Ban the UN petition

[Texan]

So, why do you assume they don't do any good for the rest of the world, Tex?

I never said that. Why do you twist my words?

Why do you assume I have twisted anything, Tex? So, here's a separate question: why should the US lead by example by being a member of the UN?

I didn't say that the US should be a member of the UN. Just look at the member nations of the Human Rights Council in the UN. Do you see many human rights champions there?

Burundi
Egypt
Rwanda
Cuba
Venezuela
China
India
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates.

Numerous times, the UN has tried to overrule our Constitution through international treaty. I like my Constitution and refuse to allow foreigners access to my rights and control of my government. Most of these countries can't run themselves. I think the UN was a noble idea and at one time was good for world stability, but lately they seem to be only interested in power that they don't deserve with no respect for the individual rights of humans.

It appears your gripe would be more with your Government of what ever administration for signing those treaties, Tex. Afterall, without a signature and of course, ratification from your congress, those treaties cannot hold any sway in your country's affairs. I agree that the Human Rights Council members have quite a way to go but before you heap too much scorn on them, consider that only nations with exemplary records can do so. My own country has problems with human rights, as does your own.

Do you think that leading by example is solely about foreign policy? The US has come a long way from the days of Jim Crow and hatred being expressed towards Native Americans or Jews or even Catholics. It has some way to go as far as Gays and so on are concerned. Downunder we have a long ways to go as far as our treatment of Indigenous Australians are concerned. And Muslims and to some extent, Jews. Today we have Xenophobic laws in force against Asylum Seekers.

Yes, those countries have a long way to go. However it should be that yours and my countries show them the path to follow.

And the UN had nothing to do with our civil rights laws. Leading by example doesn't mean we hand the keys over to the UN. It was leaders like 0bama and Clinton who "lead from behind ". Fortunately, our Congress was never foolish enough to endorse them.

[brian ross]

And the UN had nothing to do with our civil rights laws. Leading by example doesn't mean we hand the keys over to the UN. It was leaders like 0bama and Clinton who "lead from behind ". Fortunately, our Congress was never foolish enough to endorse them.

No one has suggested that the UN had anything to do with civil rights laws in the US, Tex. You're starting to sound rather defensive. The UN was created to prevent war. It was created to be a place where the superpowers could sort out their differences peacefully. The UN was not intended to do anything to the US itself. Indeed, I'd suggest that most of the problems started with the Republican Administration of said el Presidente' Nixon and Ford and Reagan. Clinton and Obama had little do with what had already been set in place.

[Texan]

And the UN had nothing to do with our civil rights laws. Leading by example doesn't mean we hand the keys over to the UN. It was leaders like 0bama and Clinton who "lead from behind ". Fortunately, our Congress was never foolish enough to endorse them.

No one has suggested that the UN had anything to do with civil rights laws in the US, Tex. You're starting to sound rather defensive. The UN was created to prevent war. It was created to be a place where the superpowers could sort out their differences peacefully. The UN was not intended to do anything to the US itself. Indeed, I'd suggest that most of the problems started with the Republican Administration of said el Presidente' Nixon and Ford and Reagan. Clinton and Obama had little do with what had already been set in place.

Brian, I don't share your colonoscopic view of the UN. I don't recall Nixon, Ford. Or Reagan yielding the rights of individual Americans to UN global warming or gun ownership demands.

[brian ross]

And the UN had nothing to do with our civil rights laws. Leading by example doesn't mean we hand the keys over to the UN. It was leaders like 0bama and Clinton who "lead from behind ". Fortunately, our Congress was never foolish enough to endorse them.

No one has suggested that the UN had anything to do with civil rights laws in the US, Tex. You're starting to sound rather defensive. The UN was created to prevent war. It was created to be a place where the superpowers could sort out their differences peacefully. The UN was not intended to do anything to the US itself. Indeed, I'd suggest that most of the problems started with the Republican Administration of said el Presidente' Nixon and Ford and Reagan. Clinton and Obama had little do with what had already been set in place.

Brian, I don't share your colonoscopic view of the UN. I don't recall Nixon, Ford. Or Reagan yielding the rights of individual Americans to UN global warming or gun ownership demands.

Mmm, so the US should never be worried about or do anything about Global Warming?

[sprintcyclist]

They don't do any good for me.

So, why do you assume they don't do any good for the rest of the world, Tex?

I never said that. Why do you twist my words?

Why do you assume I have twisted anything, Tex? So, here's a separate question: why should the US lead by example by being a member of the UN?

I didn't say that the US should be a member of the UN. Just look at the member nations of the Human Rights Council in the UN. Do you see many human rights champions there?

Burundi
Egypt
Rwanda
Cuba
Venezuela
China
India
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates.

Numerous times, the UN has tried to overrule our Constitution through international treaty. I like my Constitution and refuse to allow foreigners access to my rights and control of my government. Most of these countries can't run themselves. I think the UN was a noble idea and at one time was good for world stability, but lately they seem to be only interested in power that they don't deserve with no respect for the individual rights of humans.

yes, but the UN has been that way for decades now

[Valkie]

Quite a lot of muzzo countries in there.

And we all know.

Muzzos are champions of social justice, equality, tolerance and honesty.

Don't We?

[cods]

The UN was created to prevent war. It was created to be a place where the superpowers could sort out their differences peacefully. The UN was n

brian..


preventing WARs...mmmmmm

what about GENOCIDE where huge stacks of people have been driven into the sea in the hope of finding protection from other countries??????

another kind of WAR......mmmmmmmmm

what about he WAR against STARVATION...mmmmmmmmm


I see lots of "talking" which the UN is famous for....but little else.


do we know how much the UN collects every year just in membership fees.?

[The Reboot]

The UN was created to prevent war. It was created to be a place where the superpowers could sort out their differences peacefully. The UN was n

brian..


preventing WARs...mmmmmm

what about GENOCIDE where huge stacks of people have been driven into the sea in the hope of finding protection from other countries??????

another kind of WAR......mmmmmmmmm

what about he WAR against STARVATION...mmmmmmmmm


I see lots of "talking" which the UN is famous for....but little else.


do we know how much the UN collects every year just in membership fees.?

Hmm yeah, the UN has done bugger all to prevent the 'Holy wars' occurring in the middle east. They are nothing but a pack of useless mouthpieces.

[brian ross]

The UN was created to prevent war. It was created to be a place where the superpowers could sort out their differences peacefully. The UN was n

brian..

preventing WARs...mmmmmm

Like many critics you want perfection. The UN never guaranteed that. It has prevented large scale, world wars for the most part, Cods. Even you'd have to admit that. Smaller scale wars? Yes, it has failed in those conflicts. It is a shame that you only have one criteria to judge the UN on.

what about GENOCIDE where huge stacks of people have been driven into the sea in the hope of finding protection from other countries??????

Wasn't aware of any those, Cods. Care to provide some examples for examination? I mean, I don't remember too many populations being "driven into the sea" anywhere.

I see lots of "talking" which the UN is famous for....but little else.

The UN is about "talking" rather than "doing", Cods.

It has occassionaly done the "doing" though. 1956 in the Sinai, 1960 in Congo, 1967, 1973 in the Sinai, 1990 in Kuwait, 1991 in the Balkans, 1993 in Rwanda. Some with success, most without. Appears you need both sides to want peace for a peacekeeping mission to succeed.

do we know how much the UN collects every year just in membership fees.?

Why does that matter? It costs money to run numerous peacekeeping operations world wide, vaccination programs, health programs, education programs. You want to quibble over dollars and cents? How unsurprising.

[Black Orchid]

Defending the UN is pointless. They are well past their used by date and a total waste of money. If they are to be taken seriously the controlling member nations, who are anything but 'peace keepers', need to be given the flick. That's not going to happen in our PC hypocritical world so disband the UN.