The UN are nothing man, there just a B.S image the US created. You think if the UN was a real power, anything would of happened in summer 2006?
I agree that the UN has the ability to do good when it comes to getting medicine and food to the poor, removing land mines and things like that but its goal of maintaining peace it has failed at.
Argh, listen to what I say then!! I said if UN changes they can work well in the future. Changes , Changes . Dont you understand that word or do you just refuse to read it?
Ya Ya I get what your saying, but the UN can't change.. it's not possible. It' is OWWWWWWNNNEED BY THE UUUUUSSSSAAAAA... Understand?
Its not owned by the USA, the USA pays 22% of its budget and John D Rockefellers son gave them the land to use.
If it was owned by the USA how do you work out that UN gave USA their endorsement to get involved in Iraq. Or hang on a second: UN was AGAINST USA going into Iraq. I say let facts speak.
Here's my answer from another thread: I'm sure there are many reasons for attacking or invading Iraq (some told to the public, some not), but I find that the credibility of this administration has worn quite thin. The original "reasons" for going there turned out to be false. If I'm not mistaken, I believe the latest reason is to remove a bad government and free a repressed people and to bring "stability" to the region. First of all, what right do we have to displace any leadership? Are we the world's police force? How about sealing up our own porous borders instead of jumping from one suspected "terrorist funder" after another. What about Libia, China, Russia and many other countries directly or indirectly selling arms and conducting training. Much of the arms get funneled to non-desireable groups anyway. Second, what about all the other countries in the world with bad leadership? Why didn't we help in Rwanda or stay longer in Somalia? Third, I'd say we've done anything BUT bring stability to the region. This is instability is spreading to other countries. If we do attack Iran, then where does this end? Syria? North Korea? Eventually a big country like China will jump in...and not on our side. Ironically, the very reason for attacking Iran is because we "suspect" they'd use nuclear weapons. So far, we're the only ones that has used them. To stop WW II? The war was effectively over, Japan was defeated. What about Pakistan and its nuclear weapons? Oh wait, they're an ally (sort of). I find it funny how we'll use tough guy tactics as long as we feel like we'd win, but when it comes to the threats of Russia or China, we threaten an embargo at most. * Russia has a huge amount of nuclear weapons, but has a very unstable government, a fragile economy (so could be a major threat), and yet we walk on egg shells around them. * China owns much of the US property, owns a billions and billions in US currency, has a trade surplus on the US, and has a formidable military. We have a strategic concern with them for all of these reasons, but the fact that they sell dangerous toys, are involved in trademark infringement and piracy, continue to threaten Taiwan and Japan, and have a questainable human rights practice. Egg shells again. As a side note, when I was in the US Navy, the Stark was damaged heavily by two Exocet missiles. These missiles were sold to Iraq by the US, while the same leadership was in place in Iraq, as when we started this war. Same with the chemical weapons, mines, and other technology. What about the School of the Americas. Remember that? Again, mining the harbor of Managua? Act of war by anyones book. Yet, it's ok for us. Things are not black and white. I know that to fix a problem we sometimes use questionable means before it gets bigger. Often the intelligence community practices "black hat" tactics to keep our view of the world rosie and our ability to buy that big 52 inch flat screen tv a reality. When it comes to this, there is very little moral ground to stand on; bleeding heart liberal and extremist conservatives included. All of you on either side of the isle need to keep that in mind.
I have to call bullshit. For one, if you had lived under a comunist regieme, you would know that russia did 2/3rds of the fighting against the nazis and Hitler had the vast majority of his forces facing the russians, (who still took Berlin, apart from the paradrop by the allies) For seconds, your IP number says otherwise. First off, I agree that the UN is to bureaucratic, and I am not the biggest fan of them, but at least they follow international law and don't just invade whoever they feel like. Currently the USA is fighting two wars of occupation at the same time. The only other countries to do that in modern history are Communist Russia, and Nazi Germany. Plus there are a LOT of other things wrong with the current republican regime.
Its a great OP Webdevelop: The US is not the world police. There is no such thing currently, nor has there ever been. The US does step up in areas where it deems it has critical interests or is defending critical interests of some allies. While the US has about a 50 year history of regarding the middle east it is not always the first to step up. When was the Suez Canal Battle- 1956? Britain and France allied with Israel against Egypt and the US (Eisenhower was president) was pissed about that and worked to stop that effort. The US has basically done nothing militarily in any part of Africa during this decade/century. While I grudgingly supported the effort to go into Iraq back in 2003, I think I was hoodwinked by the Bush administration on that issue. (I think they oversold the real issue about wmd). (But who outside of the Bush administration really knows what they really knew). Since then most actions in Iraq have been miserable for the US's interests. Since then I believe the US's ability to step up on other and future perceived problems and threats are seriously limited.