First step for world peace: The United States needs to leave/destroy the U.N.

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for PresidentKing
#1 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
Paul, Johnson, and Clinton(mr.), have all made points on this, but here's the clear cut version. The U.N. is the first step for the world to start moving toward more peaceful solutions. The world ws much more balanced than now before the LoN, when the LON was formed it was already going down the kitchen sink. It was destroyed technically, however the damage was done. the U.N. is going down the same path. The other issue is that countries often rely to much on U.S. influence making it the world police of the U.N. where other countries just follow based on the U.S.'s reactions or decisions. There is no balance of power in the U.N. it is literally putting one area as the king of all the middle and lower class countries and trying to control everything by stripping some cultural value and allowing countries to conquer or control others that have not yet joined the league. It's like legal federal terrorism. Getting rid of it will have countries making their own decisions to make peace, and maybe third party negotiators can come in, but without so many restrictions and laws that are being forced on the people. The U.N. needs to collapse or at least the U/n. needs to be balanced, and at the current pace the latter will only happen if the U.S. drops out of the leader role and changes the rules so that it's not like a legal dictation controller as it is in its current form. For those that do not believe this try to look up what the U.N. actually is then what you hear on Tv or the teletubbies. \ Honestly, who here does not agree that the U.N. is as or is even more pointless than corporate tax and the Federal Reserve?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#2 Posted by LJS9502_basic (162509 posts) -
I don't like the UN.....
Avatar image for ClassicRockFTW
#3 Posted by ClassicRockFTW (1106 posts) -

I agree. UN is like the League of Nations. Freaking pointless.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#4 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
The US leaving the UN would just give more power to Russia and China on the world stage. One of the main reasons why the League of Nations failed in the first place was because the US wasn't a member.
Avatar image for FelipeInside
#5 Posted by FelipeInside (28539 posts) -
First Step to World Peace: countries like the US and UK need to mind their own business.
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#6 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
The US leaving the UN would just give more power to Russia and China on the world stage. One of the main reasons why the League of Nations failed in the first place was because the US wasn't a member. -Sun_Tzu-
The LON was failing before there was a chance for the U.S. to even be a member. in fact, technically, they kind of where and just left. The U.N. gives to much policing power to certain contries to control others lives and cultures and to legally hunt down unwanteds. The UN. has to things: Either they need to balance the power so that countries are equal without ones having control over others and FORCING rules and laws allowing UN members to do what they want. Especially to countries who have not joined. or the U.N. needs to go and a completely different agency would need to take its place. The U.N. is literally giving world conquering power to like 7 countries.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#7 Posted by LJS9502_basic (162509 posts) -
First Step to World Peace: countries like the US and UK need to mind their own business.FelipeInside
Until a country needs financial support amirite?
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#8 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
First Step to World Peace: countries like the US and UK need to mind their own business.FelipeInside
Which most of the power they get is from their KING status in the U.N.
Avatar image for FelipeInside
#9 Posted by FelipeInside (28539 posts) -
[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]First Step to World Peace: countries like the US and UK need to mind their own business.PresidentKing
Which most of the power they get is from their KING status in the U.N.

Probably.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#10 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The US leaving the UN would just give more power to Russia and China on the world stage. One of the main reasons why the League of Nations failed in the first place was because the US wasn't a member. PresidentKing
The LON was failing before there was a chance for the U.S. to even be a member. in fact, technically, they kind of where and just left. The U.N. gives to much policing power to certain contries to control others lives and cultures and to legally hunt down unwanteds. The UN. has to things: Either they need to balance the power so that countries are equal without ones having control over others and FORCING rules and laws allowing UN members to do what they want. Especially to countries who have not joined. or the U.N. needs to go and a completely different agency would need to take its place. The U.N. is literally giving world conquering power to like 7 countries.

I agree that the UN is in serious need of major reforms, but those reforms won't happen if the US simply left. It'd probably just get worse by leaving a huge vacuum for Russia and China to fill.
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#11 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
[QUOTE="PresidentKing"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The US leaving the UN would just give more power to Russia and China on the world stage. One of the main reasons why the League of Nations failed in the first place was because the US wasn't a member. -Sun_Tzu-
The LON was failing before there was a chance for the U.S. to even be a member. in fact, technically, they kind of where and just left. The U.N. gives to much policing power to certain contries to control others lives and cultures and to legally hunt down unwanteds. The UN. has to things: Either they need to balance the power so that countries are equal without ones having control over others and FORCING rules and laws allowing UN members to do what they want. Especially to countries who have not joined. or the U.N. needs to go and a completely different agency would need to take its place. The U.N. is literally giving world conquering power to like 7 countries.

I agree that the UN is in serious need of major reforms, but those reforms won't happen if the US simply left. It'd probably just get worse by leaving a huge vacuum for Russia and China to fill.

I just said.. To reform the balanceing issues than leave..... oR TO DISMANTLE IT ENTIRELY. I never said just leave alone. That would not actually give power to China or Russia either it would create and internal conflict over the nations in the U.N.
Avatar image for Blue-Sky
#12 Posted by Blue-Sky (10379 posts) -

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

Avatar image for FelipeInside
#13 Posted by FelipeInside (28539 posts) -

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

Blue-Sky
Religion alone doesn't make wars or conflict. You think if Religion disappeared tomorrow there would be World Peace? lol.... There will NEVER be World Peace because we are the human race, and the human race thrives on conflict. If Religion was erased, humans would find something else to fight about.
Avatar image for C2N2
#14 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

The UN needs to remain.

There will never be world peace so to argue something as pointless as this is stupid. So long as there is religion and capitalism there will be conflict, whether conflict based in corporate interests or conflict based in religous ideology, it will be there until humans no longer exist.

Avatar image for PresidentKing
#15 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

FelipeInside
Religion alone doesn't make wars or conflict. You think if Religion disappeared tomorrow there would be World Peace? lol.... There will NEVER be World Peace because we are the human race, and the human race thrives on conflict. If Religion was erased, humans would find something else to fight about.

Which the conflicts are made because of having 2 different views of something which is usually caused by distortion and not because someone decided to go against the norm, or the fact that people accept giving certain people/countries, etc. too much power and are too stupid to realize it then fight eachother when they do realize it. World peace is completely possible. the world is less people now then when the crusades were taking place.
Avatar image for themajormayor
#16 Posted by themajormayor (25642 posts) -
Agree about the destroying part.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#17 Posted by LJS9502_basic (162509 posts) -

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

Blue-Sky
LOL love the naivety.....
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#18 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

[QUOTE="PresidentKing"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The US leaving the UN would just give more power to Russia and China on the world stage. One of the main reasons why the League of Nations failed in the first place was because the US wasn't a member. -Sun_Tzu-
The LON was failing before there was a chance for the U.S. to even be a member. in fact, technically, they kind of where and just left. The U.N. gives to much policing power to certain contries to control others lives and cultures and to legally hunt down unwanteds. The UN. has to things: Either they need to balance the power so that countries are equal without ones having control over others and FORCING rules and laws allowing UN members to do what they want. Especially to countries who have not joined. or the U.N. needs to go and a completely different agency would need to take its place. The U.N. is literally giving world conquering power to like 7 countries.

I agree that the UN is in serious need of major reforms, but those reforms won't happen if the US simply left. It'd probably just get worse by leaving a huge vacuum for Russia and China to fill.

Agreed.

Avatar image for PresidentKing
#19 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -

The UN needs to remain.

There will never be world peace so to argue something as pointless as this is stupid. So long as there is religion and capitalism there will be conflict, whether conflict based in corporate interests or conflict based in religous ideology, it will be there until humans no longer exist.

C2N2
The UN is the same thing as 3 people tricking your whole country into giving them power and then forcing culture and rules that ruin many of your people traditions for the sake of control. People not in the UN could easily be taken over by another country and no one will give to spits unless they are considered very dangerous in the area. The U.S. and around 6 other countries have the power to say "8888 it" to country laws and go and do what they want with near to no penalty. The U.N. can control what part of your countries culture and tradition is "Allowed" and will condemn it or make other "illegal" and can make some of it serious enough to get the "autthority" to "hunt you down" or change your countries political system out of Aid(force). The U.N. is basically the illegal unofficial and un voted in King that is controlling most of the world and causing everything to go completely batspit insane.
Avatar image for FelipeInside
#20 Posted by FelipeInside (28539 posts) -
[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

PresidentKing
Religion alone doesn't make wars or conflict. You think if Religion disappeared tomorrow there would be World Peace? lol.... There will NEVER be World Peace because we are the human race, and the human race thrives on conflict. If Religion was erased, humans would find something else to fight about.

Which the conflicts are made because of having 2 different views of something which is usually caused by distortion and not because someone decided to go against the norm, or the fact that people accept giving certain people/countries, etc. too much power and are too stupid to realize it then fight eachother when they do realize it. World peace is completely possible. the world is less people now then when the crusades were taking place.

No it's not, because it's not just views or religion, it's ENVY and POWER (power to conquer, power for more resources). As things become more expensive, population becomes greater, resources become extinct and climate change becomes worst, there will be LESS and LESS World Peace. The ONLY way would be to start new and educate humans from scratch.
Avatar image for moneymatterz
#21 Posted by moneymatterz (1139 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

LJS9502_basic

LOL love the naivety.....

Seems that Blue-Sky is rather skilled in parroting extremist viewpoints.

Avatar image for pie-junior
#22 Posted by pie-junior (2866 posts) -
pretty stupid rationales
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#23 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="PresidentKing"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="PresidentKing"] The LON was failing before there was a chance for the U.S. to even be a member. in fact, technically, they kind of where and just left. The U.N. gives to much policing power to certain contries to control others lives and cultures and to legally hunt down unwanteds. The UN. has to things: Either they need to balance the power so that countries are equal without ones having control over others and FORCING rules and laws allowing UN members to do what they want. Especially to countries who have not joined. or the U.N. needs to go and a completely different agency would need to take its place. The U.N. is literally giving world conquering power to like 7 countries.

I agree that the UN is in serious need of major reforms, but those reforms won't happen if the US simply left. It'd probably just get worse by leaving a huge vacuum for Russia and China to fill.

I just said.. To reform the balanceing issues than leave..... oR TO DISMANTLE IT ENTIRELY. I never said just leave alone. That would not actually give power to China or Russia either it would create and internal conflict over the nations in the U.N.

Most member-states in the UN have no power, and the UN to them is nothing more than a microphone. The power is on the security council, and only 5 countries have a seat at that table. If the leading western power and sole superpower of the world were to leave that table, it would have a huge effect on the balance of power within the UN. The world doesn't stop and start at our convenience, it is important to be involved in the primary organ for international diplomacy, and it is important for the international community to work together, especially at a time like this as the Middle East goes through a period of radical change and as climate change becomes more and more of an issue (especially with the inevitable rise of developing countries throughout the world). Right now international unity is more important than ever.
Avatar image for EasyStreet
#24 Posted by EasyStreet (11672 posts) -

UN is the rubber stamp for the warlords of the Potmac why would they want to get rid of it.

Avatar image for l4dak47
#25 Posted by l4dak47 (6838 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

moneymatterz

LOL love the naivety.....

Seems that Blue-Sky is rather skilled in parroting extremist viewpoints.

Pot, meet kettle.
Avatar image for Blue-Sky
#26 Posted by Blue-Sky (10379 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

FelipeInside

Religion alone doesn't make wars or conflict. You think if Religion disappeared tomorrow there would be World Peace? lol.... There will NEVER be World Peace because we are the human race, and the human race thrives on conflict. If Religion was erased, humans would find something else to fight about.

You're jumping the gun. I never said religion creates war alone, nor did I list it by itself,.

Never said there wouldn't be conflict, guess we have different interpretations of the term "world peace" I meant it in a more realistic sense, i.e. all conflicts can be solved through diplomacy.

Avatar image for nocoolnamejim
#27 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="PresidentKing"] The LON was failing before there was a chance for the U.S. to even be a member. in fact, technically, they kind of where and just left. The U.N. gives to much policing power to certain contries to control others lives and cultures and to legally hunt down unwanteds. The UN. has to things: Either they need to balance the power so that countries are equal without ones having control over others and FORCING rules and laws allowing UN members to do what they want. Especially to countries who have not joined. or the U.N. needs to go and a completely different agency would need to take its place. The U.N. is literally giving world conquering power to like 7 countries.GreySeal9

I agree that the UN is in serious need of major reforms, but those reforms won't happen if the US simply left. It'd probably just get worse by leaving a huge vacuum for Russia and China to fill.

Agreed.

Me too.
Avatar image for C2N2
#28 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

The UN needs to remain.

There will never be world peace so to argue something as pointless as this is stupid. So long as there is religion and capitalism there will be conflict, whether conflict based in corporate interests or conflict based in religous ideology, it will be there until humans no longer exist.

PresidentKing

The UN is the same thing as 3 people tricking your whole country into giving them power and then forcing culture and rules that ruin many of your people traditions for the sake of control. People not in the UN could easily be taken over by another country and no one will give to spits unless they are considered very dangerous in the area. The U.S. and around 6 other countries have the power to say "8888 it" to country laws and go and do what they want with near to no penalty. The U.N. can control what part of your countries culture and tradition is "Allowed" and will condemn it or make other "illegal" and can make some of it serious enough to get the "autthority" to "hunt you down" or change your countries political system out of Aid(force). The U.N. is basically the illegal unofficial and un voted in King that is controlling most of the world and causing everything to go completely batspit insane.

That would occur regardless of the UN, at least with the UN minor nations and great nations alike have a forum to discuss ways to better society, whether they do anything or not is irrelevant... At least some effort is made.

Avatar image for themajormayor
#29 Posted by themajormayor (25642 posts) -
I like early french
Avatar image for FelipeInside
#30 Posted by FelipeInside (28539 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

Blue-Sky

Religion alone doesn't make wars or conflict. You think if Religion disappeared tomorrow there would be World Peace? lol.... There will NEVER be World Peace because we are the human race, and the human race thrives on conflict. If Religion was erased, humans would find something else to fight about.

You're jumping the gun. I never said religion creates war alone, nor did I list it by itself,.

Never said there wouldn't be conflict, guess we have different interpretations of the term "world peace" I meant it in a more realistic sense, i.e. all conflicts can be solved through diplomacy.

Ah Gotcha.
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#31 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="PresidentKing"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I agree that the UN is in serious need of major reforms, but those reforms won't happen if the US simply left. It'd probably just get worse by leaving a huge vacuum for Russia and China to fill.

I just said.. To reform the balanceing issues than leave..... oR TO DISMANTLE IT ENTIRELY. I never said just leave alone. That would not actually give power to China or Russia either it would create and internal conflict over the nations in the U.N.

Most member-states in the UN have no power, and the UN to them is nothing more than a microphone. The power is on the security council, and only 5 countries have a seat at that table. If the leading western power and sole superpower of the world were to leave that table, it would have a huge effect on the balance of power within the UN. The world doesn't stop and start at our convenience, it is important to be involved in the primary organ for international diplomacy, and it is important for the international community to work together, especially at a time like this as the Middle East goes through a period of radical change and as climate change becomes more and more of an issue (especially with the inevitable rise of developing countries throughout the world). Right now international unity is more important than ever.

The U.N does none of this. As you just proved my point. it gives 5-7 countries KINGDOM powers over all other countries and decidding how to control them as I have posted before (go read a few posts back.) The thing you are looking for is not existent. The U.N. as it is is as dumb as things as Nato and as corrupt as the Nazi party if more so. The world was more at peace without the U.N. and LON, the issue is that both of those where opressive agencies that didn't even try to balance international countries, both gave to much or too little and the ones with too much controlled the ones that were too little. Heck you literally just said that the Middle East needs to be controlled during its radical change. I think we already screwed them up enough before.
Avatar image for Blue-Sky
#32 Posted by Blue-Sky (10379 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

The only way world peace can be achieved is through the destruction of certain ethnic groups, dismantling of religion and a take over of all the countries.

moneymatterz

LOL love the naivety.....

Seems that Blue-Sky is rather skilled in parroting extremist viewpoints.

It's supposed to be extreme, that's what makes world peace such a pipe dream.

Avatar image for PresidentKing
#33 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -

[QUOTE="PresidentKing"][QUOTE="C2N2"]

The UN needs to remain.

There will never be world peace so to argue something as pointless as this is stupid. So long as there is religion and capitalism there will be conflict, whether conflict based in corporate interests or conflict based in religous ideology, it will be there until humans no longer exist.

C2N2

The UN is the same thing as 3 people tricking your whole country into giving them power and then forcing culture and rules that ruin many of your people traditions for the sake of control. People not in the UN could easily be taken over by another country and no one will give to spits unless they are considered very dangerous in the area. The U.S. and around 6 other countries have the power to say "8888 it" to country laws and go and do what they want with near to no penalty. The U.N. can control what part of your countries culture and tradition is "Allowed" and will condemn it or make other "illegal" and can make some of it serious enough to get the "autthority" to "hunt you down" or change your countries political system out of Aid(force). The U.N. is basically the illegal unofficial and un voted in King that is controlling most of the world and causing everything to go completely batspit insane.

That would occur regardless of the UN, at least with the UN minor nations and great nations alike have a forum to discuss ways to better society, whether they do anything or not is irrelevant... At least some effort is made.

That's not how the U.N. works, there is very little discussion and more forced upon policys. Half the cultures of around near half the U.N. members are deemed illegal under dictator law under the U.N. It's more like a person screaming they like icecream on 4 chan when they just post batman memes. There coice only matter little. There is no equality in the U.N. and only around 5-7 countries actually make the decisions which as seen before mostly by the U.S. and UK, do not require some of these countries even knowing until after the fact. you are defending Dictational Communistic Anarchy.
Avatar image for themajormayor
#34 Posted by themajormayor (25642 posts) -

[QUOTE="moneymatterz"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] LOL love the naivety.....Blue-Sky

Seems that Blue-Sky is rather skilled in parroting extremist viewpoints.

It's supposed to be extreme, that's what makes world peace such a pipe dream.

I wouldn't say that. The amount of conflicts have decreased steadily during history. And there hasn't been any wars within the democratic world AFAIK. In other words democratization--->world peace, i.e. abolish the UN. Or at least reduce the status of dictatorships.
Avatar image for one_plum
#35 Posted by one_plum (6506 posts) -

That's like the equivalent of Superman ragequitting the Justice League.

Avatar image for superclocked
#36 Posted by superclocked (5864 posts) -
Has there been another world war since the UN was formed? No? The UN isn't perfect, but the world would be much worse off without it...
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#37 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
[QUOTE="superclocked"]Has there been another world war since the UN was formed? No? The UN isn't perfect, but the world would be much worse off without it...

Was there signs of a world war before the League of nations? No. The U.N. is causing issues to occur faster and faster, and the U.N. as decribed many times in this thread is not balanced or equal and needs to have it's memory reformatted. Reforms all a round. people like you don't realize what the U.N. actual is and are allowing them to continue with the nonsense. The UN needs to be gone and a new agency must take its place sooner than latter or there will be a world war 3 which the UN is actually helping increasing the chances of.
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#38 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="moneymatterz"]

Seems that Blue-Sky is rather skilled in parroting extremist viewpoints.

themajormayor

It's supposed to be extreme, that's what makes world peace such a pipe dream.

I wouldn't say that. The amount of conflicts have decreased steadily during history. And there hasn't been any wars within the democratic world AFAIK. In other words democratization--->world peace, i.e. abolish the UN. Or at least reduce the status of dictatorships.

Which the latter is what the UN kind of is, so getting rid of it and having and evenly balanced, democratic council or something similar on equal terms and a lot of reforms from what the U.N. currently is would lead to world peace. The U.N. now is actually technically worse than the LoN.
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#39 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30164 posts) -

No such thing as "world peace".

Avatar image for PresidentKing
#40 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -

No such thing as "world peace".

Aljosa23
World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist. Religion is about believing in fictional characters and is under law federally as something that exists and there are laws that can punish you for not beliving that when it's technically the truth. And it somehow "exists."
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#41 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist.PresidentKing

This is the biggest contradiction I've seen in awhile. Congrats.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#42 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30164 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

No such thing as "world peace".

PresidentKing

World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist. Religion is about believing in fictional characters and is under law federally as something that exists and there are laws that can punish you for not beliving that when it's technically the truth. And it somehow "exists."

coleman_wtf.gif

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#43 Posted by LJS9502_basic (162509 posts) -
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

No such thing as "world peace".

PresidentKing
World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist. Religion is about believing in fictional characters and is under law federally as something that exists and there are laws that can punish you for not beliving that when it's technically the truth. And it somehow "exists."

Great...take a political thread and make it anti religion.:roll:
Avatar image for PresidentKing
#44 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -

[QUOTE="PresidentKing"]World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist.GreySeal9

This is the biggest contradiction I've seen in awhile. Congrats.

Nice job not reading the post I quoted and reading out of context. Congrats.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#45 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="PresidentKing"] I just said.. To reform the balanceing issues than leave..... oR TO DISMANTLE IT ENTIRELY. I never said just leave alone. That would not actually give power to China or Russia either it would create and internal conflict over the nations in the U.N.PresidentKing
Most member-states in the UN have no power, and the UN to them is nothing more than a microphone. The power is on the security council, and only 5 countries have a seat at that table. If the leading western power and sole superpower of the world were to leave that table, it would have a huge effect on the balance of power within the UN. The world doesn't stop and start at our convenience, it is important to be involved in the primary organ for international diplomacy, and it is important for the international community to work together, especially at a time like this as the Middle East goes through a period of radical change and as climate change becomes more and more of an issue (especially with the inevitable rise of developing countries throughout the world). Right now international unity is more important than ever.

The U.N does none of this. As you just proved my point. it gives 5-7 countries KINGDOM powers over all other countries and decidding how to control them as I have posted before (go read a few posts back.) The thing you are looking for is not existent. The U.N. as it is is as dumb as things as Nato and as corrupt as the Nazi party if more so. The world was more at peace without the U.N. and LON, the issue is that both of those where opressive agencies that didn't even try to balance international countries, both gave to much or too little and the ones with too much controlled the ones that were too little. Heck you literally just said that the Middle East needs to be controlled during its radical change. I think we already screwed them up enough before.

I do think I said that the UN was in need of serious reform, did I not? Being opposed to the US leaving the sh!thole that is the UN is not an endorsement of the status quo . The whole reason why the assassination of an Arch Duke escalated to a world war (and why we have a UN in the first place) is because there was no centralized international body for diplomacy.

The world needs a more effective UN, not a destroyed UN. We are living in the age of globalization, and many of the problems that the world faces can't be solved without international cooperation. The Middle East isn't making any progress when we just sit back and watch Assad butcher his own people. The world isn't going to stop getting warmer without international regulations that reduce carbon emissions world wide. And there is always the constant threat of nuclear weapons - not only would it be impossible to limit proliferation without the UN or something like it, but it is kind of important for countries that each can destroy the world 3 times over on their own to be a part of the global community and keep all lines of communication open amongst themselves.

Avatar image for C2N2
#46 Posted by C2N2 (759 posts) -

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="PresidentKing"] The UN is the same thing as 3 people tricking your whole country into giving them power and then forcing culture and rules that ruin many of your people traditions for the sake of control. People not in the UN could easily be taken over by another country and no one will give to spits unless they are considered very dangerous in the area. The U.S. and around 6 other countries have the power to say "8888 it" to country laws and go and do what they want with near to no penalty. The U.N. can control what part of your countries culture and tradition is "Allowed" and will condemn it or make other "illegal" and can make some of it serious enough to get the "autthority" to "hunt you down" or change your countries political system out of Aid(force). The U.N. is basically the illegal unofficial and un voted in King that is controlling most of the world and causing everything to go completely batspit insane.PresidentKing

That would occur regardless of the UN, at least with the UN minor nations and great nations alike have a forum to discuss ways to better society, whether they do anything or not is irrelevant... At least some effort is made.

That's not how the U.N. works, there is very little discussion and more forced upon policys. Half the cultures of around near half the U.N. members are deemed illegal under dictator law under the U.N. It's more like a person screaming they like icecream on 4 chan when they just post batman memes. There coice only matter little. There is no equality in the U.N. and only around 5-7 countries actually make the decisions which as seen before mostly by the U.S. and UK, do not require some of these countries even knowing until after the fact. you are defending Dictational Communistic Anarchy.

Like I said though, those 5-7 "supreme" countries would be in such a situation regardless... You act like the UN gives them power over lesser countries when they would have that power over them no matter what...

The UN still does more...

- There are hundreds of thousands of UN Peacekeepers rotated in and out of missions throughout Africa and the Middle East.

- Not to mention UNDP, UNESCO, etc...

Avatar image for PresidentKing
#47 Posted by PresidentKing (215 posts) -
[QUOTE="PresidentKing"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

No such thing as "world peace".

LJS9502_basic
World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist. Religion is about believing in fictional characters and is under law federally as something that exists and there are laws that can punish you for not beliving that when it's technically the truth. And it somehow "exists."

Great...take a political thread and make it anti religion.:roll:

it's not anti-religion. The teachings of god can be debated, but Humans named the actual religions and the books the religiong followed. While world peace is objectibly possible just like its objectively possible that people have children and that water is wet. \ nothing anti-religion about it.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#48 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="PresidentKing"]World Peace is actually obtainable. yet it can't exist.PresidentKing

This is the biggest contradiction I've seen in awhile. Congrats.

Nice job not reading the post I quoted and reading out of context. Congrats.

It's a contradiction any way you slice it. Something can't be obtainable if it doesn't exist. Simple logic, homie.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#49 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30164 posts) -

it's not anti-religion. The teachings of god can be debated, but Humans named the actual religions and the books the religiong followed. While world peace is objectibly possible just like its objectively possible that people have children and that water is wet. \ nothing anti-religion about it.PresidentKing
It's not possible just like it's not possible for every person you ever meet to like you.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
#50 Posted by Wilfred_Owen (20964 posts) -
Is this what happens when you unleash 14 year olds onto the internet?