UN

Should the United States withdraw from the UN?

  • I'm American -- yes

    Votes: 11 91.7%

  • I'm American -- no

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • I'm not American -- yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm not American -- no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm American -- not yet

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I'm not American -- not yet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Luis G said:
More about the steel, the EU has the approval of the WTO to apply sanctions to the US http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2255104.stm

The US didn't ask for permission to put taxes on the steel, Europe did.
Click to expand...
Luis, where the FUCK is it written down that we need to ask permission from the world how to govern ourselves?
 
unisnaziracism_header.gif


The United States Should Withdraw From the United Nations[/siz]
By David Holcberg

This month the US was voted out of the UN Human Rights Commission. Rights violating nations such as Sudan, Libya, and Syria, were voted in. What does this vote tell us about the nature of the UN and of its members?

Well, it clearly tells us that most of the UN's members don't care for human rights. If they did, they would not have elected savage dictatorships and terrorist sponsors to oversee and protect human rights in the world. Nobody that really cared about hens would put the foxes in charge of the hen-house. According to the UN itself, Sudan's government is directly responsible for "displacement, starvation, and killing of civilians, looting and burning of villages, abductions and rape." Libya and Syria have been known sponsors of international terrorism for over three decades. Sierra Leone, another country voted in, has been recently denounced by the UN for committing "abuses of human rights … with impunity, in particular atrocities against civilians …including executions, mutilations, abductions, arbitrary detention, forced labor, looting, [and] killings of journalists." [For modern examples of slavery in Africa see Walter Williams' article "Black Slavery is Alive in 2001"--Editor]

But we shouldn't really be surprised with the vote's outcome. After all, Russia has been in the UN Human Rights Commission since its creation, in 1947, despite having been a totalitarian state where human rights were non-existent for most of that time. How then could the commission have had any credibility at all?

The answer is that the presence of the US gave the UN Human Rights Commission credibility. Now that the US is gone, it has none.

Americans should realize this fact and start asking themselves a couple of questions. For instance: Should the US have been sitting in the commission with communist Russia for almost half a century? And more importantly, should the US still be a member in the UN alongside dozens of dictatorships that have no respect for human rights? Why should the US grant these nations the legitimacy that they do not deserve?

The reason why the US accepts these dictatorial nations is because America has partially fallen for the false ideologies of self-determination and multiculturalism. Self-determination holds that every nation has the right to determine its own form of government, regardless of how brutal or unjust that form might be. Multiculturalism holds that all nations and cultures are equally moral and should be treated with respect regardless of their particular nature. But in reality, not all forms of government are equally just and not all nations are morally equal. Most nations, in fact, are hopelessly unjust and immoral, and should not be granted any recognition or respect, but only strict condemnation.

The US should stop financing and supporting an organization choke-full of dictatorships like the UN. The US presence in the UN serves only to legitimize these tyrannies' existence and their continuous abuse of human rights. To sanction evil is as impractical as it is immoral. The US cannot hope to protect human rights by associating itself with human rights violators.

Of course, the US should continue to pursue a foreign policy that supports human rights, but should do so on its own, or in alliance with other nations that actually share its values. If America really cares about human rights, the best thing it can do is to take this opportunity and withdraw from the UN. Then the world may get the message that human rights are more important that membership in a corrupt and morally bankrupt organization.

SOURCE: http://www.unisevil.com/dh_withdraw.htm
 
well, your country sign treaties in order to be able to sell their products cheaper in other countries and break the rules of treat when they need it, you know why?, because the industry in the USA can not compete with the products from other countries.

the NAFTA comes to my mind.
 
THE UNITED States is uniquely delusional right now. To put it less finely: We believe our own propaganda. An attack on Saddam?s Iraq is an anti-terrorist measure because we say it is. Our war against drugs in Colombia is really part of the war on terrorism because we say it is. Ariel Sharon and Gen. Pervez Musharraf are ?men of peace? because we say they are. The Iranians are ?evil? but the Saudis are ?good? because we say they are. The United Nations? opinion of anything we do (or the opinion of the U.S Congress, for that matter) is irrelevant because we say it is. The problems of the world are simple: they are black and white, good and evil, with us or against us, dead or alive. (Coming soon: Osama bin Laden is dead, because we say he is!)

FACTS AND FANTASIES

The world hears this claptrap from the most powerful government on the planet and trembles. It?s not that other nations are confused about why the United States is, say, supporting Musharraf in Pakistan or concerned about Saddam?s quest for nuclear weapons. Many of them agree, and many wish us well. What they cannot understand is the self-defeating way this administration chooses to market these things to the wider world. It is as if Washington?s political class has lost the ability to distinguish between potential voters and potential allies: We now treat them both like chumps.
Having spent the second half of the last century helping to turn much of the planet into market-oriented democracies, is it really reasonable or intelligent for an American government right now to expect to get the kind of mindless support for our agenda that we used to get from anti-communist dictators like the Shah or Marcos or Suharto or Mobuto? These days, even Indonesian and Argentine leaders have voters to face, and those voters want to know the real reasons behind decisions, not the rhetorical window dressing written for them by American political consultants.

What a breath of fresh air it would be next Thursday if, fresh from a moving commemoration of the attacks of Sept. 11, George W. Bush strides into the United Nations and talks about facts instead of fantasies. Spare us the stirring rhetoric about spreading democracy even as we support its suspension in Pakistan and its complete absence in Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.

STRAIGHT DOPE

Tell us instead why Iraq?s regime needs changing.

?Yes,? the president might say, ?we want Saddam Hussein removed from power. I admit that my daddy made a terrible mistake in 1991 not doing it then, and I ask you to join the United States in demanding, by force of arms if necessary, that Iraq readmit weapons inspectors and hold internationally monitored elections within a year.?

Then surprise us. Show us the evidence, as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson did in 1962 when he produced satellite photographs of Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba. Compromise sources - this is war, for Christ?s sake! Then push for a resolution. What is there to lose? If we?re going to ignore the United Nations - an organization we invented, by the way - why not try to get what we want from it first?

CALL THEIR BLUFF

Beyond Iraq, invite the United Nations to take over the rebuilding of Afghanistan - but don?t abdicate our own responsibility for making sure the job gets done properly. Abdicate is precisely what we did in 1991, when the first Bush administration wrote the Afghanistan that our CIA funds helped free from Soviet domination as too much of a mess and too remote to worry about.


? U.N. deployments around the world

Call Europe?s bluff, too. No one wants to take over the current modest Afghan stabilization force that patrols Kabul once the British turn is up in a few months. What kind of nonsense is that? Shame the French, or the Germans, or the Italians into stepping up to the plate. Tell them to prove, once and for all, that their disgraceful failure to prevent atrocities in Bosnia in the early 1990s was the exception, not the rule. Dare these internationalist peacekeeping enthusiasts to show us how to do it!

What, exactly, does this administration fear so much about ?the international community?? And is it not so painfully obvious to these veterans of the Cold War that, by treating the world as if it does not matter, the Bush administration has succeeded in giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Has Saddam ever had so much sympathy?

IT?S ONLY PHYSICS


Not many Americans would agree that their country is a selfish bully dangerously rampaging across the planet. Certainly George W. Bush would bristle at this - as would any president. America is too big a place to generalize about (and so is the rest of the world, for that matter). But it might fairly be said that the average American finds it hard to accept all the hand-wringing over America?s behavior we?re hearing in Europe?s two dozen languages given that, without us, the only lingua franca there right now would be German (or, quite as possibly, Russian). Viewed from these shores, much of the rest of the world looks not so much menacing as impossibly flawed, hobbled by hatreds that predate this country?s creation, led by dictatorial clans who have a far more damaging influence on their own people than any foreign influence.

But it is equally true that we Americans, on the whole, cannot fathom life in a small nation buffeted by the random terrors of war, refugee crises, famine, natural disasters, poverty and disease. What we Americans call ?Iraq,? for instance, is really Saddam. We use the terms interchangeably, as if there are not millions of people under his regime. In the rest of the world, much of which has very recent memories of what it is like to be targeted by American nuclear weapons just because you?re enslaved by a despot, the perspective is different. Iraq has Iraqis, too.

As a rule, Americans know very little about geography, national surveys consistently show, in part because such knowledge has not seemed necessary.

TRY TO IMAGINE ...

The United States is so huge and powerful relative to the rest of the world that it doesn?t notice the inadvertent damage it does as its companies, soldiers, bureaucrats or cultural goods move across the planet.

This national myopia, as much a product of physics as ignorance, is taken by the rest of the world as arrogance. Belgians, Rwandans, Laotians and Lebanese know a great deal about other nations because the actions of their neighbors have an enormous and direct impact on their lives. Each has learned the hard way the risks of ignoring, or baiting, the people next door.

That simply isn?t true here. That is not to say there isn?t a downside, as well. The luxury of living life in a gargantuan and dominant nation has led to a situation where few of us give much of a damn about the rest of the world. Far too many Americans continue to view the world just as the the Pilgrims did, that anything beyond their settlements was inherently evil ? an ?Army of devils,? in the preacher Cotton Mather?s words, waiting for the right moment to strike.

George W. Bush likes to speak in such terms. If he does so again at the United Nations this week, he will permanently alienate a world inherently sympathetic to American aims when they are properly explained. The world doesn?t want or need another ?good vs. evil? speech that would just as well be equally suited for a presidential visit to an American grade school. They want the facts, Mr. President, and if you provide them, you might be surprised at the results.
Click to expand...
 
I've read it through all these years, you know, Mexico has been really hurt from NAFTA, and still we respect the resolutions of it.

I've heard also stories of products being rejected in the border, and also, stories about how you put taxes on them in order to favour the national product. That's just plain BS, if your country doesn't have the balls to respect their treaties then don't sign them.

We have a saying here: "what you say with your mouth you defend it with your balls"
 
We didn't sign Kyoto and a bunch other European/UN crap. And for your info, Canada doesn't abide by NAFTA completely either.
 
I explained why such organizations are needed, and i also made mentions of the abuses of the USA.

I posted a long quote to stay on the subject.
 
Luis G said:
my take is the same as the French, let the UN decide if it is appropiate to attack Iraq, and i'm all for a peaceful way out of this situation.

c'mon even an old inspector whose name i don't remember is saying that Iraq has no massive destruction arms, should not you put both theories in the table at least?
Click to expand...

Let the UN decide??? Shit Luis, the UN has had it's toes stepped on more in the last 15 years than in the previous 50. I thnk it was Mitch or Gato who had it right, Paper Tiger. They, the UN, couldn't stop the Soviet Union, the US did that. Most UN countries still trades with Cuba, teh tyrant who lives in prosperity while the masses starve. The UN has become irrelevant. If they did their intended job, people like saddam & groups like the Taliban wouldn't exist. Cry me river but the United Nations is nothing more than a "take the gold from the US & pass it out among the poor" socialist organization. It's not dead yet but wait 25 years & it'll be harmles

Scott Ritter camer out of Iraq saying, then, "attack now, they're dangerous." After a decade of the US & the UN dispelling him, he's taken money from the other side & now supports the Iraqi regime. Hmmm, I wonder...
 
Bush tells the UN "to show some backbone" :headbang: :headbang:



http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/14/ir...coni/index.html


CAMP DAVID, Maryland (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush called on the United Nations on Saturday "to show some backbone," and confront the threat posed by Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

He said that the international organization runs the risk of becoming irrelevant if it fails to act.

"The United Nations deserves another chance to prove its relevance," the president said. "We're entering a new era. Wars of the future are not going to fought like wars of the past."

"This is a chance, he said, "for the United Nations to show some backbone and resolve as we confront the challenges of the 21st century."

Bush made the comments during a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, a strong U.S. ally in the war against terrorism. Italy committed about 2,700 troops to the war in Afghanistan.

Bush said Hussein has broken every pledge he made to the United Nations since Iraq was defeated after invading Kuwait in 1990.

"Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times -- not once, not twice, 16 times he has defied the U.N.," Bush said. "The U.N. has told him after the Gulf War, what to do, what the world expected and 16 times he's defied it."

Bush said that "enough is enough."

The United Nations must take the actions necessary as a peacekeeping organization to retain its status, the president said.

"Make no mistake about it, if we have to do deal with the problem, we'll deal with it," Bush said.

The Bush administration has been urging members of the U.N. Security Council to pass tough new resolutions requiring Iraq to end its weapons program.

Bush warned the U.N. General Assembly Thursday that if Iraq didn't honor the resolutions within weeks, the United States could act.

A U.S. delegation, led by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-West Virginia, visited Baghdad Saturday to urge officials there to accept U.N. weapons inspectors.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like the US is going to take its bat and ball and go play somewhere else. It's the same propaganda all over again. As Luis G has already stated, some sign of proof and facts work far more effectively then, "They're bad because I say they are".

We have brains, I'd respect the Bush administration a whole lot more if it would stop force feeding us, and simply provide the facts and let us make up our own minds.
 
To be honest i think bush has all kinds of interesting facts up his sleeve but he doesn't have the respect for the UN to present it to them. He will however present it to the congrass of the United States when he is ready to make the case against Iraq. Time will tell if i'm right. Even if he didn't have further information i would need nothing more then current public knowledge to make the decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top