The United Nations is pointless and idiotic, if I say so myself. All they do is slow down and disrupt EVERYTHING. You may have heard of Mercenaries, or hired soldiers, that were employed in Sierra Leone and other African countries. They were eradicating the RUF and other rebel factions, saving a lot of villages and stuff. Going good, getting rid of the violence through violence. What does the U.N. do? They try to imprison the soldiers for hire, and after months, send their own guys in. This result sin heavy losses for the United Nations peacekeeping forces, causing no help. And what happens to Sierra Leone residents? Their death toll numbers 800,000.
So, after no help at all and ruining the good stuff that was happening, they abandon the people of Africa back to their own slaughter. Next, here comes the war on terror. Private companies send in their soldiers, and the U.N. brings them right back for prosecution. Whats the excuse? Private soldiers are not a military, so they cannot perform militaristic duties. Plus, as many officials say, if the terrorists catch these guys, the terrorists don't have to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. What they don't realize, the terrorists don't care about the Geneva Convention.
But wait, theres more!
So here comes Iraq, and the U.S. begins to plan the Falleujah Offensive. They begin going in and eradicating the resistance, what does the U.N. do? They force the military to pull out. Giving the resistance three months to fortify their positions and hide in the city. After much deliberation, the U.N. allows US soldiers back into Falleujah, resulting in more Us casualties than necessary.
So, in the end, I believe the U.N. shouldn't exist. Any argument?
The United Nations is pointless and idiotic, if I say so myself. All they do is slow down and disrupt EVERYTHING. You may have heard of Mercenaries, or hired soldiers, that were employed in Sierra Leone and other African countries. They were eradicating the RUF and other rebel factions, saving a lot of villages and stuff. Going good, getting rid of the violence through violence. What does the U.N. do? They try to imprison the soldiers for hire, and after months, send their own guys in. This result sin heavy losses for the United Nations peacekeeping forces, causing no help. And what happens to Sierra Leone residents? Their death toll numbers 800,000.
So, after no help at all and ruining the good stuff that was happening, they abandon the people of Africa back to their own slaughter. Next, here comes the war on terror. Private companies send in their soldiers, and the U.N. brings them right back for prosecution. Whats the excuse? Private soldiers are not a military, so they cannot perform militaristic duties. Plus, as many officials say, if the terrorists catch these guys, the terrorists don't have to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. What they don't realize, the terrorists don't care about the Geneva Convention.
But wait, theres more!
So here comes Iraq, and the U.S. begins to plan the Falleujah Offensive. They begin going in and eradicating the resistance, what does the U.N. do? They force the military to pull out. Giving the resistance three months to fortify their positions and hide in the city. After much deliberation, the U.N. allows US soldiers back into Falleujah, resulting in more Us casualties than necessary.
So, in the end, I believe the U.N. shouldn't exist. Any argument?
I'd just like to say that I love everything Zack just said in that post!
Though the UN has gotten in the way sometimes, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Is it right for a private party to send a hired military type force into another country? Is it right for one country to take up action against another country? I don't agree with all of the things the UN has done, but at the same time if there isn't some sort of an agreement or pact between as many countries as we can get then there would be no playing nice. People with money, private organizations, etc shouldn't be allowed to send people into any country to fight violence with violence for any reason at all. If anyone could do that then what is stopping people from sending hired hands into the US? Oh wait, that's pretty close to what happened on 9/11. They didn't fight violence with violence, they came into a country privately to cause problems. The UN does what they can to keep people around the world to keep as much peace as they can.
Though the UN has gotten in the way sometimes, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong? Is it right for a private party to send a hired military type force into another country? Is it right for one country to take up action against another country? I don't agree with all of the things the UN has done, but at the same time if there isn't some sort of an agreement or pact between as many countries as we can get then there would be no playing nice. People with money, private organizations, etc shouldn't be allowed to send people into any country to fight violence with violence for any reason at all. If anyone could do that then what is stopping people from sending hired hands into the US? Oh wait, that's pretty close to what happened on 9/11. They didn't fight violence with violence, they came into a country privately to cause problems. The UN does what they can to keep people around the world to keep as much peace as they can.
Right, but at the same time, the U.N. is made up of many nations that are not that friendly. For example, they do more harm than good. They have videotapes of UN soldiers raping women in the villages, as opposed to the soldiers sent in to countries like that of Eastern Outcomes. Theres no negotiating with a faction such as the RUF, theres no other way but to completely extinguish their rule on the country. So there is no other measure except for counter violence, small unit actions made up of ex special forces from militarys around the world. Even their tactics are better than that of the UN. The UN comes in with tanks and battalions, only resulting in uncoordinated fighting and certain rules. They do more damage than good. With soldiers like that of Eastern Outcomes, they are sent in there to kill the rebels, and get rid of the dictators. The rebels, who are chopping up and cooking kids around the age of seven, deserve to be removed from the area. And its these guys that are looked at as heroes, not the United Nations.
Its these same private forces that are providing a lot of the security in the Iraq and in Afghanistan these days, but when it comes to non profit areas like that, as opposed to the diamond mines in Sierra Leone, the UN has no problem with them. In simpler words, the UN doesn't want those companies near profitable items such as diamonds, when they would much rather have their forces in there. Same thing happened with the Serbian conflict. When there is money involved, the UN prosecutes the private soldiers, when its something like Iraq they mysteriously don't care.
The UN is a load of crock, let other nations join, but we should pull out. For example, the Irish are involved in peace keeping missions, and that's good for them, but the UN is often an excuse for the US to stick its nose into other countries' business ie. Iraq, Somalia, and maybe even Pakistan or Iran soon.
Jesus H. Christ.
No its not an excuse for the U.S. to stick its nose in business not theirs, most of the time the peacekeeping missions conducted by the U.N. has nothing to do with the U.S. Nor is it back by the United States.
Relax, Zack. ireland88 is just one of those people that just on the bandwagon to bash the US for EVERYTHING. A perfect example of Liberal politics right there. No disrespect, ireland88. But you can't say stuff like that. The US doesn't control the U.N. They may not listen, like in 2003, but they don't control it.
First off, I never said anything about the US controlling the UN, I said the UN is a load of crock because they send armed peacekeeping missions but do absolutely NOTHING to save people by use of arms, ever heard of Rwanda, folks?
Secondly, the UN said that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the free world, which he didn't, and provided the perfect area for scams such as the "oil-for-food" debacle.
Thirdly, how does saying we need to pull out of the UN LIBERAL? Or bashing the US??? Supporting US individuality and sovereignty is PRO AMERICAN, not "liberal" politics, liberals pandered to the UN, such as in Somalia under the Clinton administration, and what happened? We got shot up like in Iraq. I suggest some individuals look and read at the actions and policies of Taft and Reagan, both of whom were for pulling the US out of the United Nations and BOTH were conservative thinkers... maybe that would enlighten everyone on the role the UN plays in American policy.
The UN is a load of crock, let other nations join, but we should pull out. For example, the Irish are involved in peace keeping missions, and that's good for them, but the UN is often an excuse for the US to stick its nose into other countries' business ie. Iraq, Somalia, and maybe even Pakistan or Iran soon.
Sounds pretty liberal to me.
The UN is a load of crock, let other nations join, but we should pull out. For example, the Irish are involved in peace keeping missions, and that's good for them, but the UN is often an excuse for the US to stick its nose into other countries' business ie. Iraq, Somalia, and maybe even Pakistan or Iran soon.
Sounds pretty liberal to me.
Agreed. And I'm NOT pro-UN. I think it does more harm then good. And I think all the money that Canada, the US, the UK and other countries pour into it is needless and a complete waste. If countries choose to help others, fine! But you don't need a council for it!
I'm upset that you said, and as Zack pointed out, you DID, that the US was a controlling force of the UN. Not what you are saying about the UN itself...