• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN Issues Scathing Assessment of US Human Rights Record

Abbazorkzog said:
Why the irrational hatred for the UN? Is the coordination of different nations and peoples of vastly contradicting and differing cultures toward unity and cooperation such a bad thing?

The latter of these two comments is particularly disturbing.
Click to expand...

The UN has proven they are useless many times over, the idea is a good one, in practice it has become another League of Nations.
 
Casper said:
You must see the situation the world is in as amusing, I do not.
Click to expand...

What I find amusing is your defining of the UN as the League of Nations.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

You've lost all credibility.
 
Gitmo alone should be enough to warrant condemnation.

Except from Americans who are cowards who 'sleep better' at night believing Gitmo is good and the ends justify the means.

Anyone who thinks Gitmo is not disgusting - disgusts me on this issue.
 
Casper said:
The UN has proven they are useless many times over,
Click to expand...
In many different areas and not just useless, but liars also.




DA60 said:
Gitmo alone should be enough to warrant condemnation.

Except from Americans who are cowards who 'sleep better' at night believing Gitmo is good and the ends justify the means.

Anyone who thinks Gitmo is not disgusting - disgusts me on this issue.
Click to expand...
iLOL Bs!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with GITMO. The facility serves a purpose.
Which has nothing to do with cowardliness.
The use of that terminology says far more negative things about the person using it than those they are speaking about.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
Are you ****ing serious? My entire post was your answer. Accept it or deny it, doesn't change reality.



Your clearly-partisan and fallaciously-noncredit bias of a world-view is noted.
Click to expand...

Really so this wasn't my entire post.

braindrain said:
You think the UN is the only thing protecting Americans first and second amendment rights.
Serious question here. Are you joking because while your post doesn't come across as a joke it is so ridiculous that it must be so you have me rather confused.
Click to expand...


And I am the one confused seeing as you thing we should be concerned what the UN human rights council made up of countries like Saudi Arabia care about us or even more so that you think the UN would step in to defend our 2nd amendment right. What are you basing this on. Show me a time when the UN has done such a thing.
 
Top 10 Financial Providers for the UN

toptencontributers.jpg

This is like a gold digger telling her sugar daddy that he needs to change his bad habits.
 
Could the U.N. Survive a Trump Presidency Intact?
l_trump_09262016_1.jpg

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a rally, Roanoke, Va., Sept. 24, 2016 (AP photo by Steve Helber).

This is not a new question. In the early 2000s, the Bush administration’s rejection of the U.N. over the Iraq War unleashed similar questions about the body’s future. Back then, European governments led efforts to keep the U.N. credible. Britain, for example, invested in peacekeeping and international development, while Germany championed the Human Rights Council. Bush’s profoundly anti-multilateral U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, railed against the “EUroids” who defended the institution.

There are rumors that Bolton will feature prominently in a Trump administration. Facing this threat, the Europeans could once again band together to protect the U.N. from American aggression. In the Security Council, Britain and France might conceivably have to balance Russian-American initiatives, raising the intriguing prospect of London or Paris vetoing resolutions backed by Washington and Moscow. Germany has already stepped up aid spending and deployed more troops on U.N. missions in Africa. But with the U.K. and EU in turmoil over Brexit, the Europeans cannot steady the U.N. ship alone.

SEE ALSO:


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom