/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Should the US pull out of the UN? Yes, No why do you think so?



Woodrow
08-20-2006, 06:36 AM
I personaly feel that the US no longer belongs in the UN. I support the motto "Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US". I actually believe the UN is a very good organization and if used properly is beneficial for all nations. However I believe it has become overly dependent on the US and that the American people are being unintentionaly harmed by it. It the past 4 decades I have seen too many young American lives lost by the US getting involved into conflicts where we were not wanted. Too many times we have supported the wishes of the majority of the nations, became in conflicts we did not want and to only have our initial supporters pull out and leave us sholdering all the responsibility.

The US pays 27% of the UN budget, yet a large number of the member nations are seriously delenquint in paying their share. Too many nations seem to use the UN as a means to have the US come to their aid, with no need to make any commitment to come to the aid of the US.

I think it is time for the US to no longer accept the responsabilty to being the worlds police department. After nearly 60 years of UN membership the only thing the US has acheived is condemnation from the the majority of the members nations. With the exception of 10 or 15 nations most of the member nations have never upheld their commitment to financialy support the UN or to provide any commitment of troops in times of conflict.

That leaves the US being nearly the sole enforcer of any resolutions that are violated. The US unintentional has enabled many of the member nations to have their wishes granted, with the US becoming the principle provider.

I am sick of seeing so many of the worlds nations taking advantage of the US and for us being blamed for the worlds ills.

I say it is time we pulled out and operate as we did on a strictly one to one basis with each nation. It is time we stopped footing the bill for the worlds conflicts.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
08-20-2006, 02:41 PM
My initial reaction was to vote yes, but after thinking about it for a bit, I don't think leaving the U.N. would be good for the U.S. and would certainly not be good for the U.N. Granted, this relationship hasn't done much for the U.S., but I believe the U.N. still has the ability to do good work in the world. Personally, I find Koffi Annan to be part of the problem. I believe when his term is up, which I believe happens this year or the next, a new secretary-general can make some necessary changes. Maybe, just maybe, the U.N. can be taken seriously again someday.
Reply

QuranStudy
08-20-2006, 03:20 PM
No, because the US is the most influential power in the UN. Without the US, there wouldve been no ceasefire in Lebanon.
Reply

Woodrow
08-20-2006, 03:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
No, because the US is the most influential power in the UN. Without the US, there wouldve been no ceasefire in Lebanon.
That may be true. But, at best it is just a temporary ceasefire. It is going to cost the lives of more than a few UN peacekeeping troops. A few USA troops will most likely be deployed as observers. As soon as any real hostilities break out, all of the UN troops except for the US troops will pull and then the US will be backed into full military intervention to protect them and once again we will have another Afghanistan type situation.

It is a win-win situation for Lebannon and Israel but a Loose -loose situation for the US.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
QuranStudy
08-20-2006, 03:38 PM
But, at best it is just a temporary ceasefire. It is going to cost the lives of more than a few UN peacekeeping troops. A few USA troops will most likely be deployed as observers. As soon as any real hostilities break out, all of the UN troops except for the US troops will pull and then the US will be backed into full military intervention to protect them and once again we will have another Afghanistan type situation.
The United States was the only country that took action to stop the war? What did france do? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?? They just gave opinions.
Reply

Woodrow
08-20-2006, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
The United States was the only country that took action to stop the war? What did france do? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?? They just gave opinions.
And the US will be the one footing the bill, loosing young lives and then end up being portrayed as the capitalistic aggressors.
Reply

Keltoi
08-20-2006, 03:47 PM
The United States is the only country Israel finds credible in situations like occurred recently in Lebanon. France and Saudi Arabia aren't going to convince them of anything in regards to their national security. The United States has alot of pull with Israel, for many reasons. This is one of the reasons I think the U.S. should stay in the U.N., but push for major changes in the way the organization operates. Although it would give me secret pleasure to see the reaction from some members of the U.N. if the U.S. suddenly pulled out of it, I still have a fading hope that the U.N. can become a real force for change in the world.
Reply

Jayda
08-20-2006, 05:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I personaly feel that the US no longer belongs in the UN. I support the motto "Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US". I actually believe the UN is a very good organization and if used properly is beneficial for all nations. However I believe it has become overly dependent on the US and that the American people are being unintentionaly harmed by it. It the past 4 decades I have seen too many young American lives lost by the US getting involved into conflicts where we were not wanted. Too many times we have supported the wishes of the majority of the nations, became in conflicts we did not want and to only have our initial supporters pull out and leave us sholdering all the responsibility.

The US pays 27% of the UN budget, yet a large number of the member nations are seriously delenquint in paying their share. Too many nations seem to use the UN as a means to have the US come to their aid, with no need to make any commitment to come to the aid of the US.

I think it is time for the US to no longer accept the responsabilty to being the worlds police department. After nearly 60 years of UN membership the only thing the US has acheived is condemnation from the the majority of the members nations. With the exception of 10 or 15 nations most of the member nations have never upheld their commitment to financialy support the UN or to provide any commitment of troops in times of conflict.

That leaves the US being nearly the sole enforcer of any resolutions that are violated. The US unintentional has enabled many of the member nations to have their wishes granted, with the US becoming the principle provider.

I am sick of seeing so many of the worlds nations taking advantage of the US and for us being blamed for the worlds ills.

I say it is time we pulled out and operate as we did on a strictly one to one basis with each nation. It is time we stopped footing the bill for the worlds conflicts.

My husband thinks like that too... but I see the U.N. from the other side. The U.N. has done a lot to help smaller third world nations especially those that tend to be forgotten or used for their natural resources then left behind.

I love America but I do not think America will always act generously to fill the gap left behind by the United Nations. Sometimes the damage being done that the U.N. tries to fix, especially in Latin America, is caused indirectly by America or an American presence...

So maybe the U.N. doesn't benefit us as much as it benefits other people, and maybe the U.N. doesn't always do what we would want them to do... but I think even if they do their job poorly it is better than not having it done at all, so I think the U.S. should stay in the U.N...

When I was a little girl I went on a U.N. tour and they had a big presentation about the history of Nicaragua... I was maybe 5 or 6 but I remember that...
Reply

brainiac
08-20-2006, 05:12 PM
Pull out and kick them out. The U.N. is a corrupt and weak institution. Move it to France. While the U.S. may be the most influential country, no matter what we do, everyone is always on our backs. Let someone else play 'world cop', then see how the world turns out. I would love to see the day when the U.S. pulls out and throws the U.N. out. And I also propose the U.S. halt all forgein aid for a period of two years. The world hates us anyway ( and I don't care ), so why give money to a bunch of ingrates ? Then we will see who is friendly, and who just has their hands out. Let some other 'Great Satan' feed them.
Reply

Jayda
08-20-2006, 05:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by brainiac
The world hates us anyway ( and I don't care ), so why give money to a bunch of ingrates ?
Because we can't let people starve just because we don't feel appreciated enough...
Reply

brainiac
08-20-2006, 05:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
Because we can't let people starve just because we don't feel appreciated enough...


Let someone else do it. We've been shot at and crapped on for trying to help out long enough. Let France or China or Russia give it a try. They always have a lot to say, mostly bad, about the U.S. Let's see if they have any big ideas.+o( +o(
Reply

Jayda
08-20-2006, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by brainiac
Let someone else do it. We've been shot at and crapped on for trying to help out long enough. Let France or China or Russia give it a try. They always have a lot to say, mostly bad, about the U.S. Let's see if they have any big ideas.+o( +o(
They cannot afford it as well as we can, and I do not think they would do it... or at least not do it as well... if we abandon them then we are responsible for what happens...
Reply

brainiac
08-20-2006, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
... if we abandon them then we are responsible for what happens...



That's a crock.. !!
Reply

Woodrow
08-20-2006, 07:33 PM
I brelieve the US will always play a large role in charitable work and health assistance. I just do not think it is in the best interest of either the UN or the US for the Us to stay in the UN.

I do not believe the US would or should ever cease humanitarian aid. I do not believe that the US can produce the most good by trying to provide aid through UN channals. I think nearly everybody is aware of the UN packaged foods that end up in wharehouses rotting while people are out side the door are starving. It gets tangled up in mountains of red tape which everybody knows country y caused but country z won't allow it to be fixed because the might alienate country x. It would be much more efficient and cheaper for the US to do their share on their own. Get the food in, distrubute it and get out. (or whatever need that may apply)

The UN has become a gigantic boondoogle of confusion. One country doesn't want to do something because it might help/hurt another country then a third country steps in calls the first 2 countries idiots and declares war on a fifth totaly uninvolved country because they don't do anything.

The US is a multi-national corpoartion that is run by a committee of 192 people that can't agree. It is a huge disorganised committee and every body knows that a committee can not design a horse without it end up looking like a girraf.

We can do more good for more people and at less monetary expense and fewer lives lost if we get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.
Reply

Keltoi
08-20-2006, 07:45 PM
can't design a horse without it looking like a giraffe....that pretty much sums it up.
Reply

Woodrow
08-20-2006, 08:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
can't design a horse without it looking like a giraffe....that pretty much sums it up.
I just notice I must have asked them how to spell giraffe.

I might have just accidently found the biggest thing that causes me to believe the UN is inefficient and ineffective. Big does not mean better. Big committees tend to build bigger problems. It just may be that it has become too big to be managable. As an organization it is more confused than the government of any nation. It is sort of like trying to open a MacDonalds in new Delhi. Have it set up as a Buddhist owned business, under a Christian manager, trying to sell cheesburgers that are prepared by a Muslim with meat bought from a Sikh and served to Hindus by a Jew. An attempt to produce a good end but violating some standards of all the workers and the anticipated customer. Producing a product by workers that don't want to make it and selling it to a customer that dosen't want it.

Although the US is just one member, it provides nearly 1/3 of the upkeep and probably contributes to much larger percentage of the confusion. The remaining 191 member countries could do much better without US involvement and if all pay their far shar They would have a surplus of funds even after loosing the US contribution.

The US could still be an important factor in the world, but it would be by choice and not out of rule. The US would still have one to one treaties with any country they desire. But, this would keep all out in the open and there would be no fear of the US having any hidden Agendas. It would remove the suspicion of hidden favoratism, and allow the UN to do what it was intendended to do.
Reply

Islamicboy
08-20-2006, 08:19 PM
Is this thread a joke?
Reply

Woodrow
08-20-2006, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Islamicboy
Is this thread a joke?
I'm serious about it. I really do believe the US should pull out of the UN. I believe that would be in the best interest of the US and of the UN.

Does it really make much sense to be in an organization compossed of 192 members. Where at least half have done nothing to support the organization, yet the US has to pay an inflated amount to make up for the unreceived money.

Is there any sense in trying to be part of an organization in which
many of the members are opposed of the US's right to exist.

We can provide much more help to countries on an individual as needed basis. Without being in the UN. The UN can be much more productive by not spending most of it's time bickering over what the US should do.
Reply

Islamicboy
08-21-2006, 12:44 AM
Actually there is United States interest being in United Nations. Lets say a country without any excuse were to declare war and went agiasnt UN. Well that country would be under sanctions and UN threat. United States not only defy UN but also could not prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But the same laws that go for the world does not go for united states. United States could do anything without being stopped and recently we learned israel too can do anything and cannot be stopped. United States only helps the people that have american interest in. Dafur sistuation had gone bad to worse and united states never took part until United Nations made a big deal. Yet if the same was happening in an oli filled country united states would have had taken action without UN approval. I believe we should take the United Nations group out we do not need such a hypocritical group monitoring the world.
Reply

Abdulwaheed
08-21-2006, 12:55 AM
There is a lot i dont know about the political situation of the world, but that post made a lot of sense to me.
the US cannot be stopped if they want to do anything they want. It doesnt even matter if they are in the UN or not. and I do believe the UN does some good work even if its a jumbled mess.
Reply

Dahir
08-21-2006, 12:56 AM
I think the US should pull out, it has far more power than the UN, so the UN almost serves as just a hollow shell to stand and look good for the world.

The US operates with freewill because it has such a large stake in the UN, but the US tries to confront the UN first before making any moves...just cut out the middle man (UN) and deal one-to-one, as Woodrow suggested.

And the UN peacekeeping forces are a bunch of crock. The UN is only good for preventing hunger, child abuse, and small domestic-type international issues. The UN is a terrible police force, especially that many armies and guerilla groups are more powerful than any "peaceforce."

My 2 Cents.
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 01:28 AM
There is a place for the UN and it does have much potential for doing good in the world. However, it is ineffective if it is dominated by any one nation or any one ideology. This is how the US has become a hinderance to the potential of the UN. Unintentional, just out of pure size and massive wealth the US has become the dominate Nation in the UN and our presense can be intimidating to the smaller countries. Keep in mind at least half of the member nations are smaller than the State of Texas.

Now on the other hand the UN has become detrimental to the US. It has placed the US into the posistion of being the worlds unwelcomed peacekeeper. What we American's view as being in the service of Peace is usually seen as being American agression or dominence through power. We end up needlesly loosing American lives, spend more money than we can afford. Here in the States many people have grown critical of our spending more to help other nations than we spend to assist our own impoverished citizens. Ovrerall the UN is costly to us, it deprives our own needy and it keeps us in constant jeopardy of attack by those who perceive us as enemies.
Reply

Islamicboy
08-21-2006, 01:44 AM
Hezbollaah is paying rent for the families that lost there houses because of israel and also rebuilding. America has stolen the lands of poor new orlean people and they have started to build big business i.e. casinos etc. Hezbollah is a group who is nothing comparing to united states yet they are more loyal to there civilians then america. So if American government cant even be loyal to there own citizen how can they be trusted over seas or in other nations? Where did all the money saudi arabia and kuwait gave for rebuilding new orleans go? O yeah the same countries did not give as much to the poor nations that were hit by tusanami. Interesting how the rich countries are only willing to open up to other rich countries. United States pulling out of UN will do anything as if they were part of UN. There would not be much difference or absoluty no difference if america were to leave UN. People dont hate america because of UN they hate america because of there policies around the world.
Reply

Keltoi
08-21-2006, 02:01 AM
I think a U.N. without U.S. backing would lose any power it might have. Most countries know that the only bite involved with the U.N's bark is the United States. True, the U.N. is good at international issues like sex slavery, election corruption, etc, but on the big issues like nuclear proliferation and rogue regimes, it is a confusing mess of conflicting points of view. The U.N. has become what those opposed to the League of Nations feared such an organization would be, which is a pointless mess of politics and greed, with the U.S. footing the bill. The more I think about this issue the more I think I should have voted yes. Oh well.
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 03:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I think a U.N. without U.S. backing would lose any power it might have. Most countries know that the only bite involved with the U.N's bark is the United States. True, the U.N. is good at international issues like sex slavery, election corruption, etc, but on the big issues like nuclear proliferation and rogue regimes, it is a confusing mess of conflicting points of view. The U.N. has become what those opposed to the League of Nations feared such an organization would be, which is a pointless mess of politics and greed, with the U.S. footing the bill. The more I think about this issue the more I think I should have voted yes. Oh well.
Doing the very same errors of the "league of Nations" Just took us longer to do them.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-21-2006, 03:17 AM
I want a UN without VETO POWERS!!!
Reply

Hashim_507
08-21-2006, 03:25 AM
Does anybody remember the league of nations?
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 03:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim_507
Does anybody remember the league of nations?
Semi remember. It went belly up not too many years before I was born. But, when the UN was first being considered it was a very popular topic in the news and the errors that caused it to fail.


EDIT: I just remembered I was about 6 years old when it belly flopped
Reply

Hashim_507
08-21-2006, 04:21 AM
league of nations is better than un, because u.s have no major power on them. LON is against all wars, example if any country attacks other country without no reason. LON constitution states the first attackers should surrender or all LON members will invade that country in order to bring peace.LON headquarters are all located in europe, U.S have no major influence or power on LON. But the U.S rejected the idea during those era, they never join it. President Woodrow Wilson wanted the u.s to join LON, but the congress overpower his decisions.
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 04:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim_507
league of nations is better than un, because u.s have no major power on them. LON is against all wars, example if any country attacks other country without no reason. LON constitution states the first attackers should surrender or all LON members will invade that country in order to bring peace.LON headquarters are all located in europe, U.S have no major influence or power on LON. But the U.S rejected the idea during those era, they never join it. President Woodrow Wilson wanted the u.s to join LON, but the congress overpower his decisions.
Actually the UN is based upon the LON. Many of the committees were transfered from the LON to the UN. The failure of the LON at that time was believed to be because they had not allowed any method for the LON to enforce any resolutions. It did not have the authority to call up any military involvement.

Between 1920 and 1946, a total of 63 countries became members of the League of Nations. The Covenant forming the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of Versailles and came into force on 10 January 1920. The League of Nations was dissolved on 18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_members
Reply

Hashim_507
08-21-2006, 04:42 AM
Woodrow: Before ww2 the State of Isreal was not created, the LON did not achieved is because the zionist movement was uprising against. LON did want to be involve with the zionist method, thats in my opinion.

Early Zionist initiatives
In 1883, Nathan Birnbaum, nineteen years old, founded Kadimah, the first Jewish Students Association in Vienna. In 1884 the first issue of Selbstemanzipation or Self Emancipation appeared, completely made by Nathan Birnbaum himself.

Together with Nathan Birnbaum, Herzl planned the first Zionist Congress in Basel. During the congress, the following agreement was reached:

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.
The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.
The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.
Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism.
After the First Zionist Congress, the World Zionist Organization met every year first four years, later they gathered every second year till the Second World War. After the war the Congress met every four years until present time.

The WZO's initial strategy was to obtain permission of the Ottoman Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid II to allow systematic Jewish settlement in Palestine. The good offices of the German Emperor, Wilhelm II, were sought, but nothing came of this. Instead the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration, and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund in 1901 and the Anglo-Palestine Bank in 1903.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist...st_initiatives
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 04:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hashim_507
Woodrow: Before ww2 the State of Isreal was created, the LON did not achieved is because the zionist movement was uprising against. LON did want to be involve with the zionist method, thats in my opinion.
Actually the UN was what the LON became. Although I refered to it as the LON belly flopping it was more of a exapnsion of the same organization. All of the assets and powers of the LON were transfered over to the Newly formed UN. The LON did not exactly cease to exist it became the UN

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.

source: http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm


Israel did not become a Nation until 1947, although the Zionist movemnt did start many years earlier it was not until after WW2 that there was any serious consideration by any nations to think of forming Israel. Remember from the 1920's till the end of WW2 the vast majority of the worlds Jews were in Nazi controlled countries and had virtualy no world influence at that time. The Zionist movement did not gain any world wide visibility until after WW2
Reply

Keltoi
08-21-2006, 05:05 AM
Hypothetically, if the U.N. is here to stay, perhaps it might be of benefit to consider improvements and solutions to the idea of an international world body. Should the U.N. have its own military force? This idea would be probably be widely shot down by members in the security council, who by and large are interested in their own military strength and capability.
Then there is the issue of veto power. The permanent members never seem to agree on anything, and this causes many world problems to grow and manifest themselves before any worthwhile action is taken. However, if there was no veto power, which country would be calling the shots? That is why veto power is so important. No one country can make the decisions.
It is a confusing mess. The possibility is there for great work to be done, but I'm actually starting to agree with Woodrow. The U.S. involvment with the U.N. hasn't been a benefit to either side. I just don't see what the alternative would be in terms of international relations and diplomacy. Leaving the U.N. would be more ammunition for those who consider the U.S. a "rogue state" in their unilateral endeavors.
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 05:23 AM
I think it is very interesting to see who has been the Secretary Generals of the UN and the countries they were/are from:

1946-1952 Trygve Lie from Norway
1953-1961 Dag Hammarskjold from Sweden
1961-1971 U Thant from Myanmar (aka Burma)
1972-1981 Kurt Waldheim from Austria
1982-1991 Javier de Perez de Cuellar from Peru
1992-1996 Boutros Boutros-Ghali from Egypt
1997-present Kofi Anan from Ghana


The history of the building and the various locations of the UN headquarters is interesting.

An international territory
The site of UN Headquarters is owned by the United Nations. It is an international territory. No federal, state or local officer or official of the United States, whether administrative, judicial, military or police may enter UN Headquarters except with the consent of and under conditions agreed to by the Secretary-General of the Organization.

However, the United Nations is bound by an agreement with its host country to prevent its Headquarters from being used as a refuge for persons who are avoiding arrest under the federal, state or local laws of the United States or who are required by the Government of the United States for extradition to another country or who are trying to avoid the servicing of a legal process.

On the site, the UN has its own fire fighting and security forces and its own post office branch, with special provision for UN stamps. The buildings were constructed in a manner agreeable to the City of New York, in terms of fire and safety, but not necessarily according to all city laws.

United Nations Headquarters was designed to serve four major groups: delegations, who now represent 192 Member States and who send more than 5,000 persons to New York each year for the annual sessions of the General Assembly; the Secretariat, numbering about 4,900 persons in New York out of a total of about 7,500 throughout the world; visitors, who average 700,000 yearly; and journalists, of whom more than over 3,600 are permanently accredited while over 10,000 are present during major meetings.

To accommodate those groups efficiently, there are facilities for each. The delegates have an entrance at the west side of the General Assembly building at 44th Street; and visitors have access to the complex through the north end of the Assembly building, between 45th and 46th Streets. The general public may visit public areas in the General Assembly building and may tour other areas with United Nations guides. The staff can enter through the Secretariat building at East 43rd Street as well as other entrances.

Selecting New York
The decision to locate the United Nations near New York City was made in London by the General Assembly at its first session on 14 February 1946, after offers and suggestions for permanent sites had been received from many parts of the world. On 10 December 1945, the Congress of the United States had unanimously resolved to invite the United Nations to establish its permanent home in that country.

Following selection of the United States, a special United Nations site committee looked over possible locations during the latter half of 1946 in such places as Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. While consideration had been given in the first place to areas north of New York City, crowded Manhattan had not been seriously studied. But a last-minute offer of $8.5 million for the purchase of the present site, by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was accepted by a large majority of the General Assembly on 14 December 1946. New York City completed the site parcel by additional gifts of property.

The site chosen by the United Nations was a run-down area of slaughterhouses, light industry and a railroad barge landing. Trucks rumbled up and down First Avenue on one side, and automobiles sped along the East River Drive -- since renamed for Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- skirting the waterfront.


It all started in London …
Before its Headquarters in New York was ready, the United Nations continued its work in various temporary locations. Here is a list of venues where the main UN organs met in their earliest meetings:

General Assembly: First session (first part): London (February 10 - February 14, 1946); First session (second part): Flushing, New York (23 October - 15 December 1946)

Security Council: Beginning on 17 January 1946, the Council held its first 24 meetings in London. Later it moved to New York (Hunter College, Henry Hudson Hotel and Lake Success, the interim Headquarters of the United Nations.

Economic and Social Council: London (first session, 23 February 1946; later at Hunter College, New York)

Trusteeship Council: Lake Success, New York (1947)

International Court of Justice:The Hague (1946)

Planning the Headquarters
Once the site had been settled upon, the next task was to design the Headquarters for the world organization. Rather than hold an international competition, the United Nations decided that its new home should be the result of collaboration among eminent architects of many countries.

Wallace K. Harrison of the United States was appointed chief architect, with the title of Director of Planning. To assist him, a 10-member Board of Design Consultants was selected, composed of architects nominated by Governments.

The members of the Board were Nikolai D. Bassov (Soviet Union), Gaston Brunfaut (Belgium), Ernest Cormier (Canada), Charles E. Le Corbusier (France), Liang Seu-Cheng (China), Sven Markelius (Sweden), Oscar Niemayer (Brazil), Howard Robertson (United Kingdom), G. A. Soilleux (Australia) and Julio Vilamajo (Uruguay).

source: http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS23.HTM

The reason I point all this out is to show that the UN is basicaly an outgrowth of the LON and we should not be involved in it for the very same reasons we did not join the LON
Reply

north_malaysian
08-21-2006, 05:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I think it is very interesting to see who has been the Secretary Generals of the UN and the countries they were/are from:

1946-1952 Trygve Lie from Norway
1953-1961 Dag Hammarskjold from Sweden
1961-1971 U Thant from Myanmar (aka Burma)
1972-1981 Kurt Waldheim from Austria
1982-1991 Javier de Perez de Cuellar from Peru
1992-1996 Boutros Boutros-Ghali from Egypt
1997-present Kofi Anan from Ghana
Next one will be from Asia....
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 06:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Next one will be from Asia....
That seems possible. But I would not rule out Malaysa. I think it can be fairly safe to say that in my life time there will never be one from the USA or the UK. Although I would like to see the US pull out of the UN I don't think that will happen in my life time.

There are a sufficient number of Islamic nations in the UN that if they were to co-operate there very well could be a Secretary General from an Islamic Nation. The make up of the 192 member nations is interesting.

Member -- (Date of Admission)

Afghanistan -- (19 Nov. 1946)
Albania -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Algeria -- (8 Oct. 1962)
Andorra -- (28 July 1993)
Angola -- (1 Dec. 1976)
Antigua and Barbuda -- (11 Nov. 1981)
Argentina -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Armenia -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Australia -- (1 Nov. 1945)
Austria-- (14 Dec. 1955)
Azerbaijan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Bahamas -- (18 Sep. 1973)
Bahrain -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Bangladesh -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Barbados -- (9 Dec. 1966)
Belarus -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Belgium -- (27 Dec. 1945)
Belize -- (25 Sep. 1981)
Benin -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Bhutan -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Bolivia -- (14 Nov. 1945)
Bosnia and Herzegovina -- (22 May 1992)
Botswana -- (17 Oct. 1966)
Brazil -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Brunei Darussalam -- (21 Sep. 1984)
Bulgaria -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Burkina Faso -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Burundi -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Cambodia -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Cameroon -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Canada -- (9 Nov. 1945)
Cape Verde -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Central African Republic -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Chad -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Chile -- (24 Oct. 1945)
China -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Colombia -- (5 Nov. 1945)
Comoros -- (12 Nov. 1975)
Congo (Republic of the) -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Costa Rica -- (2 Nov. 1945)
Côte d'Ivoire -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Croatia -- (22 May 1992)
Cuba -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Cyprus -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Czech Republic -- (19 Jan. 1993)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Democratic Republic of the Congo -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Denmark -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Djibouti -- (20 Sep. 1977)
Dominica -- (18 Dec. 1978)
Dominican Republic -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Ecuador -- (21 Dec. 1945)
Egypt -- (24 Oct. 1945)
El Salvador -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Equatorial Guinea -- (12 Nov. 1968)
Eritrea -- (28 May 1993)
Estonia -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Ethiopia -- (13 Nov. 1945)
Fiji -- (13 Oct. 1970)
Finland -- (14 Dec. 1955)
France-- (24 Oct. 1945)
Gabon -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Gambia -- (21 Sep. 1965)
Georgia -- (31 July 1992)
Germany -- (18 Sep. 1973)
Ghana -- (8 Mar. 1957)
Greece -- (25 Oct. 1945)
Grenada -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Guatemala -- (21 Nov. 1945)
Guinea -- (12 Dec. 1958)
Guinea-Bissau -- (17 Sep. 1974)
Guyana -- (20 Sep. 1966)
Haiti -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Honduras -- (17 Dec. 1945)
Hungary -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Iceland -- (19 Nov. 1946)
India -- (30 Oct. 1945)
Indonesia -- (28 Sep. 1950)
Iran (Islamic Republic of) -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Iraq -- (21 Dec. 1945)
Ireland -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Israel -- (11 May 1949)
Italy -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Jamaica -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Japan -- (18 Dec. 1956)
Jordan -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Kazakhstan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Kenya -- (16 Dec. 1963)
Kiribati -- (14 Sept. 1999)
Kuwait -- (14 May 1963)
Kyrgyzstan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Lao People's Democratic Republic -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Latvia -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Lebanon -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Lesotho -- (17 Oct. 1966)
Liberia -- (2 Nov. 1945)
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Liechtenstein-- (18 Sep. 1990)
Lithuania -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Luxembourg-- (24 Oct. 1945)
Madagascar -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Malawi -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Malaysia-- (17 Sep. 1957)
Maldives-- (21 Sep. 1965)
Mali -- (28 Sep. 1960)
Malta -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Marshall Islands -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Mauritania -- (27 Oct. 1961)
Mauritius -- (24 Apr. 1968)
Mexico -- (7 Nov. 1945)
Micronesia (Federated States of) -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Monaco -- (28 May 1993)
Mongolia -- (27 Oct. 1961)
Montenegro -- (28 June 2006)
Morocco -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Mozambique -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Myanmar -- (19 Apr. 1948)
Namibia -- (23 Apr. 1990)
Nauru -- (14 Sept. 1999)
Nepal -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Netherlands -- (10 Dec. 1945)
New Zealand -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Nicaragua -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Niger -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Nigeria -- (7 Oct. 1960)
Norway -- (27 Nov. 1945)
Oman -- (7 Oct. 1971)
Pakistan -- (30 Sep. 1947)
Palau -- (15 Dec. 1994)
Panama -- (13 Nov. 1945)
Papua New Guinea -- (10 Oct. 1975)
Paraguay -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Peru -- (31 Oct. 1945)
Philippines -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Poland -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Portugal -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Qatar -- (21 Sep. 1971)
Republic of Korea -- (17 Sep. 1991)
Republic of Moldova -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Romania -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Russian Federation -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Rwanda -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Saint Kitts and Nevis -- (23 Sep. 1983)
Saint Lucia -- (18 Sep. 1979)
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines -- (16 Sep. 1980)
Samoa -- (15 Dec. 1976)
San Marino -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Sao Tome and Principe -- (16 Sep. 1975)
Saudi Arabia -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Senegal -- (28 Sep. 1960)
Serbia -- (1 Nov. 2000)
Seychelles -- (21 Sep. 1976)
Sierra Leone -- (27 Sep. 1961)
Singapore -- (21 Sep. 1965)
Slovakia -- (19 Jan. 1993)
Slovenia -- (22 May 1992)
Solomon Islands -- (19 Sep. 1978)
Somalia -- (20 Sep. 1960)
South Africa -- (7 Nov. 1945)
Spain -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Sri Lanka -- (14 Dec. 1955)
Sudan -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Suriname -- (4 Dec. 1975)
Swaziland -- (24 Sep. 1968)
Sweden -- (19 Nov. 1946)
Switzerland -- (10 Sep. 2002)
Syrian Arab Republic -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Tajikistan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Thailand -- (16 Dec. 1946)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- (8 Apr. 1993)
Timor-Leste -- (27 Sep. 2002)
Togo -- (20 Sep. 1960)
Tonga -- (14 Sep. 1999)
Trinidad and Tobago -- (18 Sep. 1962)
Tunisia -- (12 Nov. 1956)
Turkey -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Turkmenistan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Tuvalu -- (5 Sept. 2000)
Uganda -- (25 Oct. 1962)
Ukraine-- (24 Oct. 1945)
United Arab Emirates -- (9 Dec. 1971)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-- (24 Oct. 1945)
United Republic of Tanzania -- (14 Dec. 1961)
United States of America -- (24 Oct. 1945)
Uruguay -- (18 Dec. 1945)
Uzbekistan -- (2 Mar. 1992)
Vanuatu -- (15 Sep. 1981)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) -- (15 Nov. 1945)
Viet Nam -- (20 Sep. 1977)
Yemen -- (30 Sep. 1947)
Zambia -- (1 Dec. 1964)
Zimbabwe -- (25 Aug. 1980)

Looking at the list the Islamic nations make up a good chunk of the membership of the UN.
Reply

Dahir
08-21-2006, 07:02 AM
Woodrow, you listed Kofi Annan as being from Ghana, actually, he was born in Ghana. He attended high school and college in my home state of MINNESOTA!! :D

Kofi Annan actually attended the same school as my Social Studies teacher. :D

True!! :D
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
Woodrow, you listed Kofi Annan as being from Ghana, actually, he was born in Ghana. He attended high school and college in my home state of MINNESOTA!! :D

Kofi Annan actually attended the same school as my Social Studies teacher. :D

True!! :D
That is how the UN has him listed. He was the representative from Ghana before being elected Secretary General. It is possible he attended school here in the states. I went to College with a big name from Iraq. (no, not him LOL) But a guy that did get mentioned in the newspapers a few times and he did all his undergrade work here in the States in Louisiana.
Reply

Dahir
08-21-2006, 07:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
That is how the UN has him listed. He was the representative from Ghana before being elected Secretary General. It is possible he attended school here in the states. I went to College with a big name from Iraq. (no, not him LOL) But a guy that did get mentioned in the newspapers a few times and he did all his undergrade work here in the States in Louisiana.
Oh, I see. I think then that maybe he only attended school in America, oh, and the college he, and my teacher, attended was Macalester University; its one of the top schools in the Midwest.

You know, the funny thing is that many foreign "big guys" attend mid-range schools; not usually Harvard, just decent state or private colleges in small states, like many foreign leaders have attended Arizona University. Strange trend.

BACK TO TOPIC: For those who say the US stay in the UN, re-look what the US has been pulling off the last few years and how much power the US has over the UN; its a bit ironic for a single group to be stronger than the so-called enforcers of law, a.k.a. "United Nations."

Like I've said, the UN is only good for taxing powerful countries and spreading goodwill, they're also good at it, but sometimes they abuse it (oil for food), so I say each man for himself, it should teach some smaller nations responsibility.
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 07:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
That is how the UN has him listed. He was the representative from Ghana before being elected Secretary General. It is possible he attended school here in the states. I went to College with a big name from Iraq. (no, not him LOL) But a guy that did get mentioned in the newspapers a few times and he did all his undergrade work here in the States in Louisiana.
My error he never was the Representative from Ghana.

Here is an excerpt from his biography.

Mr. Annan was born in Kumasi, Ghana, on 8 April 1938. He studied at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi and completed his undergraduate work in economics at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A., in 1961. From 1961 to 1962, he undertook graduate studies in economics at the Institut universitaire des hautes études internationales in Geneva. As a 1971-1972 Sloan Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Annan received a Master of Science degree in management.

Mr. Annan joined the United Nations system in 1962 as an administrative and budget officer with the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. Since then, he has served with the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) in Addis Ababa; the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II) in Ismailia; the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva; and, at UN Headquarters in New York, as Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management and Security Coordinator for the UN System (1987-1990) and Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Finance, and Controller (1990-1992).

In 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Mr. Annan was asked by the Secretary-General, as a special assignment, to facilitate the repatriation of more than 900 international staff and citizens of Western countries from Iraq. He subsequently led the first United Nations team negotiating with Iraq on the sale of oil to fund purchases of humanitarian aid.

Before being appointed Secretary-General, Mr. Annan served as Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations (March 1992-February 1993) and then as Under-Secretary-General (March 1993-December 1996). His tenure as
Under-Secretary-General coincided with unprecedented growth in the size and scope of United Nations peacekeeping operations, with a total deployment, at its peak in 1995, of almost 70,000 military and civilian personnel from 77 countries. From November 1995 to March 1996, following the Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Annan served as Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the former Yugoslavia, overseeing the
transition in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) to the multinational Implementation Force (IFOR) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

As Secretary-General, Mr. Annan's first major initiative was his plan for reform, "Renewing the United Nations", which was presented to the Member States in July 1997 and has been pursued ever since with an emphasis on improving
coherence and coordination. His April 1998 report to the Security Council on "The Causes of Conflict and the Promotion of Durable Peace and Sustainable Development in Africa" was among several efforts to maintain the international community's commitment to Africa, the most disadvantaged of the world's regions.

He has used his good offices in several delicate political situations. These included an attempt in 1998 to gain Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions; a mission in 1998 to help promote the transition to civilian rule in
Nigeria; an agreement in 1999 to resolve a stalemate between Libya and the Security Council over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing; diplomacy in 1999 to forge an international response to violence in East Timor; the certification of Israel's
withdrawal from Lebanon in September 2000, and further efforts, since the renewed outbreak of violence in September 2000, to encourage Israelis and Palestinians to resolve their differences through peaceful negotiations based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and the principle of "land for peace".

Mr. Annan has also sought to improve the status of women in the Secretariat and to build closer partnerships with civil society, the private sector and other non-State actors whose strengths complement those of the United Nations; in
particular, he has called for a "Global Compact" involving leaders of the world business community as well as labour and civil society organizations, aimed at enabling all the world's people to share the benefits of globalization and embedding the global market in values and practices that are fundamental to meeting socio-economic needs.

In April 2000, he issued a Millennium Report, entitled "We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century", calling on Member States to commit themselves to an action plan for ending poverty and inequality, improving
education, reducing HIV/AIDS, safeguarding the environment and protecting peoples from deadly conflict and violence. The Report formed the basis of the Millennium Declaration adopted by Heads of State and Government at the Millennium Summit, held at UN Headquarters in September 2000..

In April 2001, the Secretary-General issued a five-point "Call to Action" to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic -- which he described as his "personal priority" -- and proposed the establishment of a Global AIDS and Health Fund to serve as a
mechanism for some of the increased spending needed to help developing countries confront the crisis.

On 10 December 2001, the Secretary-General and the United Nations received the Nobel Peace Prize. In conferring the Prize, the Nobel Committee said Mr. Annan “had been pre-eminent in bringing new life to the Organization”. In also conferring the Prize on the world body, the Committee said that it wished “to proclaim that the only negotiable road to global peace and cooperation goes by way of the United Nations”.

The Secretary-General is fluent in English, French and several African languages. He is married to Nane Annan, of Sweden, a lawyer and artist who has a great interest in understanding the work of the United Nations in the field. Two issues of particular concern to her are HIV/AIDS and education for women. She has also written a book for children about the United Nations. Mr. and Mrs. Annan have three children.



Maintained by the Department of Public Information
© United Nations, 2000 - 2006
Reply

Dahir
08-21-2006, 07:25 AM
Thanks for the huge summary Woodrow, it cleared up some questions I had. But here's the part I really enjoyed:

Mr. Annan was born in Kumasi, Ghana, on 8 April 1938. He studied at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi and completed his undergraduate work in economics at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A., in 1961.
The RED Part! :D
Reply

Hashim_507
08-21-2006, 07:33 AM
I am from minnesota, i just had summer courses at Macalester University.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-21-2006, 07:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
That seems possible. But I would not rule out Malaysa. I think it can be fairly safe to say that in my life time there will never be one from the USA or the UK. Although I would like to see the US pull out of the UN I don't think that will happen in my life time.
Candidates for the next UN Secretary General:

OFFICIAL NOMINEES
1) Ban Ki-Moon (South Korea)
2) Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka)
3) Surakiart Sathirathai (Thailand)
4) Shashi Tharoor (India)

CONTINUING SPECULATION
1) Kemal Dervis (Turkey)
2) Goh Chok Tong (Singapore) - Malaysian Gov't will oppose this fella!! :giggling:
3) Prince Zeid Hussein (Jordan)

OTHERS SUGGESTED
1) Ali Alatas (Indonesia)
2) Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia) - Malaysian Gov't will oppose him too!!:hiding:
3) Silvia Cartwright (New Zealand)
4) Helen Clark (New Zealand)
5) Dr. Maleeha Lodhi (Pakistan)
6) Niranjan Deva (Sri Lanka/UK)
7) Kishore Mahbubani (Singapore)
8) John Manley (Canada)
9) Thoraya Obaid (Saudi Arabia)
10) Sadako Ogata (Japan)
11) Razali Ismail (Malaysia) - Malaysian Gov't would be happy
12) Domingo Siazon (Philippines)
13) Nafis Sadik (Pakistan)
14) Leticia Shahani (Philippines)

Source:- http://www.unsg.org/candidates.html
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 07:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Candidates for the next UN Secretary General:

OFFICIAL NOMINEES
1) Ban Ki-Moon (South Korea)
2) Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka)
3) Surakiart Sathirathai (Thailand)
4) Shashi Tharoor (India)

CONTINUING SPECULATION
1) Kemal Dervis (Turkey)
2) Goh Chok Tong (Singapore) - Malaysian Gov't will oppose this fella!! :giggling:
3) Prince Zeid Hussein (Jordan)

OTHERS SUGGESTED
1) Ali Alatas (Indonesia)
2) Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia) - Malaysian Gov't will oppose him too!!:hiding:
3) Silvia Cartwright (New Zealand)
4) Helen Clark (New Zealand)
5) Dr. Maleeha Lodhi (Pakistan)
6) Niranjan Deva (Sri Lanka/UK)
7) Kishore Mahbubani (Singapore)
8) John Manley (Canada)
9) Thoraya Obaid (Saudi Arabia)
10) Sadako Ogata (Japan)
11) Razali Ismail (Malaysia) - Malaysian Gov't would be happy
12) Domingo Siazon (Philippines)
13) Nafis Sadik (Pakistan)
14) Leticia Shahani (Philippines)

Source:- http://www.unsg.org/candidates.html
Thanks for the list. Indeed it does seem the next Secretary General will be from Asia. But, don't rule out Prince Zeid Hussein (Jordan)
Reply

guyabano
08-21-2006, 09:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by brainiac
Pull out and kick them out. The U.N. is a corrupt and weak institution. Move it to France. While the U.S. may be the most influential country, no matter what we do, everyone is always on our backs. Let someone else play 'world cop', then see how the world turns out. I would love to see the day when the U.S. pulls out and throws the U.N. out. And I also propose the U.S. halt all forgein aid for a period of two years. The world hates us anyway ( and I don't care ), so why give money to a bunch of ingrates ? Then we will see who is friendly, and who just has their hands out. Let some other 'Great Satan' feed them.
Move it to France? Are you kidding?

Reply

north_malaysian
08-21-2006, 09:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Thanks for the list. Indeed it does seem the next Secretary General will be from Asia. But, don't rule out Prince Zeid Hussein (Jordan)
But... would it makes any difference when whosoever being elected as UN Sec. General?:rollseyes
Reply

Woodrow
08-21-2006, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
But... would it makes any difference when whosoever being elected as UN Sec. General?:rollseyes
It all depends on how much influence he has in matters outside of the UN. It can alter the way some countries few the UN. As far as UN policies it would make no difference.

This is another reason why the UN would benefit if the US was no longer a member. The Secretary General would probably be seen with more credability and not seen as a puppet.
Reply

therebbe
08-21-2006, 06:40 PM
The UN is a corrupt group that can resolve nothing. Look at the genocides under its watch like Darfur, and Rwanda. The purpose of creating the UN was to prevent it, yet some of its most distinguished members like (Russia, and France) have fueled some of these wars.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-22-2006, 03:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by therebbe
The UN is a corrupt group that can resolve nothing. Look at the genocides under its watch like Darfur, and Rwanda. The purpose of creating the UN was to prevent it, yet some of its most distinguished members like (Russia, and France) have fueled some of these wars.
They have failed in Darfur, Rwanda, Chechnya ... I think they ONLY GOOD in humanitarian efforts but not as political organization .... Security Council nowadays seems useless.
Reply

Mr. Baldy
08-23-2006, 12:15 PM
the UN eh? as in UN-der the thumb of the US? quite clearly the UN is just rubbish, to put it simply. the UN and the IMF are ways to opress countries that have resources in the west's interest, by seemingly 'helping' them. The IMF leant money to the african countries in the 60's with a guarentee of low interest rates, in the 70's interest rates rocketed, and the IMF demanded its money back, effectivley crippling the african nations.

so the question is not, 'should the US leave the UN?' the question is how do we make sure that muslim countries, and other countries, are not exploited by the greedy hand of the west? the answer is islam
Reply

Keltoi
08-23-2006, 01:20 PM
No, I think I remember the question specifically being "Should the U.S. leave the UN?"
Reply

Geronimo
08-23-2006, 02:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
the UN eh? as in UN-der the thumb of the US? quite clearly the UN is just rubbish, to put it simply. the UN and the IMF are ways to opress countries that have resources in the west's interest, by seemingly 'helping' them. The IMF leant money to the african countries in the 60's with a guarentee of low interest rates, in the 70's interest rates rocketed, and the IMF demanded its money back, effectivley crippling the african nations.

so the question is not, 'should the US leave the UN?' the question is how do we make sure that muslim countries, and other countries, are not exploited by the greedy hand of the west? the answer is islam
Yeah under the US thumb. That's why they all agreed aon the invasion of Iraq and never try to pass resolutions against Israel right? :rollseyes
Reply

bint_muhammed
08-24-2006, 09:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by QuranStudy
The United States was the only country that took action to stop the war? What did france do? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?? They just gave opinions.

what war? your not talking about isreal or lebanon!:heated:
Reply

wilberhum
08-24-2006, 09:51 PM
I have set back and watched what was being said. I was suppressed at some of information provided by Woodrow. I did not realize that the US was providing most of the financing. Of course I was not suppressed to here some say that the US was responsible for all problems. Current events always come into the picture so opinions are given on what is happening in Lebanon. Some say the UN should cease to exist because of its failures. Too, as in most threads there are unrelated and idiot remarks like “America has stolen the lands of poor new orlean people” to help point out how wonderful Hezbollah is. Also some Zionism bashing.
But back on topic and my opinion.
When my car doesn’t work well, I try to fix is, I don’t throw it away.
Till we come up with some thing better, the UN is better than nothing.
I truly think the UN would stop functioning if the US would leave and I don’t think that is a good thing. There are many things that needs addressed, the US = World Police, is only one.
But we have to talk, communicate, state our views, and look for solutions. That is part of being human.

So I want the US in the UN. And I want a better UN.
Reply

Woodrow
08-25-2006, 12:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I have set back and watched what was being said. I was suppressed at some of information provided by Woodrow. I did not realize that the US was providing most of the financing. Of course I was not suppressed to here some say that the US was responsible for all problems. Current events always come into the picture so opinions are given on what is happening in Lebanon. Some say the UN should cease to exist because of its failures. Too, as in most threads there are unrelated and idiot remarks like “America has stolen the lands of poor new orlean people” to help point out how wonderful Hezbollah is. Also some Zionism bashing.
But back on topic and my opinion.
When my car doesn’t work well, I try to fix is, I don’t throw it away.
Till we come up with some thing better, the UN is better than nothing.
I truly think the UN would stop functioning if the US would leave and I don’t think that is a good thing. There are many things that needs addressed, the US = World Police, is only one.
But we have to talk, communicate, state our views, and look for solutions. That is part of being human.

So I want the US in the UN. And I want a better UN.
Well we are in at least 50% agreement.

So I want the US in the UN. And I want a better UN
I also want a better UN. But, you bring up a good point. Can the UN survive without the US. Probably not, so now we are back to square one it remains the USUN.

Perhaps if we could enforce kicking out the members that are not contributing. I no some can not contribute financialy, perhaps they could take on more of a share in shring man power when it comes to Peace keeping forces. as long as the US is doing most of the upkeep we will remain the enablers for the wrong decisions. If each country would pull it's fair share there would be no truly dominate nation and the elected Secritary General could have a job and not be just a figure head.
Reply

Ghazi
08-25-2006, 03:10 PM
:sl:

Should the US pull out of the UN, Don't care really, but I feel muslim Nations should beacuse the UN isn't working in our favour, we should form our own un and govern by allah's laws.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-25-2006, 03:19 PM
I don't think the UN was ever about "peace". The UN is a marketplace. As deterence bacome a stronger stragtegy after the 2nd WW, they needed a place to deliver the "threath". It's basicly a place for the US, to pose its demands and set it's ultimatums. More then that, today it has even become a lucrative buisness. The international equivalent of the maffia's protectionmoney. As a country, if you pay for membership, you have some safety that the west won't attack you. But that means you have to be their dog and follow orders. Just liek an extorted merchant has to follow his "protectors" orders. But then when a country has problems the UN is nowhere to eb seen. Look at what happens when there's problems in Africa, the first thing UN does is bail out of the country. And then when things settle down they come back asking for membership money again, and put up some charade-tribunal as recompensation. I voted: I don't care. US is gonna have it their way anyway, so why bother.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
:sl:

Should the US pull out of the UN, Don't care really, but I feel muslim Nations should beacuse the UN isn't working in our favour, we should form our own un and govern by allah's laws.
So nations should only participate if it is "working in there favor"?
Reply

Muezzin
08-25-2006, 04:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
So nations should only participate if it is "working in there favor"?
I don't intend to be adversarial with this comment, only observational. Certain of the people (not on this forum) who wish for the US to pull out of the UN use a remarkably similar rationale to the one you are attacking.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
I don't intend to be adversarial with this comment, only observational. Certain of the people (not on this forum) who wish for the US to pull out of the UN use a remarkably similar rationale to the one you are attacking.
I think you equated questioning with attacking.
Reply

Muezzin
08-25-2006, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think you equated questioning with attacking.
Indeed I did. I apologise.
Reply

Ghazi
08-25-2006, 05:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
So nations should only participate if it is "working in there favor"?
Hmm... I see what your saying but the majority of nations involved are in bed with the United States which isn't exactly working to establish Allah's word.
Reply

wilberhum
08-25-2006, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
Hmm... I see what your saying but the majority of nations involved are in bed with the United States which isn't exactly working to establish Allah's word.
I hope not. I'm for total seperation of church and state. But I do realize that you think differently.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-26-2006, 05:27 PM
Sorry for going off-topic, but I felt I had to respond to this.
I hope not. I'm for total seperation of church and state. But I do realize that you think differently.
I'm not sure , but I take it with seperation of state and "church", you refer to any religion? If that's teh case; I would like to ask why you hold that opinion.

If you do so because you wish a devision in power to minimalise abuse, and you think it is potentially dangerous for a religious body to aquire this power, I can reply that power is dangerous regardless of its origin. Every potential can be used both negatively and positively. A secular governing might just as well be corrupt. Degenerate people in a struggle for power will always use any means necessary. Furthermore you need to realise that this devision in power is not neutral. A seperation of state and religion is anti-religious, as any opinion from a theist can be rejected by an atheist on the ground of it's religious base. But a theist cannot reject the athic opinion for it's atheistic base. So a devision of state and religion favours the atheistic view over the religious view. This happens regardless of which one is the most desirable, or morally righteous!

Should you answer that you feel a person with religous power (=someone respected and followed by believers) is not desirable because of his power. Then know that I will reply that I could argue -with that same logic- that one could reject any given democratic elected statesmen! No matter who is elected! If it's in a democratic system, he is (by defenition of popularity!) elected by the people because he and/or his views are popular.

Another reason one might have is because one for claiming state should be seperated from religion, is out of fear that he will no longer have freedom of religion. However, not every religious power will take away that freedom. If someone in power holds islamic views and is a true believer, he should know that "there should be no compulsion in religion" as it says in the qur'an.
Furthermore it is just as easy for a secular goverment to take away that right as it is for a theistic goverment. Just look at the lack of religious freedom in a clasical communistic state. But even in the west we see hijab bans in France, Belgium, and even turkey, which has a majority of muslims! What does that tell us about the freedom of religion a secular state has to offer?
Reply

Jayda
08-26-2006, 05:38 PM
I think we are a little too quick to forget the lessons we learned in world war II...
Reply

KAding
08-26-2006, 06:10 PM
Actually, the US is not 'footing the bills' any more than any other rich country. The US compromises about 25% of the world economy, as such they also pay about 25% of the UN budget. The European countries actually pay more then the US, footing close to 40% of the bill while collectively having an economy that is just as big as the US economy. Japan pays about 19%, more than the US per capita.

I don't think it would be beneficial for the US to leave the UN. At times it has proven useful to them, while the UN cannot generally be used against US interest because of its veto power.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-26-2006, 07:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Actually, the US is not 'footing the bills' any more than any other rich country. The US compromises about 25% of the world economy, as such they also pay about 25% of the UN budget. The European countries actually pay more then the US, footing close to 40% of the bill while collectively having an economy that is just as big as the US economy. Japan pays about 19%, more than the US per capita.

I don't think it would be beneficial for the US to leave the UN. At times it has proven useful to them, while the UN cannot generally be used against US interest because of its veto power.
Actually I thought fees are calculated on the population number of a country, not on it's economy or well-being.
Reply

Jayda
08-26-2006, 07:07 PM
The U.N. is an important place where smaller countries that aren't always heard get to voice their opinion... and it is about resolving problems without war, I do not think the united states should ever be against that... those are good things..
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-26-2006, 07:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
The U.N. is an important place where smaller countries that aren't always heard get to voice their opinion... and it is about resolving problems without war, I do not think the united states should ever be against that... those are good things..
What's the point of stating their opinion when they're ignored? America does what it wants either way. The only thing this does, is give the counrtys false hope that their diplomacy actually has an effect so that they wouldn't resort to other actions. Throw a dog a bone and it'll be quiet. And you're wrong, the UN is not about resolving problems without war, that's just what they feed the people to believe. It's really about the rest of the world following the USA, and from the very second that the UN doesn't work; that the country in question no longer follows, then the USA completely ignores the UN. So what's the point of their participation?
Reply

Jayda
08-26-2006, 07:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
What's the point of stating their opinion when they're ignored? America does what it wants either way. The only thing this does, is give the counrtys false hope that their diplomacy actually has an effect so that they wouldn't resort to other actions. Throw a dog a bone and it'll be quiet. And you're wrong, the UN is not about resolving problems without war, that's just what they feed the people to believe. It's really about the rest of the world following the USA, and from the very second that the UN doesn't work; that the country in question no longer follows, then the USA completely ignores the UN. So what's the point of their participation?
Hola steve...

...i don't think it is entirely a false hope, and saying something is better than nothing. If there were no U.N. I don't think America would have left South America alone... it also gives smaller nations a little more sense of pride internationally, I look at all the good things that have happened to Mexico because of the U.N. and see how far things have come and I have a lot of hope for the future, so do most mexicans in mexico and many south americans... the U.N. at least lets them speak...

have any of you ever heard of unicef?
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-26-2006, 08:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
Hola steve...

...i don't think it is entirely a false hope, and saying something is better than nothing. If there were no U.N. I don't think America would have left South America alone... it also gives smaller nations a little more sense of pride internationally, I look at all the good things that have happened to Mexico because of the U.N. and see how far things have come and I have a lot of hope for the future, so do most mexicans in mexico and many south americans... the U.N. at least lets them speak...

have any of you ever heard of unicef?
Euhm, I don't like to be the bringer of bad news, but USA hasn't left South America alone. It's even more noticable in Central America. They have interfered every time they had a personal interest. They have seen to it that every elected official is i ntheir favour or else they 've given him hell, and so far Castro is the only one who has been able to stand up against this involvement, and even there I woner if that's not only because the US "alowed " it to hapen. Perhaps involvement is not always in teh open, but their influence was defenitly there. Look at Panama, look at Cuba, look at Chili, look at Venuzuela. CIA knows south america like the back of their hand. Yes these countrys can all speak whereas they couldn't without the UN, but do you think it gives them a single ounce of power? Do you think they can do anything that they couldn't do before?

Yes I know Unicef and what they do is very admirable, but they're a semi-autonomous organisation. They have their own administration and are responsable for their own funding. They are linked to the UN in name, but not in comitment. UN doesn't need unicef and Unicef doesn't need teh UN as far as I know; they work exclusivly with donations.
Reply

Jayda
08-26-2006, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Euhm, I don't like to be the bringer of bad news, but USA hasn't left South America alone. It's even more noticable in Central America. They have interfered every time they had a personal interest. They have seen to it that every elected official is i ntheir favour or else they 've given him hell, and so far Castro is the only one who has been able to stand up against this involvement, and even there I woner if that's not only because the US "alowed " it to hapen. Perhaps involvement is not always in teh open, but their influence was defenitly there. Look at Panama, look at Cuba, look at Chili, look at Venuzuela. CIA knows south america like the back of their hand. Yes these countrys can all speak whereas they couldn't without the UN, but do you think it gives them a single ounce of power? Do you think they can do anything that they couldn't do before?
The US is not totally uninvolved... but this is not the same as the 70s and 80s when south america was constantly thrown into cia backed civil wars... today there are stable government and dictatorships are far less common... I really think that because they were able to voice themselves through organizations like the U.N. they were able to convince the world to stop ignoring what was happening... so yes I think that gives them an ounce of power...

format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Yes I know Unicef and what they do is very admirable, but they're a semi-autonomous organisation. They have their own administration and are responsable for their own funding. They are linked to the UN in name, but not in comitment. UN doesn't need unicef and Unicef doesn't need teh UN as far as I know; they work exclusivly with donations.
UNICEF is one example of what can result from the discussion and cooperation encouraged by the U.N. I don't think we should turn our backs on that...
Reply

Abdul Fattah
08-26-2006, 08:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Jayda
The US is not totally uninvolved... but this is not the same as the 70s and 80s when south america was constantly thrown into cia backed civil wars... today there are stable government and dictatorships are far less common... I really think that because they were able to voice themselves through organizations like the U.N. they were able to convince the world to stop ignoring what was happening... so yes I think that gives them an ounce of power...
Well the UN already existed in the 70 and 80's. It was founded in 1945.
So if there's a difrenc I'd doubt its thanks to the UN, I just think US is now more succesfull in establishing it's puppet goverments and therefor there's less war as there's no longer a need to start war!

UNICEF is one example of what can result from the discussion and cooperation encouraged by the U.N. I don't think we should turn our backs on that...
Unicef is founded by the UN, but that doesn't make their achievements the result of the UN. Their achievements is the result of all those hard working volunteers and the donators who're willing to support teh cause. It doesn't happen because nations come toghether, it happens because peopel put an effort in it. I'm not saying we shoul turn our backs on Unicef, I'm saying we should face reality and realise that UN is just a big joke.
Reply

KAding
08-27-2006, 01:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by steve
Actually I thought fees are calculated on the population number of a country, not on it's economy or well-being.
That would imply a country like China would be paying 5x as much to the UN as the United States. Clearly thats not true. The 'donations' to the UN are based on tough negotiations which clearly take economic developement as the starting point.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 10:27 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 12:02 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-28-2008, 07:25 PM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 05:02 PM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 07:30 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!