHO, WFP and countless other UN affiliates shouldn't exist because they're not directly connected to promoting peace on the globe?

[Corinthian]

The overall effect of the United States during World War 2 really isn't germane. Maybe without us the war would have gone in the other direction, maybe not. It's not really relevant to the present discussion, though, is it? I don't think any of us fought during that war, although I may be wrong about that.

 

The concern I have with this is the fact that the U.N. is overstepping it's bounds as a peacekeeping authority by promoting Religion in general and Islam in particular. Maybe I'm paranoid, but isn't the U.N. big on global civil rights, freedom and liberty for all, so on and so forth? Restricting Free Speech in any way, shape, or form is the first step towards the U.N. turning into some kind of fascist overstate.

 

I'm probably paranoid, I doubt it'll get that bad any time soon.

[Yar-El]

And so the US was able to respond to the Taleban threat. However, there was no evidence to justify attacking Iraq - which is why the UN refused to pass a resolution sponsoring an assault the way they did with Res. 678. The UN is there to try to prevent war breaking out.

Going by what our leaders had said at the time was important. If the people in charge come to a critical conclussion, the people living in the United States must have faith that we are being told the truth. We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, and it just turned out that we were lied to by our leaders. Or, we got our information wrong. Lets move forward a few years after the war started. Would it be responsible for us to leave when things started to become chaotic? What type of opinion would people have of the United States if we broke Iraq and then we just left?

 

Within the next several months, our reasons for staying in Iraq will become different from going into Iraq. When the next president comes into office, he will see a different world than first imagined. Yes, we broke Iraq for contraversial reasons. The question that people should ask is - should we leave when innocent people's lives are in danger because of us? If you can answer yes to that question, I would rethink about your terminology of moral responsibility. Once we leave the region for any reason, other than its safe, we are going to put children and families in great danger. How will the world view the United States after that happens?

 

"We want out, we want out!" - Okay lets leave. Children and families die by the hundreds to thousands, and then we will say, "We need to help them! Let go back, lets go back!" Suddenly, the U.N. will be nocking at our door for humanitarian aid. If they are not willing to help now, what makes everyone think they have any set of morals. We need everyone's help in this chaos. If the world doesn't want to help with Iraq's moral delema, I say to hell with them.

 

Several of the members of the United Nations want us to leave for one reason. Since there will be no one watching the oil fields, there will be a free for all in trying to take over them.

[jonathan7]

Split Off-topic threads to here; http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192743 Please continue discussion of WW2 there, please keep this related to the topic of UN and Islam - j7

[Web Rider]

Since 5/6ths of my post had nothing to do with WWII, here's a repost of the UN SPECIFIC parts of it.

Anyway, I didn't address about why they should be disolved. If it were the oil for food scandal alone I'd say no don't disolve it. But that along with the fact they rarely back the US,

Weve repeatedly explained that it's an INTERNATIONAL orginization, and your former argument, that it's because we give them most money, you quickly drop as soon as you realize other countries can give the UN more money if they want to.

 

So why should they listen to the US? Because their building is here? That's a pretty bad argument. That means they should listen to Iran if Iran donated them a building. Because we contribute the most troops? We DONT have to do that you know, we do it because we WANT to, not because we're required. And UN peacekeepers are members from MANY nations who join the UN. Soldiers listen to their commanding officers, not the nations they come from.

 

follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people.

The UN follows through on a LOT of it's resolutions. Not all of them sure. And hey, the US backs a LOT of countries that are oppressive dictatorships. Lets see, Brazil, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, China, yeah, we back, either directly or indirectly, MOST of the nations the UN can do nothing about.

 

But yes I believe because the UN had their oil for food agreement that's why they didn't want us to go into Iraq because they would lose out in their deal with Saddam.

You know why Bush sr didn't take out Saddam? Because we still liked him.

 

We the US already didn't like Saddam. I don't believe in compromising on our resolutions for the sake ofmoney.

That's strange, if we never liked the guy, why did we put him in power?

 

To me that's like selling out on your convictions.

Oh yeah, we're real good at not selling ourselves out for a bigger buck. That'd be why we didn't outsource american jobs, that'd be why our electronics companies never sold their ideas to Japan, that'd be why the financial market isn't in tatters.

 

Oh wait, we did ALL those things in the name of MORE MONEY. Americans surely are paragons of how to make more money at the expense of others.

 

And since the UN does not support what we feel is good and right that too makes them useless to us.

You know, I can use that same argument to justify murder of republicans. So really, you don't want to go down the road of "they're useless because they don't agree with me." Because if you're not careful, you'll be the one on the wrong end of the barrel.

 

We mean what we say when we go into war. Or at least most of the time, Veitnam being the exception. But the UN in my opinion when it caves on it's resolutions shows it has little to no spine.

It's not like we're helping when we veto measures for UN intervention 'cause it would interfere with our desires.

[GarfieldJL]

Last I checked Brazil and Columbia are not dictatorships....

[Web Rider]

Last I checked Brazil and Columbia are not dictatorships....

 

fair enough I checked and realized I read out of the wrong section of my list of where countries rate in democracy according to the Economist(2006).