The Instigator
iObject18
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Asp111
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The United Nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,758 times Debate No: 22824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

iObject18

Con

To begin, i will say that the United Nations is a almost completely useless. This organization is full of representatives to countries that are not there for the better of their people and the world, but more to shoot down the suggestions of countries that are their enemies. For example in 2011, an issue regarding the country of Syria came up in a U.N. meeting regarding the Peace in the country. The dictatorship in the country was starving the people and slaughtering those against their views (much like in Somalia 1993). The United States wished to intervene and defend the people to over throw the dictatorship as they did in Iraq and attempted to in Somalia. Just to make things clear, The U.N. has a group of 6 to 7 countries ( the world super powers ) comprised of China, Russia, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India( I think ). China and Russia, because they mostly appose the U.S., said that intervening in the conflict would be unhumanitarian and so the conflict was dropped and a lot of people died. thank you good bye
Asp111

Pro

First of all, the United Nations is not a waste of time. In its history, it was founded to replace the League Of Nations, which pretty much started World War Two after oppressing the Germans beyond their limit. The United Nations was made so that the different countries in different parts of the world could have a say in wars and oppression. The organization is a security council for the entire world. The different countries that range in the UN are from the countries around the Arabic countries, China, America, England, France, Russia, Spain, and more. The league was to keep peace in this country, and the countries around them.
The first meeting was to abolish the League of Nations, this meeting was held in London, but now it is held in United Nations Headquarters located on international territory in New York City. It is true that in '93 the countries who were against the United States opposed them, but it is probably for a good reason. They might have had a heart, maybe not before the United States intervened,when we, and some other countries situated in Africa at the time did intervene, they gave a little bit of the support. Of course China and Russia didn't help because the Somalis pay them for the weapons they get. Even without the help of these countries, more countries like Pakistan and Malaysia did help. These people gave us their support, and after the Battle of Mogadishu, a battle in which 18 U.S soldier, one Pakistani, and one Malay died, Russia gave us the littlest bit of support, but to late, because Clinton pulled us out, so the Pakistanis got the supplies and money (says the Pakistani leader in '93).
Debate Round No. 1
iObject18

Con

The League of Nations was a waste of time too. plus I didn't mean to say it was a complete waste of time. The U.N. is important in making some decisions but other than that, it is a WASTE of time. The Super Power countries of China and Russia just veto anything the U.S. is for, because their views are just whatever is the opposite of the U.S.' views. Although the U.N. was made as a security council for the entire world so that the smaller countries of the world would have a say in bigger decisions, if a decision is against the views of one of the Big countries ( the super powers ) it will be vetoed and the little country is once again at the bottom. The U.N. is full of corrupted representatives who care not for their country, the world, but to make sure the U.S. doesn't get farther ahead and the small countries don't begin to get ahead
The last part of your argument really isn't relevant to our argument besides the U.N.'s involvement and intervening in the Battle of Mogadishu and disrupting us by enforcing the totally bogus rules of engagement. We shouldn't have to be the world's police force and play by the Rules of Engagement when all these Third World countries don't abide by them even if they are in the U.N. Thank You
Asp111

Pro

I know that the rules of engagement are dumb, but they are also helpful. Imagine what the military would be like without them. The Vietnam War was a different story, sometimes you would have to destroy a village to help your team. After the war, it was found out that 700,000 civilians were killed and many more were injured in the Nam war. Most of these deaths were from planes dropping bombs filled with white phospherous or napalm on the towns. The only place where civilians couldn't be killed, or the soldiers would be court Martialed is in the free fire zones. After this war, the UN decided that they wanted to make beter rules on the places and people soldiers could shoot or couldn't shoot. They made the Geneva Convention, better known as the rules of engagement, more direct. It was made in 1864, it said that you coldn't shoot unless fired upon, prisoners couldn't be harmed, and many other things. Vietnam was the only war that ignored the rules, and that's why soldiers were court martialed. The UN decided that the rules would be "Don't fire unless fired upon" very clear to every soldier in the country. The UN also made the rule of not using hollow point rounds i.e, you can't use rounds that go in the size of someone's pinky to the size of somebody's fist.

I have read that without the rules of engagement, our army would be very corrupt. In the book called Ghosts of War, a book by army specialist Ryan Smithson, he states in one of the chapters that after his convoy stopped after driving past an IED dud, that there was a man looking at them the whole time. He was unarmed, and Smithson says, "You can't just go shooting everybody who looks suspicous, just because he has a pair of binaculars..." He also states that after being in Abu Ghraib, a large prison ruled by the United States, he has seen tortures of all kind. He brings that back in saying, "... that would make Abu Ghraib prison torture look like making Vlad the Impaler look nice." So you can clearly see that without the Rules of Engagement, the Media would tear the military up, making them look like terreble killers.
Debate Round No. 2
iObject18

Con

iObject18 forfeited this round.
Asp111

Pro

Since I have nothing to go against, I must colclude, saying that although I think it is, the UN is not a waste of time. My refrences were from wikipedia, but checked on other websites. Good luck iObject, and God Bless.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.