The UN must be disbanded

I will keep this brief. It is imperative that the vile, corrupt and utterly useless organization known as the United Nations be disbanded. They are a social and economic burden on many nations while offering absolutely nothing positive in return.

Their removal will not happen overnight but our very first step to combat this disaster is to remove them from the once great city of New York. Let them move their offices Zimbabwae, Palestine, Jamiaca, whatever fucking country will have them...but they must vacate New York. They are offer the city absolutely nothing other than traffic congestions in an already overcongested city.

I would assume that if every citizen of NYC was polled, the majority would love to see the UN disappear from Manhattan.

This should be on the top of every patriots list of demands.

-SporK

The problem with this idea is that it was the UN that was chiefly responsible for avoiding global nuclear war since 1950.

So, let me understand this, you're saying that since 1950, nuclear war has been avoided not on the strength, resolve and aptitude of world leaders who have the means to engage in such a war but on the advice from diplomats and beaurocrats from 3rd world countries?

What fucking fantasy world do you live in?

-SporK

No, dipshit. The UN was formed to avert a third WW and it succeeded by providing avenue where power can be brokered without war. The addition of the BIS, IMF NATO and Marshall type plans served the same core mission. Successfully.

Read the UN's first charter.
 
Another Pseudo-conservative dream (pipe dream of course). Or maybe it's one of the rallying points for their dumb as dirt followers (like DrSpurt) to spout off about. When in fact they have no plan of actually pulling the US out.

Well since the UN failed to stop the worlds remaining super power from it plan to illegally invade and occupy of a country crippled by 20 years of war and 10 years devastating sanctions who could hardly muster a defense, it did not lived up to it's founding charter of stopping armed aggression. However, the good outweighs the bad. It, the General Assembly, really doesn't have any power anyway does it? I mean all the power rest in the hands of the Security counsel doesn't it? Of which we are a permanant member with veto power (Yes Israel sends you her thanks).

Oh, I see. Changing around my forum nickname validates you and makes me look bad. Brilliant.

The plan is very simple: Step 1, demand they leave New York. Step 2. Proceed accordingly.

At least you acknowledge that they are a failure. But please explain what good they have done. So far no one has pointed out anything credible. Hell, i'll do you one better. I'll play devils advocate with you. Lets assume they have done something valuable. How does this atone for being utter fucking failures in their original mission?

-SporK

No, no, your comments in these posts are what make you look bad, not because of a spelling mistake on my part. I acknowledge that they failed to stop the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration. So far you have ignored and thrown poop at any post that point out the good the UN had done in the world. Here's one. They led the effort to erradicate Small-Pox. They are not utter fucking failures in their original mission. Not that there haven't been failures......
 
Last edited:
The problem with this idea is that it was the UN that was chiefly responsible for avoiding global nuclear war since 1950.

So, let me understand this, you're saying that since 1950, nuclear war has been avoided not on the strength, resolve and aptitude of world leaders who have the means to engage in such a war but on the advice from diplomats and beaurocrats from 3rd world countries?

What fucking fantasy world do you live in?

-SporK

No, dipshit. The UN was formed to avert a third WW and it succeeded by providing avenue where power can be brokered without war. The addition of the BIS, IMF NATO and Marshall type plans served the same core mission. Successfully.

Read the UN's first charter.

So, wise one, do you believe that we have not fallen into a third ["nuclear"] WW, because of the existence of the UN? We're looking for a yes or no answer here.

Also, I think you'll find both right and left wing affiliated people to tell you that the UN has failed to fairly broker power between nations because ... insert whatever arguement whichever side presents. Oh and that without war things...well...yeah that happened. oh, wait. No it didn't.

But please, answer my question.

-SporK
 
Another Pseudo-conservative dream (pipe dream of course). Or maybe it's one of the rallying points for their dumb as dirt followers (like DrSpurt) to spout off about. When in fact they have no plan of actually pulling the US out.

Well since the UN failed to stop the worlds remaining super power from it plan to illegally invade and occupy of a country crippled by 20 years of war and 10 years devastating sanctions who could hardly muster a defense, it did not lived up to it's founding charter of stopping armed aggression. However, the good outweighs the bad. It, the General Assembly, really doesn't have any power anyway does it? I mean all the power rest in the hands of the Security counsel doesn't it? Of which we are a permanant member with veto power (Yes Israel sends you her thanks).

Oh, I see. Changing around my forum nickname validates you and makes me look bad. Brilliant.

The plan is very simple: Step 1, demand they leave New York. Step 2. Proceed accordingly.

At least you acknowledge that they are a failure. But please explain what good they have done. So far no one has pointed out anything credible. Hell, i'll do you one better. I'll play devils advocate with you. Lets assume they have done something valuable. How does this atone for being utter fucking failures in their original mission?

-SporK

No, no, your comments in these posts are what make you look bad, not because of a spelling mistake on my part. I acknowledge that they failed to stop the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration. So far you have ignored and thrown poop at any post that point out the good the UN had done in the world. Here's one. They led the effort to erradicate Small-Pox. They are not utter fucking failures in their original mission. Not that there haven't been failures......

I throw poop because they've done poop.

I believe smallpox was eradicated by the world health assembly...I have no idea whether or not they're affiliated or were at that time affiliated with the UN (which at that time may have not been as corrupt as it is now) but I sincerely hope they were because it would at least mark something positive that the UN has done.

Of course in recent years, your beloved UN has done shit.

Perhaps you wish to try again, this time with feeling yes?

-SporK
 
do you believe that we have not fallen into a third ["nuclear"] WW, because of the existence of the UN?

yes



We're looking for a yes or no answer here.

Also, I think you'll find both right and left wing affiliated people to tell you that the UN has failed to fairly broker power between nations because ... insert whatever arguement whichever side presents. Oh and that without war things...well...yeah that happened. oh, wait. No it didn't.

But please, answer my question.

-SporK

take your meds
 
The first UN Charter

PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Charter of the United Nations: Preamble

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles
 
On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act, the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."


PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 
do you believe that we have not fallen into a third ["nuclear"] WW, because of the existence of the UN?

yes



We're looking for a yes or no answer here.

Also, I think you'll find both right and left wing affiliated people to tell you that the UN has failed to fairly broker power between nations because ... insert whatever arguement whichever side presents. Oh and that without war things...well...yeah that happened. oh, wait. No it didn't.

But please, answer my question.

-SporK

take your meds

I guess you're giving me my meds, huh? Okay.

Can you eleborate on exactly how it is they prevented this ww3? Can you also eleborate on why you believe the UN to better capable or preventing a war than the elected officials of powerful countries?

Perhaps it is inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to spend a few days pouring his heart felt feelings to an audience in NY that has prevented him for finally launching a nuclear strike?

I really wish there was some UN like organization in the past that was intent on keeping peace and promoting an idealistic society of roses and daisys so that you can understand that factions will ultimately ignore mediators and engage in war with or without consent...oh that's right...there is. The League of Nations. Which is essentially the very same organization...except the name had to be change because they failed so miserably.

-SporK
 
Last edited:
The first UN Charter

PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Charter of the United Nations: Preamble

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Very good. You can copy and paste. Now please learn the difference between goals and accomplishments since they've pretty much failed in accomplishing any of their goals.

-SporK
 
Oh, I see. Changing around my forum nickname validates you and makes me look bad. Brilliant.

The plan is very simple: Step 1, demand they leave New York. Step 2. Proceed accordingly.

At least you acknowledge that they are a failure. But please explain what good they have done. So far no one has pointed out anything credible. Hell, i'll do you one better. I'll play devils advocate with you. Lets assume they have done something valuable. How does this atone for being utter fucking failures in their original mission?

-SporK

No, no, your comments in these posts are what make you look bad, not because of a spelling mistake on my part. I acknowledge that they failed to stop the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration. So far you have ignored and thrown poop at any post that point out the good the UN had done in the world. Here's one. They led the effort to erradicate Small-Pox. They are not utter fucking failures in their original mission. Not that there haven't been failures......

I throw poop because they've done poop.

I believe smallpox was eradicated by the world health assembly...I have no idea whether or not they're affiliated or were at that time affiliated with the UN (which at that time may have not been as corrupt as it is now) but I sincerely hope they were because it would at least mark something positive that the UN has done.

Of course in recent years, your beloved UN has done shit.

Perhaps you wish to try again, this time with feeling yes?

-SporK

I C you post from your beliefs, next time try facts. It was the World Health Organization, an agency of the UN. Happy?:eusa_whistle:

Israeli firsters love the UN when talking about the Partition Plan. Of course they hate it for it's resolutions calling for the right of return for Palestinians....

The pseudo-cons love the UN when the sanctions on Iraq were in effect. Of course they hated it when the last team of weapons inspectors were sent in without a military action clause......

No the UN should not be disbanded. Not that it couldn't use some reforms in several areas
 
No, no, your comments in these posts are what make you look bad, not because of a spelling mistake on my part. I acknowledge that they failed to stop the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush Administration. So far you have ignored and thrown poop at any post that point out the good the UN had done in the world. Here's one. They led the effort to erradicate Small-Pox. They are not utter fucking failures in their original mission. Not that there haven't been failures......

I throw poop because they've done poop.

I believe smallpox was eradicated by the world health assembly...I have no idea whether or not they're affiliated or were at that time affiliated with the UN (which at that time may have not been as corrupt as it is now) but I sincerely hope they were because it would at least mark something positive that the UN has done.

Of course in recent years, your beloved UN has done shit.

Perhaps you wish to try again, this time with feeling yes?

-SporK

I C you post from your beliefs, next time try facts. It was the World Health Organization, an agency of the UN. Happy?:eusa_whistle:

Israeli firsters love the UN when talking about the Partition Plan. Of course they hate it for it's resolutions calling for the right of return for Palestinians....

The pseudo-cons love the UN when the sanctions on Iraq were in effect. Of course they hated it when the last team of weapons inspectors were sent in without a military action clause......

No the UN should not be disbanded. Not that it couldn't use some reforms in several areas

Actually as we all well know, the sanctions on Iraq were a farce, a joke on us, revealed with the discovery of that oil pipe line to Syria. Nice try though.
 
Our investment cannot be considered well spent because we do not get anything in return. Even if you're spending a dollar on something you don't actually need or want it does make a good return on investment. It's just a fee you're paying because everyone else is paying it. And you've been paying this fee for so long that now it would be considered unimaginable to stop paying it since the collective so used to recieving your money. The UN was noble idea but it is just not executable. Sunken cost. It's time to cut the cord.

And with that being said, if we cannot disband them...at least kick them out of NYC. Let them do their pointless meetings in Africa, since most of these "peace keeping operations" are executed there anyway. They are a burden on NYers.

Now to address your bringing up international relations, there is no reason to consider that our foriegn relations need change because we are not members of some world group. Relations change based on policies and agreements with the leaders of nations directly involved.

South Korea told Obama to fuck off. What's he going to do? Run to the UN and cry? Policies and strength influence international relations, not the UN.

-SporK
My primary concern with the withdraw of the US from the UN is the signal it would send to the world that we are seeking isolationism. Secondly, both China and Russia as members of the Security Council would gain influence throughout the world. Energy starved China would surely seek to increase there influence in the rich oil countries in the Arab world which the US is so dependent.

Lastly with the amount of US debt held overseas, a reluctance of overseas investors to refinance US debt would send interest rate skyrocketing in this country which would be devastating to our economy. The only reason overseas investors buy US treasuries is they see the US as a safe haven. Going rogue and attempting to isolate ourselves would not be in our best interest and would discourage overseas investment which we depend on.

Not necessarily. Where does it mandate that if we stop being members of a club that our policies towards our allies or enemies need change? It is not about how we appear in a subjective manner to various world opinions, it is what actions we undertake in relation to our policies.

China is reliant on us too. This would not change. They have interest in remaining in our good graces.

I do not see how any of this would be going 'rogue'. We have a DFA for a reason. We do not need to be part of a club. Removing ourselves from this club need not change our relations with any nation.

-SporK
There is no way that the withdrawal from the UN would be seen as anything but a move to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. The departure from the UN would also mean a departure from the World Bank and IMF, both institutions of the United Nations. Currently the US has veto power in both these organizations. China, Japan, Germany, and the UK would be in control. The US would have no voice in the international monetary system, exchange rates, or payment rates. Some might say good riddance, but do we really want to give up our voice in how the international monetary system is run? These are not the actions of a world leader but rather those of a beaten nation ready to withdraw into itself.
 
do you believe that we have not fallen into a third ["nuclear"] WW, because of the existence of the UN?

yes



We're looking for a yes or no answer here.

Also, I think you'll find both right and left wing affiliated people to tell you that the UN has failed to fairly broker power between nations because ... insert whatever arguement whichever side presents. Oh and that without war things...well...yeah that happened. oh, wait. No it didn't.

But please, answer my question.

-SporK

take your meds

I guess you're giving me my meds, huh? Okay.

Can you eleborate on exactly how it is they prevented this ww3? Can you also eleborate on why you believe the UN to better capable or preventing a war than the elected officials of powerful countries?

Perhaps it is inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to spend a few days pouring his heart felt feelings to an audience in NY that has prevented him for finally launching a nuclear strike?

I really wish there was some UN like organization in the past that was intent on keeping peace and promoting an idealistic society of roses and daisys so that you can understand that factions will ultimately ignore mediators and engage in war with or without consent...oh that's right...there is. The League of Nations. Which is essentially the very same organization...except the name had to be change because they failed so miserably.

-SporK

That post was the equivalent of a dry fart.

The reality is that the UN along with a handful of other orgs I already named did indeed prevent world wars from repeating while working in tandem with the governments you would like to credit failed to do so on their own for the previous 50 years. Or for the previous 400 years depending on your pov.

The UN was founded to avoid another world war, and in fact we haven't had another world war.

If you want to believe that the UN played no role in that occurrence, fine. That's just an unsupportable opinion tho. You can't prove it true.
 
The first UN Charter

PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
* to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
* to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
* to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
* to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
* to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Charter of the United Nations: Preamble

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles

Very good. You can copy and paste. Now please learn the difference between goals and accomplishments since they've pretty much failed in accomplishing any of their goals.

-SporK

Learn to read bozo breath. Their core mission was to avoid world war and sustain world peace.

They have been 100% successful since they were founded.
 
I'm not sure about completely disbanding but it certainly wouldn't bother me if they left NY. They have become bit of a joke in recent years. The UN is by far the most corrupt bureaucracy on this Planet. The UN has also become a grand stage for brutal Dictators of the World. It has become a very welcoming venue for brutal Dictators to come and put on their grotesque public shows. That is certainly not what the UN's founding was all about. This current UN would be a wonderful World Stage for the likes of Adolf Hitler.

I think the UN should maybe consider a temporary disbanding. They should then revamp and get back to the original intent of the UN. Personally i wouldn't be too upset if they didn't come back though. They have also shown an extreme Anti-American bias in recent years as well. I'm no big UN fan but they do some things well. I just think we should consider less funding for them until they revamp. A complete disbanding is not necessary in my opinion but i have to admit i wouldn't miss them much if they did.
There are so many things the UN is involved in that rarely makes the headline, but is vital to this country and the world. Take the International Telecommunications Union. It provides the framework which our FCC works assigns telecommunication frequencies and satellite orbits. It is very important to this country that the US be represented in UN agencies such as this so we have a voice in how rules and procedures are drawn.

ITU is the leading United Nations agency for information and communication technology issues, and the global focal point for governments and the private sector in developing networks and services. For 145 years, ITU has coordinated the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promoted international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, worked to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, established the worldwide standards that foster seamless interconnection of a vast range of communications systems and addressed the global challenges of our times, such as mitigating climate change and strengthening cybersecurity.

About ITU

Amusing.

I just skimmed both their website and their wikipedia entry. Essentially they fancy themselves the FCC of the world. They hold communication seminars, distribute foriegn aid, and promise technological advances.

Yes. We surely need to support the UN to keep them operational.

Actually, we don't. All of this can be done via the private sector. And it up to countries to regulate their own telecomunication policies.

Hell, you can have an ITU without a UN.

-SporK
This is one place global cooperation from all nations is needed. Operating frequencies, transmission power and procedures assigned by the FCC and equivalent agencies in other countries must be within the bounds set by the ITU or telecommunications will fail. In years past we were only concerned with radio transmission. Today, it's not only radio and TV but cell phones, satellite channels and orbits, and thousand of other applications. We could drop out of the UN and give up membership in the ITU and let others make up the rules, but why would the largest user of telecommunications in the world want to do that?

We hear little about the ITU and many other agencies that perform usefully services for all nations. Failures always seems to make better news than success.
 
I will keep this brief. It is imperative that the vile, corrupt and utterly useless organization known as the United Nations be disbanded. They are a social and economic burden on many nations while offering absolutely nothing positive in return.

Their removal will not happen overnight but our very first step to combat this disaster is to remove them from the once great city of New York. Let them move their offices Zimbabwae, Palestine, Jamiaca, whatever fucking country will have them...but they must vacate New York. They are offer the city absolutely nothing other than traffic congestions in an already overcongested city.

I would assume that if every citizen of NYC was polled, the majority would love to see the UN disappear from Manhattan.

This should be on the top of every patriots list of demands.

-SporK


My solution for the UN is at 0:09 of this vid. :D

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_rWm_u2oQQ[/ame]

So beautiful, it makes me want to cry! (sniff)

I mean don't just judge at 0:09. I mean Rodan destroys Moscow. Mothra destroys Peking and Gorasaraus (that for some reason they call Baragon in this flick) destroys Paris. Yeah, I'm pretty okay with the whole video. :D














:D
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top