The Instigator
tjzimmer
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
UberCryxic
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

America should not support the United Nations because it is unproductive

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,568 times Debate No: 978
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (13)

 

tjzimmer

Pro

Whenever conflicts emerge the UN sticks its nose into them. The UN has done hardly anything in helping better the international community. It is corrupt and the only reason it still exist is because the US provides its financial and military services. America should break off from any UN policies and make its own foreign policy decisions economically and politically.
UberCryxic

Con

Greetings zimmer, hopefully this will be a lively and well-reasoned debate.

I will comment on all of your relevant claims, but first I want to set the historical scene necessary to understand the purpose and the workings of the United Nations, mainly because your laconic introduction was riddled with slovenly generalizations and was completely devoid of context.

The twentieth century was a momentous period for humanity; the chief events of the era, the two world wars, restructured international relations in an unprecedented fashion. The pain and turmoil wrought by conflicts that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people had a profound impact on human thinking about global governance and cooperation. The kernels of international treaties and agreements - epitomized by the Geneva and Hague conventions concerning the treatment of war prisoners and the uses of weaponry - sprouted before the world wars, but those conflicts gave added momentum to the idea that nations should discuss and resolve their problems through international organizations. The First World War led to the League of Nations, but the egregious failures of this body prompted the creation of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War. Both entities were part of this broader push to eliminate unilateralism and to achieve consensus for global development; they hoped to create a forum to redress grievances and, ultimately, to maintain world peace. Other major global organizations, like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, were conceived in the same geopolitical cauldron, hoping to attain financial growth and stability for the world through friendship and coordination among nations. We should all be familiar with these historical intricacies because they help indirectly explain why the United States cannot simply "break off" from the UN: the UN is a fundamental part of our modern, globalized world, and any nations seeking prosperity and goodwill in that world must work within the cooperative international frameworks established after the Second World War.

Now that we understand the historical reasons for the creation of the United Nations, let's analyze some of your statements. Your first major assertion is that the UN "has done hardly anything in helping better the international community." This is quite an astounding comment when we look at the extensive record the UN has with global aid, relief, and peacekeeping efforts. Too often the media portrays the "big dogs" in the UN, the Security Council, without tending to the fact that the UN is a gargantuan organization with several other branches and sub-organizations. Among the latter would be the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund, which have provided food, clothes, shelter, and health care to millions of people throughout the world. Sure, it's easy standing at the comfort of your chair and writing on debate.org from your computer about how worthless the UN is, but for scores of people out there the UN means the difference between life and death.....every day. Besides aid and relief, the UN has made major strides in global peace and security since the Second World War. It is true that the amaranthine human dream of warless societies has not yet materialized, people still commit heinous acts of mass violence, but it is also true that no two major powers have openly warred against one another since 1945, an absolutely jarring fact when we consider history before that date, when European powers, among others, were regularly and frequently locked in conflict. In 1914 or 1939, few could have been shocked that nations like France and Germany were at war with each other. Now, however, the two are friends, a friendship rooted and strengthened in supranational organizations like the European Union and the United Nations. The UN has not given us permanent peace, but it generally has given the world a relative level of desirable stability. The UN also played a pivotal role in the decolonization process of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, especially in Africa. Its security forces and local administrations combined well together to create a more placid environment for the success and establishment of new African countries. Africa as a continent still has a plethora of geostrategic and sociopolitical problems, but these would have been further accentuated without UN guidance. Even greater evidence for the centrality of the UN in global security was given in the "Human Security Report" of 2005, an authoritative document from the Human Security Centre. There is much in the report that can be questioned, but its generally high value is unmistakable.

The report detailed the state of global security following the Cold War, covering the period from 1990 to 2003. The report, which you can read at humansecurityreport.info, said that "the number of genocides and politicides plummeted by 80 [percent] between 1988 and 2001," while also finding that "the number of armed conflicts around the world has declined by more than forty percent since the early 1990s," that "international crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70 [percent] between 1981 and 2001," and that "the number of refugees dropped by some 45 [percent] between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came to an end." The report also analyzes trends dating back to the 1950s, even mentioning something about my snippet above regarding the relatively harmonious relationships between the major powers: "The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval of uninterrupted peace between the major powers in hundreds of years." And who was a crucial component - indeed, the crucial component - in making this happen? The United Nations! The report credits the UN with "[spearheading] a veritable explosion of conflict prevention, peacemaking, and post-conflict peace-building activities in the early 1990s." Some of these concrete efforts featured everything from a "sixfold increase in the number of preventive diplomacy missions mounted...between 1990 and 2002" to a "fourfold increase in the number of...peacekeeping operations between 1987 and 1999." The report then states that "as the upsurge of international activism grew through the 1990s, the number of crises, wars, and genocides declined." The UN was an integral part of that activism; it served as the conduit through which other nations and organizations could act and deliberate on how to tackle some of the world's most pressing problems.

I also take umbrage with your claim about the United Nations existing only because the United States provides it with financial and military assistance. This is quite a fallacious statement. The vast majority of all UN peacekeepers are not American, precisely because the latter follows the unilateral and interventionist route that you appear to champion so dearly. Furthermore, although the annual bulk sum of US financial assistance to the UN is higher than that of any other nation, it is fairly paltry when adjusted for standard of living and GDP disparities. Japan, for example, gives nearly as much money to the UN as the US despite the fact that its economy is three times smaller than that of the latter. The story is similar with other affluent countries: they give disproportionately more to the UN than the US does.

I hope this post has given skeptical readers a few more reasons to believe in the capacity of the United Nations to effect real change in our world while also realizing that it has had an illustrious, albeit imperfect, history in dealing with humanity's major challenges. The United States should be proud to be in this organization.
Debate Round No. 1
tjzimmer

Pro

First off the UN has done some good however I argue that the bad has outweighed this. You talk extensively about their role after WWII. The reason there hasn't been a global war is because all of the major powers capable of waging one are democratic. Other than maybe Russia, who does hold a lot of democratic values now, no one major power has wanted to go to war. The reason for this is the democratic peace theory. Democracies are not willing to fight other democracies because they hold the same beliefs. Wars have occurred since WWII and the UN hasn't prevented those? Russia has numerous times rubbed America wrong post WWII during the cold war area leading to much conflict and animosity yet they are members of the security council on the UN? Also you talk about the league of nations. It failed because of congress refusing to join this ultimately denying one of Wilson strongest fourteen points. So, if America failed to support the UN it would fail as well. What I am saying is that America determines a ton about the UN and its actions. The UN has done nothing to prevent war after WWII. Sure they may put sanctions on nations but that doesn't stop wars from happening. They put many sanctions on Iraq in the first Gulf War, yet Saddam still massed his troops against Kuwait ignoring the UN because they pose no immediate threat. You wrote so much that I forget what your points were. But, lets look at the failures of the UN. Rwanda, Kosavo, Sudan, Somalia, Phillipines...this list goes on. What is the point of having this international organization if they are not going to effectively stop horrific things from happening. America actually does its own thing as well. The UN was against Iraq and America and Britain went in anyway. So if the UN is going to be successful it needs the big nations to cooperate and the record from the past says they don't. Sure America says that we are apart of the united nations but we still do what we want and we dictate much policy that runs through that organization. Ever since the food for oil debacle America has grown even more weary of the UN because of the corruption that lies within. I wish I could remember your points but I do not so I will just end with this and save some for later.
UberCryxic

Con

Thank you for your reply. To save space, I will not quote you; I'll just reply to your points in succession.

First off I must correct some inaccuracies in your post that I'm surprised to read. You said that all the major powers after the Second World War capable of conducting war were democratic, but this is obviously not true. The Soviet Union was not a democracy. I think you are also confusing the specific issue we are talking about when you mention that "no one major power has wanted to go to war." Major powers since 1945 have been at war quite frequently: France in Algeria and Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, Britain in the Falklands, and the United States in numerous areas across the globe. You mention the Soviet Union (Russia) and the US after the Second World War, but you do so at the whims of your own strawmen arguments; yes, the Soviets and the Americans were involved in indirect conflict against each other, but they never engaged in open war. The significance of these last six decades partially lies precisely in the fact that these major powers have not gone to war with each other. That's the amazing part, simply because it runs against the hitherto ill tidings of history.

The United Nations has had many failures in its history, yes. What exactly are you implying by this? That some failures should justify its eradication? And what of the higher number of successes? Do we ignore those? Your list has one error that I can immediately spot: Kosovo definitely was not a failure; it was a major success. In fact, it's expected to gain independence next year. Kosovo has also only been under the administrative auspices of the UN; it was actually NATO that won the war in 1999 and drove the Serbs out. Nevertheless, the UN administration and NATO forces combined have done a satisfactory job at holding the province together and establishing democratic institutions.

The reason for this relative stability is not democratic peace theory. That's a perversion of historical reality. Democracies existed long before the latter part of the twentieth century, yet there were still tensions and conflicts among nations; that is, among democratic nations. Certainly the rise of liberal democracies has contributed to the comparable global peace and stability that we enjoy now, that's virtually undeniable, but to suggest that factor as "the reason" is a terrible disservice to non-turbid and thoughtful analysis.

Clearly I mentioned that the United Nations has not stopped war as an instrument of national policy after the Second World War. That's a tall order; just think about what you're asking and how incredibly difficult it would be to achieve. If that's your standard for adjudicating the UN's success, then the UN is a failure. But all that means is that your inquiry is baseless; obviously the UN cannot stop all wars. However, what it can do and has done is create a legitimate international forum for dialogue and negotiation, something lacking for most of human history. And the very existence of that forum, where nations can discuss their problems and try to resolve them together, actually does help in ratcheting down tensions and even preventing wars. Resolutions and sanctions are often effective; not always, of course, but again bear in mind that to demand perfection in global politics would be a severe misprision of reality.

The rest of the arguments in your post run into familiar dead ends and jumbled statements. The UN cannot possibly stop every horrific thing from happening; again, that's an unreasonable expectation. We should hope the UN to be generally effective at deterring violent mass actions, but it cannot stop everything. This is not a legitimate complaint on your part; it seems more like an effort to list every UN peccadillo in the hopes that you can taint the organization. This push apparently falls under the 90-10 rule: use the ten percent to represent the ninety percent, right? Find some UN failures, while ignoring all the enormous and innumerable successes, and paint the organization as ineffective. Nice try, but it's futile.

Now, without question, the United Nations needs the "big nations," as you call them, to cooperate, and mostly they do. Once again, you're falling under this 90-10 trap; you're looking at a few moments of disharmony and neglecting all the other points of congruence. You mention the UN fallout over Iraq, but you don't mention UN solidarity in driving the Syrians out of Lebanon, or UN solidarity in restoring and maintaining peace between Israel and Lebanon since 2006. For every case that you can list to support your argument, I can give many more.

You aver, or imply, that the United States succeeds by doing its "own thing," but you don't really show how. There is much that the United Nations can teach the US in, as an example, nation building. Our dereliction of the latter partly sparked the mess known as Iraq. The UN has far more experience with nation building than the US, and it only makes sense that they are delegated those kinds of projects. This is a crucial point: there are limits to UN power (force projection among the primary ones, which is where the US is strong), but there are also limits to American power (nation building and reconstruction, where the UN is strong). Iraq has given us a rather unwelcome taste of the latter fact. By working together, the UN and the US can overcome those weaknesses since the strengths of the other simply compensate for the weaknesses. The US does not "dictate" policy to the UN; it does not have that much influence. Certainly the US is the most important and most powerful member in the organization, but it cannot run roughshod over everything whenever it wants: it has been stifled before.

The United States has had a rocky relationship with the United Nations under the Bush Administration, but the proposition that we can just withdraw entirely from the organization borders on the ridiculous. Few serious diplomats actually consider that a viable option. Some corruption exists in the UN, a situation no different than that found within any major enterprise of comparable size and stature. Once again, your comments here perpetuate the 90-10 mistake: use isolated examples to characterize the behavior of the entire organization. When will your analysis start to consider the germane patterns and trends? On top of this, you still have outstanding issues from my first post that you did not address.
Debate Round No. 2
tjzimmer

Pro

The United States is the largest member donor to the United Nations, contributing up to 25 percent of its entire worldwide operating budget (27 percent for U.N. peacekeeping activities) to the tune of billions of dollars each year. In addition, the United States hosts the U.N. headquarters in New York, including the thousands of diplomats and agency employees. Given the level of American investment and the impact of the United Nations on world opinion and events, we must make sure taxpayer money is not subsidizing activities which hurt American security, values and interests.

The evidence is not good. A slew of indictments involving fraud and abuse of U.N. funds (again, a quarter of which comes from the United States) indicates the United Nations is incapable of protecting American taxpayer investment. What's more, the organization and its member states appear unwilling to adopt any meaningful reforms to better protect against these abuses in the future.

U.N. procurement tainted by fraud - According to internal United Nations auditors, 43 percent of U.N. procurement investigated is tainted by fraud. Out of $1.4 billion in U.N. contracts internally investigated, $610 million was tainted by 10 "significant fraud and corruption schemes." Since 43 percent of the procurement contracts are tainted and the United States contributes up to 25 percent of all U.N. funding, it is safe to say that an amount equal to well above entire U.S. contribution in this case has been lost to corruption and waste.

U.N. props up dictators and state sponsors of terror - According to leaked reports, U.N. whistleblowers, and U.S. investigators, U.N. operations in places like North Korea, Burma, Syria, Iran, Cuba, and Zimbabwe have been transferring cash and resources to these unaccountable regimes and state sponsors of terror in the name of humanitarian assistance and "capacity building." For example, according to leaked reports, U.S. investigators found cash transfers between the U.N. Development Program and bank accounts used by the North Korean regime to purchase missiles.

U.N. rewards dictators and human rights abusers with leadership posts – The United Nations regularly permits countries subject to U.N. sanctions, human rights abusers and state sponsors of terror to hold leadership posts in critical U.N. programs and committees. Here are a few examples:

U.N. Security Council: Libya
International Atomic Energy Agency General Committee: Syria, Vice-President
U.N. Disarmament Commission: Iran, Vice-Chairman; Syria, Rapporteur
Committee on Information: China, Kazakhstan
Commission for Social Development: North Korea
Commission on Sustainable Development: Sudan
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Libya, Russia
U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF): Burma, Vice-President; China, Board
General Assembly's First Committee on Disarmament and International Security: Syria, Vice-Chairman
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Executive Committee: Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan
World Food Programme Executive Board: Zimbabwe, Sudan

U.N. glorifying terrorism - According to the U.N. charter, the purpose of the United Nations is to "maintain international peace and security." Terrorism is the primary threat to international peace and security, yet the United Nations has failed to establish a legitimate working definition of terrorism, it has appointed states directly supporting terrorism to leadership posts, has accredited organizations that openly support and glorify terrorism, and provided direct funding and other in-kind resources to terrorist regimes.

U.N. Peacekeeping operations plagued by rape and sexual exploitation of refugees – In 1994, a draft U.N. report was leaked detailing how peacekeepers in Morocco, Pakistan, Uruguay, Tunis, South Africa and Nepal were involved in 68 cases of rape, prostitution and pedophilia. The report also stated that the investigation into these cases is being undermined by bribery and witness intimidation by U.N. personnel. In 2006, it was reported that peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia were involved in sexual exploitation of refugees. This year, leaked reports indicate the United Nations has caught 200 peacekeepers for sex offenses in the past three years ranging from rape to assault on minors. In all of these cases, there is no known evidence of an offending U.N. peacekeeper being prosecuted.

U.N. Human Rights Council hijacked by Anti-Semitism - In 2006, the U.N. Human Rights Council replaced the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission, due to growing criticism over the human rights abusers permitted to sit on the Commission, the use of the Commission to promote bigotry and anti-Semitism, and the failure of the Commission to hold human rights violators accountable. Unfortunately, the new U.N. Human Rights Council is simply a letterhead change, and continues to give abusers seats on the Council while devoting almost its entire agenda to prejudiced attacks on the only democratic country in the Middle East, Israel.

U.N. scam permitted illegal entry into the U.S. – A U.N. employee from Russia was arrested in August of this year for operating an illegal visa scam lasting at least two years. The official assisted non-U.S. citizens to enter the United States with fraudulent U.N. documents — including the use of U.N. letterhead — in order to obtain visas to attend U.N. conferences that either did not exist or they did not attend.

U.N. smuggling diamonds in Zimbabwe – It is reported that a U.N. official in Zimbabwe is also the chairman of a mining company co-owned by the vice president of Zimbabwe, a former member of parliament, and an ambassador of Zimbabwe. The mining company is accused of asset stripping worth $116 million and using the U.N. Development Program to facilitate diamond smuggling.

U.N. graft and cover-up at the Khmer Rogue Tribunal in Cambodia – It is reported that, unlike previous U.N. tribunals set up to prosecute war criminals in Sierra Leone and East Timor, the U.N. permitted the Cambodian government to infiltrate and dominate the Khmer Rogue tribunal with a majority of government-appointed judges, lawyers, and staff. The United Nations also granted Cambodia's demand that every case be decided by a judge single, government-appointed judge, rather than an independently appointed jury, as is the standard. International observers claim Cambodia's judicial system is notoriously corrupt, inefficient and poorly administered. Making matters worse, the U.N. Development Program handed over millions of dollars to the Cambodian government to operate the tribunal. Reports indicate this money was used in a bribery and kick-back scheme where employees would be forced to give a portion of their salaries to Cambodian officials in order to maintain their jobs or receive appointments to higher positions.

U.N. Development Program-Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF) corruption – The U.N. Development Program operates the Global Environment Facility which is involved in multiple scandals, including alleged procurement fraud in Africa worth $8 million. When a U.N. official blew the whistle, the United Nations retaliated against the whistleblower. In another example, reports indicate the UNDP-GEF in the Philippines is operated by an official who also helps runs a local, non-government organization (NGO). This official allegedly awarded grants to her own NGO and then diverted funds from the NGO to enrich her family. When a U.N. employee blew the whistle, the United Nations covered it up.

Although your last post was entertaining, it did not give concrete evidence of what things in particular you think the UN did that was good. So, I have provided you with your infamous 90-10 in my favor. Please provide information that refutes these claims and what things the UN has done that will outweigh these debacles, otherwise I am not convinced. The UN means well, however this evidence creates my stance on it.
UberCryxic

Con

I'm sure your claims are well-meant, but this is all rather amusing. Now you are rounding up a bunch of FOX news and Wikipedia articles, calling it research, and passing it off as an argument – once more, just regurgitating the 90-10 mistake. Due to obvious space limits, I cannot respond to every allegation of corruption against the United Nations, and you seem to have endlessly scoured Google for them, but I will comment on some of the major ones. Before I do that, however, I want to take the opportunity to remind you that you have ignored most of my points regarding the achievements of the UN. In fact, your last response is merely a mundane listing of UN corruption scandals. Your conceptions of the organization seem muddled by these corruption charges; it's like you have nothing else: you apparently think a major international institution like this can simply abjure controversy at a whim! I wish we all had such wonderful dreams.

As stated before, the United Nations tries to foster an environment of dialogue and cooperation. For this framework to be successful, the UN needs to be inclusive. It must not thumb its nose at opponents of the United States just because we don't like them; that will only incite animosity and exacerbate tensions at a time when primarily we need resolution. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the UN rewards the governments of these countries through these appointments; the UN is just trying to elevate the status of these nations in the eyes of the world. Again: trying to elevate the profile of these nations, not of their administrations. The administrations themselves may be horrible and brutal, as you put it, but that does not mean we should isolate or be intolerant of these countries.

You mention funding by the United States again, quite surprisingly. I already explained the twist behind this (read above): once you adjust for standard of living and GDP disparities, American aid to the United Nations seems exiguous; most other major industrialized nations give disproportionately more to the UN than the US does. The suggestion that the UN hurts American "security, values, and interests" is largely groundless. The following Government Accountability Office report (you can find it here: http://www.gao.gov...), which compares cost-effectiveness in UN and US military operations, is a microcosm of my point.

The report, analyzing actual UN and hypothetical US operations in Haiti, estimates that "it would cost the United States about twice as much as the United Nations to conduct a peacekeeping operation similar to MINUSTAH." The GAO report also recounts the touchstones for successful nation building: "multinational participation, extensive experience, and structure," all qualities that it argues the UN possesses. Moreover, the GAO report cites a 2005 study by the Rand Corporation about UN peacekeeping. The GAO describes the Rand study as saying that "the UN may have the ability to compensate for its relatively small military presence with its reputation of international legitimacy and local impartiality," advantages that elude the US. The GAO goes on to claim that "the UN has developed a cadre of senior officials that has gained experience with peacekeeping and nation building activities over many missions." I won't let you derive your own conclusions from this report; the whole point is what I've been arguing all along: the UN can do some things better than the US.

The struggle over defining terrorism has political dimensions. Not every part of the world believes in the ‘War on Terror' conducted by the United States, and even if they agree with the larger points, there are still disagreements on specifics. For example, all this time in the ‘War on Terror' and the European Union has not considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization, whereas obviously the US has. Generally, the UN is committed to defeating terrorism. The 90-10 rule strikes again.

Out of everything I have mentioned, however, nothing better exemplifies your repeated 90-10 gaffe than your statements about the United Nations Development Program. I don't know if this is your methodology for debate, but you sure do use it a lot. Here you are talking about procurement fraud somewhere in Africa worth $8 million when the organization channeled $4.3 billion globally in 2006. The other investigations of fraud and mismanagement for 2006, which actually amount to a very significant figure of around $1.9 billion, were largely caused by mendacious and manipulative corporations who try and cheat the UN out of its money. Much of this ‘fraud,' ‘mismanagement,' or ‘corruption,' call it what you will, arises from sources extrinsic to the UN. Undoubtedly though, a significant part comes from the UN itself, which is something the organization easily recognizes and is trying to fix. By and large, however, the UN operates effectively. Not perfectly, but effectively, and when you have such a titanic institution, that's all you can really hope for.

I am also skeptical with some of these "leaked reports" of yours. I am a little peeved that you don't cite your sources; I have managed to track down a majority of your allegations to specific sources, but the rest are a tad sketchy.

I have now responded to a rather satisfactory number of complaints raised against the United Nations. As I said in the beginning, I could not cover everything because of space restrictions and a combination of opaque and prevaricating sources used by my opponent. Let's now look at what the heart of this debate is about. My opponent essentially argued that the UN is "unproductive." Look at what he employed to construct his argument: a bunch of isolated examples meant to characterize the whole of this complex organization. His methodology came just shy of what anecdotal logical fallacies typically look like, but that methodology is perfectly covered under the 90-10 rule: use the ten percent to describe the ninety percent. If you don't like the vast majority of the facts, just twist a few of them to fit into your preconceived notion of the world - this was my opponent's modus operandi in the debate.

My opponent completely flouted the major successes of the United Nations, especially with the decolonization process in Africa. He not once recognized the millions of people that are alive today because of help they received from the UN. Nor did he acknowledge the major diplomatic and peacekeeping achievements of the UN, achievements that run back for decades and that have fundamentally shaped our world in that time, mostly for the better.

Beyond all these shoddy facts and arguments, my opponent has also offered an entirely unreasonable proposition, one with which most diplomats readily disagree. The sentiment that the United States can just stop supporting the UN and leave borders on the irrational. It is not a viable option for our country at all; we would be the laughingstock of the world if we did something as disgusting and shameful as to drop out of the world's pre-eminent organization for the regulation of global affairs. Yet that irrational and largely sentimental conclusion (merely refer to the first post, where my opponent uses emotion just as much as reason) is precisely what my opponent champions. With so much responsibility riding on America's shoulders, however, these are not the times for panic and irrationality. We need to tackle these big problems by both working with other nations and establishing our own initiatives. Only then can we have a successful foreign policy and a prosperous world.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
http://news.yahoo.com...

just more proof that the UN is garbage
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Nice to see some internationally minded motions...
My 2 cents:

U.S. Foriegn Policy Planners are not supporting the UN BECAUSE it is productive.

Yes, I realize you want to ask me "how prouctive?" The answer is "enough to help 3rd world development". Not something our FP Planners would want.
They wouldn't want to suppor a democratic system with rule of law that can potentially compete vs the US either.
Posted by fenderjazzerguy 9 years ago
fenderjazzerguy
The funny part about this is how the USA is a majority of the UN's budget. So in reality it is partially our faults a lot of things aren't happening. I think we fork out the money, but don't involve ourselves enough.
Posted by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
Enjoy:

I just heard, from a caller to a talk radio show who works near the UN, that they were flying the UN flag at half-mast today. The caller asked a guard there why the flag was lowered, and he replied that it was in honor of Arafat. So the guy asked the guard if the flag was lowered when Ronald Reagan died. The guard laughed and said that no, it wasn't.

And to top it off, there's this:

"President Arafat will always be remembered for having led the Palestinians, back in 1988, to accept the principle of peaceful coexistence between Israel and a future Palestinian state," the UN statement said. "It is tragic that he did not live to see it fulfilled."

I think he should be remembered for things like Ma'alot, the Munich Olympics, and the Achille Lauro. Shooting Leon Klinghoffer, an old man in a wheelchair and throwing him overboard? This is who the UN is honoring?

Why are these people still allowed on our soil?
Posted by Advidoct 9 years ago
Advidoct
Im with TJZimmer. I know that that the UN has good intentions. Its purpose is good. It just doesnt accomplish what it should accomplish, because no one can ever come to a consensus on what the best course of action would be. No on ever agrees so nothing ever happens.
The US needs to leave the UN. If for nothing else, than to shatter the pride of all the arragont leaders from miniscule countries who think their opinion is law.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
It's not true that the UN sticks its nose in every conflict; it's pretty much stayed out of Darfur - which is why the human rights abuses continue.

That leads to the reason that the UN is ineffective; the blame falls squarely on the five nations that are permanent members of the UN Security Council; France, Russia, China, the UK and especially the United States. They're the ones who use their veto power to torpedo UN security council resolutions any time they may affect the policy of any of these aspiring empires. So, for example, when the US wants to keep Saddam Hussein in power because he's doing our bidding waging war against the government of Iran - we block a resolution condemning his use of chemical/biological weapons. Or when the UN is going to condemn the Sudan for genocide in Darfur, China (whose economic interests lie with the current regime in Sudan) blocks action. And so on and so forth for the past 60+ years.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by zsavi524 9 years ago
zsavi524
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ccdem 9 years ago
ccdem
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RedHotDogg 9 years ago
RedHotDogg
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Phil 9 years ago
Phil
tjzimmerUberCryxicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30