...and even sit on the Human Rights Commission? Where does this leave the charter of the U.N. (and the League of Nations which preceded it)?
2006-09-21 07:45:38 · 14 answers · asked by flowerchilde 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, and what I've seen and heard about the U.N. in the past few years, it need to be done away with all together. I'm sure something a lot better could replace it.
2006-09-21 07:53:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
United nations is a peace keeping BETWEEN countries not so much in the actual country alone. I think it's important to show love to these countries that seem to be full of hate. Perhaps by sitting in such a Commission they will learn something. It takes many many years to change something that has been there for all time. I think these organizations are a means to help current situations in the world. If we kick off these leaders we are not only asking for more trouble we are doing exactly what being in the united nations promises not to do. That is to start a war. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. Make love not war flower child.
2006-09-21 15:22:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that nations should be left out of it, but the UN should be regulating it's own members better...placing sanctions or more on even the largest and mort powerful nations. I also think that no country should have veto power.
I strongly feel that rogue nations who deny human rights or invade other countries should be forced to change. There should be no exceptions to this just because of the size, power, or wealth of the nation either. The US should be forced to stop the worldwide terrorism, invasion of sovereign nations, and human rights violations!
I don't think that member nations that are being sanctioned for such things should sit on any councils, however.
2006-09-21 14:52:04 · answer #3 · answered by corwynwulfhund 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Be a bunch of empty seats!!!! But by disallowing these countries to be part of the UN is no different then one country deciding how another country should be.. The USA and Europe are the only "free" countries .. Which "rights " should we choose for the rest of the worlds people??? Although your principle is a good one , it would not work.. By disallowing these countries votes and input you would be further ostracizing the very people who exist under these dictators..Then you remove all chance of any Human Right intervention..
2006-09-21 15:03:07 · answer #4 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the UN is a racist useless org and should be done away with
Call write or e-mail your reps get the USA out of the UN and the UN out of the USA
2006-09-21 14:49:14 · answer #5 · answered by buzzy360comecme 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and the way it is going I wish the USA would get out of it, and cut off the funding of it. I think the UN ( as it is now ) is as worthless as teats on a boar hog.
2006-09-21 14:51:50 · answer #6 · answered by G3 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Kick the UN out of the USA!
2006-09-21 14:58:21 · answer #7 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At least with them sitting there we can talk to them about it.
Would it fix their human rights violations by their going away and sulking?
2006-09-21 14:50:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Humanist and Jim W admire Chavez and Castro. does this make them commies?
2006-09-21 14:53:32 · answer #9 · answered by S H I R A Z 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know who you are talking about for sure but I suspect it is China and Russia.
Don't you think it's better to have them in the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in?
2006-09-21 14:49:01 · answer #10 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋