not that anyone but me cares

[Lao Tzu]

A lot fo reasons, but primarily because the organization is no longer needed.

I could go down the list of shitty things they have in their Bill of Rights, most of which are highly socialist concepts but their final item on their bill of rights which states "the right for the UN to eradicate any and all rights and freedoms… exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".

If you have the time feel free to post this info.

it wouldn't be these would it

http://www.aldenchronicles.com/archives/archives_farrell_montgomery_america.html

http://www.spintechmag.com/9909/sf0999.htm

As far as the socialist thing, i'm not bothered by it. Eradication of personal liberty bothers me, but i don't think that a government form can automatically be associated with lack of personal liberty (i.e., democracy = unrestrained freedom & communism = unbelievable repression. Some communist govs. are more free than democracies in the world).

Incidentally, i found this funny

http://www.aldenchronicles.com/archives/archives_farrell_montgomery_america.html

The rest of its Bill of Rights proves the point. Consider what "rights" the U.N. grants:

The right to adequate housing, a living wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widow's pay. These all negate the right to private property by default.

The right for children to possess "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion" and the right to privacy (i.e., the right for a child to seek an abortion without parental consent). These negate freedom of religion and the sanctity of the family, and assault the right to life.

The right for humans to immigrate and receive welfare services in whatever nation they choose. These assault national sovereignty, listed as a natural right in the Declaration of Independence, and again assault property.

The right for "students" to learn the "principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations." This destroys free speech.

And the right for the U.N. to eradicate any and all "rights and freedoms exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations," (11) a carryover from the Old Soviet constitution, a catch-all for the government to eradicate any right it sees fit. (12)


Just like those damn evil socialists. Based on the authors bias i can only assume he is taking the statement out of text. The fact that there isn't really any unbiased info against the UN leads me to believe that they aren't extremely evil.

The statement you posted was from article 29, verse 3 of the UN 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

I have no idea what that means. I assume it means you can't violate UN laws, but why would that be a bad thing? every gov. has laws to ensure coordination with it.

 

[Code]

A living wage is a terrible idea, the concept of getting paid simply because you're alive is crazy.

Imagine your taxes to pay every human for: widows pay, insurance, disability, social security et al.

The UN does not serve a purpose, it is extraneous, redundant and abosrbs too much of our money. The US (and many other nations) have a bill of rights, have their own army, have their own system to provide for the less fortunate....the UN doesn't give us any benefit.

 

[smallmovesal]

A living wage is a terrible idea, the concept of getting paid simply because you're alive is crazy.

Imagine your taxes to pay every human for: widows pay, insurance, disability, social security et al.

The UN does not serve a purpose, it is extraneous, redundant and abosrbs too much of our money. The US (and many other nations) have a bill of rights, have their own army, have their own system to provide for the less fortunate....the UN doesn't give us any benefit.

heh heh.. you saying your neighbours to the north are inherently evil baby?

 

[vinylgroover]

Agreed that the U.N as a vehicle for world diplomacy and improved international relations is redundant. But it still has many worthwhile and indespensible functions it carries out, ie Unesco, Unicef, WHO etc.

The U.N's charter needs to be redefined to increase the emphasis and importance placed on the humanitarian, cultural and economic aspects of it's role and dispense with the diplomatic efforts because it no longer has any teeth in international diplomacy.

 

[Code]

No, I think it's great if a country does this on their own. But the UN is basically aiming to become a One World Government, they offer nothing that nearly all other countries can provide on their own.

 

[vinylgroover]

Code,

That is where you are wrong. I agree that all democratically elected governments and people can in most cases provide on their own, but what about those that are not?

Governments in most third world or developing countries are far less interested in welfare of their own people, more interested in feathering their own nests.

 

[smallmovesal]

Canada has participated in the United Nations since its inception and is the only nation to have taken part in all of the UN's major peacekeeping operations. It was a Canadian, Lester Pearson, who invented the concept of peacekeeping; he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 as a result.

 

[Code]

The UN is WAAAY to big to simply offer health and education to third world nations.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I don't see how the UN can be a one world government. It is an organization of 189 countries that choose to work together for issues of education, health or peacekeeping.

Realistically, what do people (conservatives) think the UN is going to do? Force their lifestyle on everyone (this isn't totally unrealistic, because this is what things like peacekeeping forces & the ICC do, force UN guidelines on other countries)? If so, what kind of lifestyle. if it is a lifestyle of education, safety & peace i am all for it. I have seen no credible evidence that the UN is a wolf in sheeps clothing, faking to care about humanitarian issues now so they can enforce radical marxism in 2065. If anyone has any please give it.