Ok, I been thinking that a country who can not defend itself from being taken over from terrorists should not be entitled to keep its own country. I know im gonna get flamed for this but shouldnt a UN Governing body be implemented if not for the safety of the said countrys citizens but also for the safety of other neighboring countries?
2006-08-28 06:25:57 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No country wants to give up control of it's government to an outside agency. The world is getting smaller and we need a world organization to deal with problems that affect more than one country. In this country some people fear the UN taking over; so we have to protect the right of people to choose their own government, but have some way of dealing with problems like you mention above. Like with the CIA and FBI it's a matter of determining who should be in charge of what; jurisdiction.
2006-08-28 06:33:57 · answer #1 · answered by doktordbel 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh, I so agree. Good luck trying to get anyone in the world to help any US citizen unless they are forced to.
Our governing style rightly or wrongly has pretty much made the world hate us. It's tough being the big dog on the block, so some of this is to be expected but it makes little or no sense to me, that we bomb and invade a country like Iraq or Afgan. sending our troop over there ...worrying about terrorists ...and the just ignore twenty million illeglas that jump the border. It's insane really.
How much bull do they expect us to take?
To me it spell out fraud, corrruption and special interests over that of the regular guy citizen. It's about money for the wealthy biz owners and probubly oil money too.
As far as terrorists here in the US it appears that along with many rights or freedoms citzens have had here that have gone away, we are not experiencing terror attacks. But then this situation has just started. I don't think any of us alive today will see the end of this in our lifetime. In my opinion, this is due to the style that Democracy and Captitalism forced out upon the world has had. To our countries detriment.
2006-08-28 06:39:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't have a great track record of defending ourselves from terrorists either. 9/11 was the second successful attack on the trade towers, then there was the Oklahoma city bombing in between. Should we disband as a nation? I haven't heard Canada or Mexico complain about it. Should Great Britain disband? They've been attacked recently too, not to mention the years that the IRA was active.
I firmly believe that attacking Hezbollah directly is a better answer than attacking Lebanon around them. Israel was on the right track, the just needed some backup that was sadly unavailable because our president already over committed our troops.
2006-08-28 06:34:26 · answer #3 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But terrorist organizations are shadowy and opaque by nature. How would one qualify when a country was being 'taken over' by a terrorist organization? Also, it simply wouldnt make sense to grant a foreign body, which wasnt democratically elected, the right to rule a nation. It'd only exacerbate the situation.
2006-08-28 06:33:20 · answer #4 · answered by art10191 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That situation could occur in any country. Should the United Nations rule the world, especially since it is based in New York along with the Wold Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I would hope not.
2006-08-28 06:36:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because they're a cult who calls themselves christian yet do not position self belief in God the son or holy spirit. there is not any reasoning with a cult, they're taught to ignore the instructions and in ordinary words examine a bastardized verson of the bible which has bumped off and adjusted the be conscious. Any loose questioning generic individual couldn't swallow the chum they serve and the jevohas prepare that in case you do not keep on with them, you're evil. No courting could live to inform the tale that.
2016-12-05 19:42:05 · answer #6 · answered by lockey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can see your point.
However, the true power of a government comes from the people of that country itself
Unless that government is a menace to other countries, it is the responsibility of the people of that country to replace it's own government, not the responsibility of outside influences to do it for them.
2006-08-28 06:29:28 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. It's all about conquest. If it can be overtaken, then so be it. It's not the UN's job to destroy conquest but to join forces against a world evil...kinda like against Hitler. Otherwise, it's only the natural course of world history to conquer weaker nations and assume them as part of the winning side.
2006-08-28 06:29:30 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UN needs to be disbanded altogether. At the very least, we need to get out of it and kick them out of NY into one of their other countries. We are tired of paying for it.
2006-08-28 06:29:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ummm...when the US was established, we almost didn't make it a few times...
How can you not give a fledgeling gov a chance?? You may have a strong supportive gov in a little while to hold your back!
2006-08-28 06:34:53 · answer #10 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋