• 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!

Is the UN a joke?

Higgins86 said:
did the job though and of course the rest is history. I dont disagree with you that the UN has to take a more agressive stance on certain conflicts ( syria right now) but I dont think that the west would benefit from getting of of the UN. In many pleaces the UN act as a silent but visable force and I know a few lads that had to serve in the UN and let me tell you I have a lot of respect for those guys who have to stand their and take **** and can't fire back because that takes balls. No one country is responisble enought to take on global issues alone, we need each other.
Click to expand...
I don't think we are too far away from each other on this. If the U.N. would improve what it does not do well and stay out of non-threatening internal affairs of countries they would be salvageable. As they stand at this moment I personally feel they are not in our best interest.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't think we are too far away from each other on this. If the U.N. would improve what it does not do well and stay out of non-threatening internal affairs of countries they would be salvageable. As they stand at this moment I personally feel they are not in our best interest.
Click to expand...

so what steps would need need to make in order to be useful, in your opinion?
 
Higgins86 said:
so what steps would need need to make in order to be useful, in your opinion?
Click to expand...
For starters, no more binding political treaties on certain topics such as healthcare in developed nations, gun control, the various "justices", and climate change. For these purposes most countries just write in their own loopholes while sticking it to the other members. NATO should be empowered to fully kick the asses of any immediate threats such as rogue dictators or other such regimes, UNICEF and other U.N. bodies are fine as long as they are held fully acountable and audited regularly. Off the top of my head that would fix a lot of problems.
 
LaMidRighter said:
For starters, no more binding political treaties on certain topics such as healthcare in developed nations, gun control, the various "justices", and climate change. For these purposes most countries just write in their own loopholes while sticking it to the other members. NATO should be empowered to fully kick the asses of any immediate threats such as rogue dictators or other such regimes, UNICEF and other U.N. bodies are fine as long as they are held fully acountable and audited regularly. Off the top of my head that would fix a lot of problems.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but lets say Nato says right we hit Syria ( with UN consent) would you be in favor of US forces being used or would you need a vote in congress?
 
Last edited:
Higgins86 said:
I agree with this, but lets say Nato says right we hit Syria ( with UN consent) would you be in favor of US forces being used or would you need a vote in congress?
Click to expand...
I'm undecided on that opinion. I guess it would come down to a few factors such as: How good is the intel., We did sign a pact so we are obligated to a degree, does the operation have a timeframe allowing for the police action exemption in the war powers act and if not how quickly can congress act. Things along that nature.

EDIT: Forgot one factor, what are the ROE. If our guys can't shoot back forget it, I don't want our countrymen getting killed because they are handcuffed where the enemy is not.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
I'm undecided on that opinion. I guess it would come down to a few factors such as: How good is the intel., We did sign a pact so we are obligated to a degree, does the operation have a timeframe allowing for the police action exemption in the war powers act and if not how quickly can congress act. Things along that nature.
Click to expand...

lets say the intel says no threat to the west but they are hunting down civillians using a sophisticated armed forces, then what? ( not arguing your point just being the devils advocate)
 
Higgins86 said:
lets say the intel says no threat to the west but they are hunting down civillians using a sophisticated armed forces, then what? ( not arguing your point just being the devils advocate)
Click to expand...
I'm kind of shaky about that scenario. I still believe that we should only use force as a last resort and in defense of ourselves or allies. However the Syria situation has other factors such as state sponsored terrorist actions which could bite us so I'm 50/50 on it. What I was thinking on intel was the actual ground situation, what tactics must be used, the casualty estimate, probability of success, etc.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm kind of shaky about that scenario. I still believe that we should only use force as a last resort and in defense of ourselves or allies. However the Syria situation has other factors such as state sponsored terrorist actions which could bite us so I'm 50/50 on it. What I was thinking on intel was the actual ground situation, what tactics must be used, the casualty estimate, probability of success, etc.
Click to expand...

Good response and in my opinion should be the future of US foreign policy, instead of putting troops on the ground the US should take a more agressive role in the UN and so should my own country ( the Uk) as well as other Euro powers and should put their resources into NATO and the UN and should offer a united front. Cut the red tape thats been in the way and if a country like Iran starts breaking international laws then we bomb them and we make it hard for that goverment to carry on as they are, if a country tries to start mass genocide we move in. None of this waiting around we go in and get the job done no questions asked and then we leave a UN force to help rebuild the country.
 
Higgins86 said:
Good response and in my opinion should be the future of US foreign policy, instead of putting troops on the ground the US should take a more agressive role in the UN and so should my own country ( the Uk) as well as other Euro powers and should put their resources into NATO and the UN and should offer a united front. Cut the red tape thats been in the way and if a country like Iran starts breaking international laws then we bomb them and we make it hard for that goverment to carry on as they are, if a country tries to start mass genocide we move in. None of this waiting around we go in and get the job done no questions asked and then we leave a UN force to help rebuild the country.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I subscribe to a semi-isolationist stance, trust me I do not favor innocents being harmed and even less favor doing nothing but I don't think the U.N. is very good at fixing things. Resources are more limited than the third world dictators' disrespect of life and for that reason it's tough to use the full might of the first world to end very bad things. Now, if the U.N. can make an airtight case that something needs to be done and we all take the gloves off, I say "it's go time".
 
LaMidRighter said:
I dunno. I subscribe to a semi-isolationist stance, trust me I do not favor innocents being harmed and even less favor doing nothing but I don't think the U.N. is very good at fixing things. Resources are more limited than the third world dictators' disrespect of life and for that reason it's tough to use the full might of the first world to end very bad things. Now, if the U.N. can make an airtight case that something needs to be done and we all take the gloves off, I say "it's go time".
Click to expand...

For me our history of sitting back and waiting see tactic has been a mess. We have either armed our future enemies or let dictators do as they please. For me we ar either in or we are out, this policy of going in with our hands tied behind our back has to stop. On a personal level I saw how messy that could get in Iraq and we are still stuck in Afghan. These mistakes have led to massive genocides in Africa and other countires where we have stood by and waited. The one thing we should of learned from the 1920's and 30's is that any hesitation is a sign of weakness and eventually it will embolden your enemies. If we are serious about making this a safe world we have to work together and stamp out all those who stand in the way
 
Higgins86 said:
For me our history of sitting back and waiting see tactic has been a mess. We have either armed our future enemies or let dictators do as they please. For me we ar either in or we are out, this policy of going in with our hands tied behind our back has to stop. On a personal level I saw how messy that could get in Iraq and we are still stuck in Afghan. These mistakes have led to massive genocides in Africa and other countires where we have stood by and waited. The one thing we should of learned from the 1920's and 30's is that any hesitation is a sign of weakness and eventually it will embolden your enemies. If we are serious about making this a safe world we have to work together and stamp out all those who stand in the way
Click to expand...
Agree. This is why I am a semi-isolationist, if the U.S. had entered WWII earlier and Neville Chamberlain had taken the Nazi threat more seriously Hitler would have had a much smaller historical footnote, I then have to go to Vietnam to know that we screwed the pooch on that one for the supposed benefit of France who turned their backs on our efforts. So I think that neither the pure interventionist nor the pure non-interventionist side works and I take things on an as is basis.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Agree. This is why I am a semi-isolationist, if the U.S. had entered WWII earlier and Neville Chamberlain had taken the Nazi threat more seriously Hitler would have had a much smaller historical footnote, I then have to go to Vietnam to know that we screwed the pooch on that one for the supposed benefit of France who turned their backs on our efforts. So I think that neither the pure interventionist nor the pure non-interventionist side works and I take things on an as is basis.
Click to expand...


im off to bed but have enjoyed this little debate, some good points made.
 
Higgins86 said:
I agree with this, but lets say Nato says right we hit Syria ( with UN consent) would you be in favor of US forces being used or would you need a vote in congress?
Click to expand...

It would come down to a vote in the United States Congress in order for us to commit OUR troops to a conflict. I mean that is the way it should be correct? It is the job of the UN, Nato, and President to convince us that we need to stand in the conflict correct?
 
I've said it long ago, and I'll say it again: The US should divest in all UN interests and get out, and never, ever contribute a nickel. And get the UN HQ out of our country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom