English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Now the Middle East "cease fire" that the UN created is worthless. Might as well throw it away. I predict around the end of the year or early next year back to the fighting. But why does anyone listen to the UN anyways? Can anyone give me an example of when the UN did what it was supposed to do?
It's easy to forget how Kerry during his bid in 2004, kept preaching we need to go to the UN for Iraq. Now with all the UN's failures, why would anything change if we did go to the UN for Iraq?
I've said this saying to my friends for a while now, "When faced with facts Democrats try to distract."
So why should we have faith in the UN or Democrats?

2006-08-24 14:11:34 · 9 answers · asked by John 3 in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

The Democrats don't believe in the UN either, ever heard of Kosovo? A Democratic president (Clinton) sent troops into a foreign country without advice, consent or popular opinion.

So what are the Democrats crying about?

The answer to the question is we shouldn't have ANY faith in Democrats OR the worthless UN.

2006-08-24 14:19:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The UN is nothing more or less than a framework upon which the nations of the world can work together to accomplish common goals. The Lebanon ceasefire is going to fail not because it's a UN ceasefire, but because it is a joint venture between the US and France. Since France isnt sending the troops they agreed to send (I think they sent something like 50 to start with), and the US has no one to send (and who'd be crazy enough to think US troops in Lebanon is a good idea?) there's no one over there to enforce the ceasefire.

BTW, the last ceasefire and disarmament of Hezbollah failed because the Bushies purposely decided not to force Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah and allowed elections which included Hezbollah as a political party. Why did bush do this? Because that agreement was reached by Clinton, and bush simply wouldnt finish any good thing Clinton started.

Now, I know a 12-year-old like yourself only mimics what he hears, but maybe you should shut your yap until you know what the **** your talking about.

2006-08-24 21:21:34 · answer #2 · answered by lucyanddesi 5 · 1 1

Neither.

The UN might mean well, but it is toothless and not respected, and as such does not have the resources necessary to carry through with much of anything except humanitarian aid. And there are more efficient charity organizations doing that already.

And while the Democratic party may not be toothless, they are so riddled with arthritis that they fallen and they can't get up. They have no coherent platform and no road-map to implement the few random ideas that their party standard-bearers present.

2006-08-24 21:13:21 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 1

We should never compromise our own security by relying on an outside entity. The UN is by nature a world political power. Unfortunately, they bumble around trying to pacify rather than rectify. Generally the Dems pacify also - they don't realize that terrorist don't care what we do - they've already decided what they're going to do.

2006-08-24 21:20:56 · answer #4 · answered by Mike K 3 · 0 0

If the U.N. is weak, it is in large part because we want it to be weak. Don't forget - we are part of the U.N., and so bear part of the responsibility for its condition.

The reason we should respect it, though, has nothing to do with its military power, but rather because it represent the very ideal that underlies our nation. We are a county that believes decisions should be made through the choice of the people. We do not have single-combat for president, but rather allow everyone to participate in that process.

"Strength" is not the root of good. If you believe that, then you must find no fault with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or Hitler's invasion of Poland. No - in a democracy we believe that all people, strong and weak, should have a voice in events.

To suggest that we should ignore the U.N. because it is weak is to suggest that democracy itself is flawed, and I for one believe in this nation.

2006-08-24 21:27:55 · answer #5 · answered by Steve 6 · 0 1

They are both corrupt, they are both a group of self serving liars, and both need to be held accountable for the damage they have caused this country!

2006-08-24 21:15:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Let them waddle in UN affairs. It's why republicans keep winning elections.

2006-08-24 21:14:40 · answer #7 · answered by Pancakes 7 · 0 2

You SHOULDN'T!!!!!! Especially the Democraps!

2006-08-24 21:14:43 · answer #8 · answered by Oki Bound 3 · 1 1

You are a tool

2006-08-24 21:14:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers