All good government is based on people’s desire to control their own destiny. That is what makes the UN so dangerous. 
Example, no concerns over Kashmir, Palestine, Chenya. How can the individual citizen have any influence over what the UN does.?
In 50 years or so the UN will become a global tyrant. And religion will be banned unless it’s approved by the UN.
NOTE Forgive me about the mistake in heading. Perhaps, Mods will clear that up 
Your opinion on UN is very similar to ones expressed by right wing American nuts who think the UN as part of a communist plan to take over the world.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Maula Baksh: *
Your opinion on UN is very similar to ones expressed by right wing American nuts who think the UN as part of a communist plan to take over the world.
[/QUOTE]
It's not my opinion.
I'm just telling the truth!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
It's not my opinion.
I'm just telling the truth!
[/QUOTE]
dude, no offence but if what you think is the truth isnt all too coherent. want to elaborate?
PT, at first when i read the title of thread, i thought u meant "US" as in United States. :D
It isnt a threat at all to US or other perm members of security council. UN is structured to function around those permanent members with vetoing powers. If something displeases them they can veto it wont see the light of the day. And that has been happening since it was created.
But obviously, there are some things about UN that are beneficial to the needy and unfortunate nations as well. Its a political body nonetheless. It lacks the tooth, if u will, to make it a wothwhile enforcer of the law on a global basis.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by queer: *
dude, no offence but if what you think is the truth isnt all too coherent. want to elaborate?
[/QUOTE]
Elaborate what?
If UN is the only solution to make world peace, why the hell people in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechyan, Gujarat suffereing? Every country agreed when they became the part of UN, to work for the betterment of World Society. It hasn't been done yet!
Which is why I said UN is gonna be threat for US!
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by 5Abi: *
**It isnt a threat at all to US or other perm members of security council. UN is structured to function around those permanent members with vetoing powers. If something displeases them they can veto it wont see the light of the day. And that has been happening since it was created.*
That is what precisely my point.
But obviously, there are some things about UN that are beneficial to the needy and unfortunate nations as well. Its a political body nonetheless. It lacks the tooth, if u will, to make it a wothwhile enforcer of the law on a global basis.
Not true Man.
[/QUOTE]
The UN is a has-been, politically, having lost all credence by playing second fiddle to the US (not that it could have been anything but that, the veto-ing powers ensured it from the beginning). Constitutionally, it is an ailing yes-man. At present its marginal significance lies only in the establishment of the social infrastructure and "support" it tries to provide around the globe.
In your thread title, I'd replace "UN" with "rabid fundamentalism of the US administration". Points of ponderence for global terror indeed.
The UN does not intervene physically into internal strife such as Kashmir, Palestine or Chechnya. It is not a world police force nor should it be. The UN is need to help broker peace not create peace.
The creation of Israel was a UN deal. Many subsequent rulings from it have merit, but do recieve obeisance. Those in respect to Israel after 1948 and the idea of the Kashmir issue to be decided by a plebescite appear rational. The UN must never become a global tyrant, the sovereinty of nations is paramount. The individual citizen does not have influence in the UN, countries do. Descisions made there are a result of the national politics of the member states in power at the time.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ex-Army: **
The UN does not intervene physically into internal strife such as Kashmir, Palestine or Chechnya. It is not a world police force nor should it be. The UN is need to help broker peace not create peace.**
[/QUOTE]
What's the use of UN who doesn't even act like a peace broker?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
The creation of Israel was a UN deal. Many subsequent rulings from it have merit, but do recieve obeisance. Those in respect to Israel after 1948 and the idea of the Kashmir issue to be decided by a plebescite appear rational. The UN must never become a global tyrant, the sovereinty of nations is paramount. The individual citizen does not have influence in the UN, countries do. Descisions made there are a result of the national politics of the member states in power at the time.
[/QUOTE]
I hear this....I hear that
yeah lets bring the league of nations back..
Let’s not and say we did. The UN consistently over steps the bounds of it charter depending on who is running what committee at the time. International Criminal Court being the worse mistake they have ever made. Just by design it will not work along with most of the outdated charter. To make the UN work you have to either give it teeth or turn it into a humanitarian aid program. Of course who will agree to do either?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ex-Army: *
Let’s not and say we did. The UN consistently over steps the bounds of it charter depending on who is running what committee at the time. International Criminal Court being the worse mistake they have ever made. Just by design it will not work along with most of the outdated charter. To make the UN work you have to either give it teeth or turn it into a humanitarian aid program. Of course who will agree to do either?
[/QUOTE]
UN has teeth when US wants to do something for its own objectives. UN is a political organisation with army wing as US. and US is using it as rubber stamp. all the nations should make another league of nations, or remove vito power from all of them. so that cant manuplate in their favours.
they talk about democracy its not democracy when one can stop the whole world opinion. i.e, US