Close Topic Options

United Nations or USA's Nations? - Page 15

QUOTE

It is beneficial to the US to have no 'enemy' countries in the Western Hemisphere. Could you imagine if Mexico was taken over by a Middle Eastern Nation or Communist regime?

True enough, but I don't think it that big a concern.  I do not believe we would stand by and allow Mexico or Canada to be invaded by someone.  I don't think we  need the UN in order to make a decision to help.  We can make a decision to help all by ourselves if we feel it necessary or prudent.  

Where was the UN when Russia was planning to install missiles in Cuba pointed at the US back in the 60's?  Seems to me we had to resolve that on our own.

Nations USAs Nations United

That is the whole point my dear. by helping the little countries you are indirectly saying, 'We will give you help so you do not bring the communist and others in to help you instead'. Not everything is done by a gun and brash statements. Think of it as prevention rather than cure. Usually the US waits for the 'cure' as in war, rather than the 'prevention' as in listening to the so called 'little guys'.

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

I think this is VERY unfair.  Let's look at where the US has been involved in war over the last 100 years.

1. WW1 - The US stayed out of it for a very long time.  The things that brought us into it are suspicious, but the Allies really needed us.

2. WWII - The US stayed out of it for a very long time.  The attack on Pearl Harbor may be suspicious, but Europe really needed us.  And we paid, in blood, to help them.

3. Korea - A UN conflict.  There are a lot of people who say that Korea was a test, by the "Illuminati" or somesuch, to test out new weapons platforms.  I don't know and don't care.  Again, we paid a huge bill, in blood.

4. Vietnam - Was the UN involved?  I am not sure.  I am sure that as corrupt as the South Vietnamese government was, the victorious North was/is FAR worse.  North Korea and Cambodia were the only worse among the small countries.  Very suspicious circumstances abound concerning Vietnam, including political interference that stopped us from ending it, several times.

5. Gulf War I - We went to the aid of an ally.  UN concurred.  We then pretty much left the region alone.

6. Somalia - Pizza delivery with a twist.  Politics interfered with the military mission, and it ended in a debacle.

7. Kosovo - NATO.  UN had a hands-off approach to it.  Our "president" got us involved.  We had absolutly NO business being involved in any way.  Nobody involved was even an ally, unlike Vietnam.  Most conservatives in the US protested it.  It was handled extremely poorly, and is still going on now.

8. Gulf War II - Still effectively going on.  Strong public support, because of 9/11.  Despite what the mainstream keeps saying, there were WMDs there.  Hussein DID train and support Al-Quaida.  We don't know what the ultimate effects will be in the region, but neighboring states have got to be rethinking their support for terrorists.

Now, consider some of the other things going on in the world at the same time, that the US has NOT been involved in:
1. Russian Revolution (well over 20 million dead)

2. China (well over 20 million dead, and continuing to this day)

3. Chad

4. Rwanda (UN had a presence, just stood by and watched)

5. Yugoslavia

6. East Germany, Hungary, etc. (millions dead)

7. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia

8. Frequent violent revolutions throughout Latin America

9. Iraq

10. Iran

11. Iraq/Iran

12. Zimbabwe

13. Somalia

14. Sudan

This is just a small sampling.

So, among all these, where could the US have "prevented" any of it by "listening" to the small guys?  Yes, we could have stayed out of Vietnam.  We could have definitely stayed out of Korea, Kosovo, and Somalia.  Where did the UN actually reduce conflict?

The UN has voted Syria, one of the worst abusers, to the Human Rights council (or is it Libya? - does it matter?).  The UN consistently pushes an oppressive socialist agenda upon all.

Now, how has the US helped the "little countries"?  What a question!  Many of us on the Right keep urging the government to STOP! spending our taxes on all the "little countries".  We give more to the "little countries" than all other sources combined!  We give more to the UN than any 5 other countries you can name.  I think we give more than the entire EU combined (I could easily be wrong, but it would be close).

Shall we discuss comparative morality as well?

NightHawk

Offtopic but, For the second time, the forums logged me out before I could finish a message.  When I tried to post it, I was sent to the login screen.  Fortunately, I was able to figure out a way to recover my post before it was lost.  What a pain.

Edited: tenaheff on 16th Dec, 2003 - 4:17pm

Page 15 Nations USAs Nations United

You are too 'close' (as in distance) to the US to see it from my stand point. My point again is not about your investment in other countries. The US never does anything unless it will benefit the US in some way. The same goes for any other country. What you have to look at is what will the US get out of it, even with your list above. Again, this thread is about who is in control of the UN. Not who the US died for or what the US has done or not done for others... that is another thread. Keep on the topic and you will not lose sight.

Why do you need to go back to WW I? There is a lot more going on now all at the same time all over the world. I have lived many places and known many peoples, I see the views of others inside and outside of the US. Those the US consider as not 'significant' in the world are the 'little guys'. Look at Afghanistan for example. Why did the US go there? They were interested in the people there or fearful of the Russians spreading? Why are they there now? That is a whole next issue, again straying from the topic. If you wish start a new thread, entitle it, 'USA peacemaker or warmonger?' or maybe 'USA does it need the world?' (no, I am not being sarcastic, who said politics was an easy issue?) By the way, to make it clear... I am not anti-American, I am anti-hate, anti-war (that is not absolute), and anti-children in pain. I guess if I were in the US I would be one of those walking on top Capitol Hill?

Offtopic but, For security reasons every three days you will be asked to login, if it is less than that you may want to check your browser's security settings. If it is too high then it will not record cookies necessary for you to stay on here.

Edited: tenaheff on 16th Dec, 2003 - 4:18pm

Nations USAs Nations United

QUOTE

Maybe we appear as bullies, but I think it is just that the greatest contributor, etc. has certain powers given them because of it.  Works like this in the business world as well.  Biggest clients get special attention.

Well is a good lesson for the US to learn that money sometimes doesn't mean everything...not always you can get what you want just for being a hmmm...'big client'

QUOTE

Now, how has the US helped the "little countries"?  What a question!  Many of us on the Right keep urging the government to STOP! spending our taxes on all the "little countries".  We give more to the "little countries" than all other sources combined!  We give more to the UN than any 5 other countries you can name.  I think we give more than the entire EU combined (I could easily be wrong, but it would be close).

But you never wonder why the USA keeps helping this 'little countries'? and please...don't tell me because they have a genuine desire to help because this is politics not welfare committee of the Church. The US gives something and they get always something in return. They never give anything for free, and I'm not saying is wrong. Any country in the right mind would do the same thing. Just the hypocrite tone of the whole issue makes me sick...you know ' we are trying to work on that other people kind enjoy the blessings and freedom we enjoy in the United States of America'...those kind of things makes me angry. This kind of speech because I don't but it, everything is for a reason.
Now going back to the original question before the UN said no to the US in attacking Iraq there was not a huge problem with them but of course since they said no the whole issue changes. It seem like recently the old fellows from the UN decided to take things seriously and decide to resolve issues based on what needs to be done rather than making favouritism to a country just because put money on it.

United Nations or USA's Nations?

QUOTE

Now, consider some of the other things going on in the world at the same time, that the US has NOT been involved in: [/offtopic]

Conspicuosly absent from the list is Israel / Palestine. Oops, that will be in another thread.  ;)
Then again, to be fair ..... where is the UN too, in this conflict? How come no one went in as peacekeeping force???

United Nations USA's Nations - Page 15

QUOTE

Conspicuosly absent from the list is Israel / Palestine.

Actually, I left it off on purpose, trying to come up with the slightly obscure issues.

But, to bring this back to the topic at hand, I think that the Israel/Palestine issue is one of the greatest examples that the US doesn't control the UN.  The US is, by far, the best "friend" that Israel has.  Our "friendship" is based on the idea that support for one republic in the region can, hopefully, increase stability and "democracy" in the region.  Yet the UN consistently votes against Israel in every case.  Only the US veto - ONLY the US veto ever stops the UN.  The UN supported "human rights" commissions always condemn Israel for its actions, but never say a word against the Palestinian Arabs, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Libya, or Iran, all of whom are much worse human rights violators than Israel, and all of whom are on the US human rights lists.

Yes, the US has the money and the resources to get our way, sometimes.  But not always, and it seems that it is happening less and less frequently.

So, my answer to the topic question is, the UN is definitely NOT controlled by the US.  Influenced, yes, controlled, no.

NightHawk

United Nations USA's Nations Politics Business Civil & History - Page 15

Yes, I agree with that, however, I am werry of their stance on acting with or without the UN. Maybe this will lead to a future problem for which I am not party or aware of at the moment.