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

all right. heres how my questions work. they do not give my stance or anything, I'm going to provide 3 valid points for each side (con. and liberal) and whichever side you choose to side with refute the opposite points. I. E. if i said 1. i like watermelon because then you would say no, you do not like watermelon because
PLEASE do not say "i agree with these points!" unless you are also refuting the opposite side's points. thank you!
All right...side that supports the change: Pro
1. UN is specifically designed to combat injustice in the world, such as terrorism
2. UN is engineered in such a way that it can communicate with terrorist countries, negotiate.
3. US is not powerful enough to stand alone against terrorism
Con: (us should take this over)
1. UN is corrupted in that it includes these terrorist countries... they're not going to support the combat of terrorism
2. UN has no standing army to "combat" terrorism
3. UN is still trying to decide the definition of terrorism too passive!!

2007-02-16 06:25:57 · 5 answers · asked by Neferiel 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

FOR ****'S SAKE!! Do. Not. Just. Post. Your. Opinions. Please. Listen. To. The. Instructions. Or. I. will. Have. To. kill. You. (Yes, over the net)
Hopefully. Me. talking. this. slow. helps. you. stupid. people.

2007-02-16 06:51:43 · update #1

5 answers

1. UN is specifically designed to combat injustice in the world, such as terrorism
The UN has no independent military. UN forces operate at the pleasure & whim of national leaders. They have no intelligence capability (or no intelligence at all). Any of the 5 permanent members of the security council can veto any action.

2. UN is engineered in such a way that it can communicate with terrorist countries, negotiate.
Comunicating with terrorists is a waste of time. You can't negotiate with people whose only goal is to kill you.

3. US is not powerful enough to stand alone against terrorism
We are still the nmost powerfull country in the world. Sure we need (& get) help, but the UB is powerless.

2007-02-16 06:33:52 · answer #1 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 15 0

First of all I don't like your rules, but I will try to live to your requirements. You should feel special because I am not always this easy to get along with.
Pro question 1. Nobody can prove to me how the UN is designed to combat injustice. They can't make and usually don't make moves until most of the issue is put to bed or a direction has been made evident by another nation.
Pro Q2 The UN has in it's membership terrorist nations and does't step up to the issue.
Pro Q3 The US is definitely powerful enough but at a great cost to the citizen of the country, both in lives lost and MONEY!
Con Q1 Answered already!
Con Q2 Bingo!! You hit the jackpot!! how the hell is the UN going to dictate to other countries to take stake in the problem. Hasn't happened yet and likely will never happen. This is reality.
Con Q3 If the UN can't decide the definition of terrorism then how could you ever expect a positive position from that organization?

Please keep in mind that the UN is as corrupt an organization as they come with International influence on whatever they say. In my humble opinion we should pull out of the UN but then again if we do then how can we control the situation?

2007-02-16 14:42:40 · answer #2 · answered by TanTom 3 · 0 1

The UN did such a great job in Srebrenica. UN troops were under strict orders not to engage. So they sat there outside the town with their binoculars and watched ethnic cleansing while the UN troops were fired upon.

Meanwhile young boys and men of the town were being killed and taken away to be killed in a mass grave.

The UN can't get countries to go to Darfur. The US has tried to take the lead on Darfur. George Bush is the first to call it a Genocide, but look at the resolutions and see who votes against these measures.

Why would you want to negotiate with terrorist countries or organizations? The UN tried 17 times over 12 years to get Saddam to come clean about WMD. He thwarted UN weapons inspectors under Clinton.

2007-02-16 14:38:41 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

No, the U.N. is a group of pu-ssees who would loose every fight they got into. I say the next time they vote against the U.S. we kick their asses out of America! I'm sick and and tired of seeing their illegally parked cars with those diplomat plates, all over Manhatten, when everytime I park illegally my car gets towed! Then they could sell the U.N. headquaters to someone who will pay property tax.

2007-02-16 14:47:34 · answer #4 · answered by Tim'sSO 4 · 0 1

the un is an incompetent org that hould be dissolved.

2007-02-16 14:29:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers