Does Ban Ki-moon give the UN a chance?

The history of the UN and it's role in todays world are issues that are more complex than just internet chest pounding for us to get out of it or move it to Somaliland.

If you do not think that the UN has a role in keeping this planet alive, than you are ignorant of international politics and history. Sorry to be so blunt.

WildandthatsnottodefendtheuneitherAlaska
 
I'm sorry, but I disagree. My view is that a few good years does not make up for a future and present filled with turmoil and death. The UN had every opportunity to keep peace, which it was designed to do. They just took it to far, and are willing to keep total peace at any cost. Sounds uneffective to me.

Please provide facts of when the UN was any use at all. If anything, they have mucked up all the water. Anyone can sit together and chat about the worlds problems, you need to do something about it.
 
yomama wrote: I recently was sent the new issue of the Rifleman. An interesting article stated that the UN recently voted on a resolution banning small arms.

If that's what it said, the article was wrong. The only recent resolutions pertaining to small arms were UN General Assembly resolutions 61/66 and 61/71. Both were in support of the UN "Program of Action" against the illicit trade in small arms. We're talking about measures intended to prevent organized criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, warlords and the like from acquiring weapons with which they are likely to kill innocents. At the Review Conference last June, Annan said explicitly in his opening speech:
"Let me note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a 'global gun ban,' nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws."
 
Annan is a crook himself, a terrorist enabler, and a liar. His statements are empty to me because of that. Just like anti-gun politicians. They take baby steps to get their way. That statement of Annan's is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
It seems to me that Americans of all people should love the UN. Yes, the gun ban thing is very unfortunate, but the UN can play Globocop without giving off an air of "American Imperialism". Ideally they would promote stability through superior firepower while soaking up the hatred normally directed at US.

In reality however the UN isn't working at peak efficiency... Overstepping boundaries where it shouldn't (WHO banning smokers from joining, crazy global gun ban initiatives etc) and refusing to flex its muscle where it would be most useful (Suez incident in the 50's, the Darfur Conflict).

The UN needs to grow a pair and stabilise all these countries that went haywire after the US dissolved the British Empire, the USSR dissolved itself, and after US citizens lost the will to do it.

I wish the UN would step in Iraq in the next 5 years to replace our role...
 
CC, I dearly hope that the UN never does grow a pair...the result would be a worldwide socialist state. The UN is not only anti gun..it's anti America.

And if the UN were to step in and "take charge" in Iraq...that wouldn't get us out of Iraq..that would only possibly place US troops under the command of a foreign entity. No..we would be much better if the UN went the way of the League of Nations.
 
No..we would be much better if the UN went the way of the League of Nations.
Click to expand...

Hehe, you mean become a larger and more powerful entity? I think the League became the UN.

Anyway, just because they grow a pair doesn't mean they can start bossing us around and expect to get anywhere.

But you're probably right, it is in the best interest of the world for the UN to be dismantled, and hopefully a much better organization created, that would create stable governments in places like Nigeria and Somalia.
 
People around here are so worried about the UN. The UN only functions because the US allows it to, and pays for that privilige, by the way. Remember, we have a veto and are permanent members of the security council. It is a place for people to vent; little more.

The UN can not even get their act together to prevent internationally aknowledged multi-year genocide in underarmed African or Balkan countries; they are no threat to any American, nor to American power and sovereignty. The Sudan, no military power, even in Africa, just told the UN to keep peacekeepers out, and you know what, they will stay out. The UN would never actually DO anything; far better to pass a motion in condemnation!
 
Bear in mind the UN is merely a club composed of its members, which are the governments of the various countries in the world. It is not in the interest of many of those governments to curtail private ownership of firearms in America. I'm thinking of countries like Germany, Italy, China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, Belgium, Serbia... all of them manufacture guns for export to the US civilian market, and plenty more interested in off-loading old stocks of obsolescent bolt-action and semi-automatic rifles. Those exports mean jobs and hard currency reserves; US government agencies (federal, state and local) only buy weapons which are made in the US (which is why so many arms manufacturers have American subsidiaries), so government sales will never make up for the losses. So those governments would only be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to destroy the US civilian market. A conspiracy to undermine private gun ownership in the US by the rest of the world simply doesn't make sense.
 
You're assuming that those countries would do what is in their best interests, or indeed follow any logical course of action. From what I've seen, the world is mostly crazy.

The UN is the model UN!
 
There so much entrnched corruption and cronyism in the UN that it will be impossible to root out.

I've lived in some of the poorest countries in the world, Nepal, Afghanistan, Peru, and it use to make me sick to see the fat cat UN employees tooloing a round in their big SUVs, windows rolled up tight looking scornfully on the poor local population. What they were best at was holding lavish parties with the crooked politicians who ran these countries. Disgusting!!!!
 
Quote: "Hehe, you mean become a larger and more powerful entity? I think the League became the UN."

+2 CC! I didn't think of it that way!

Nope, that's not exactly what I meant.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top