Should the U.S. encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations? |
Yes, they should do what they can to put restrictions on these countries.
If the US can get the United Nations to put restrictions on arms trading in rebel countries, it could save lives. These countries might be able to get them elsewhere anyway, but it would limit the amount they could get by virtue of the restrictions applied. It could buy some time and save some lives. Maybe countries in conflict would engage in negotiating on a different level, and find a peaceful, non-violent way to solve their problems.
Posted by: PinkMychThe U.N. should restrict arms trading among rogue nations, to prevent international terrorism.
Rogue nations, if not controlled, could use the weapons that they acquire to perform terrorism against outside nations. They already have the desire for violence and takeover, and providing them with the arms gives them the last piece of the puzzle that they need to be able to carry out an evil plot against others.
Posted by: SoWinifI believe that the U.S should encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations, because we can never be sure what these weapons will be used for.
To continue to allow arms trading among rogue nations could have an extraordinary effect on world issues. We can never be absolutely sure what these arms will be used for and, ultimately, where they will be used. Nations that have no parameters in place to monitor and control the use of arms may end up using them in an unacceptable way, to further their own causes and beliefs. Arms in the wrong hands for the wrong reasons can contribute to the ongoing problem of civil war and atrocities against innocent people.
Posted by: PricklyTuan91The U.S. should discourage arms trading with rogue nations, for the safety of everyone.
While I feel that world safety demands all responsible nations do their best to prevent arms sales to rogue nations, I'm also quite certain that this is a more complex issue than it seems. For instance, the U.S. itself has been known to sell arms to nations that other members of the U.N. feel should not have been sold to. Every country has differing allies and what one country feels is correct, another feels is incorrect. This is a problem that has no easy answers or solutions.
Posted by: P0nyCareI agree that U.S. should encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations because they cause terrorist activities.
U.S. should encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations because the arms supplied to rogue nation are used for terrorist activities, which cause a huge loss of money and lives. Terrorists attacks on any nation effects the nation's economy. Also, the arms supplied to rogue nation by U.N. are often sold to terrorist for cheap profits.
Posted by: Ry0thBarnArms trading by rogue nations is dangerous, and should be halted.
The U.S. should encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations. Rogue nations are not accountable to anyone, because of their rogue status, and cannot be trusted. They may use acquired arms to support terrorism, or allow them to fall into terrorist hands, due to insufficient security. This is a dangerous situation. Protecting us from threats such as these should be part of the U.N.'s purpose.
Posted by: PreciousMiguel78We have to do everything we can to cut down on all arms traffic.
The proliferation of arms around the globe is the #1 reason for violence. All nations play a part in this - good and bad regimes contribute to the proliferation, so we all have to take responsibility. The UN is one of the best places to start and the more that the US puts its faith in this body, the better.
Posted by: Th4FireI would want the U.S. to encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations as this would turn out to be a severe blow to terrorism.
Terrorism at the international level is spreading at great speed. The World Trade Center incident of September 11th is an evident masterpiece of terrorist activity in rogue countries. The U.S. has great resources and power to offer a helping hand to the U.N. in its prospects of anti-terrorism by the restriction of arms trade among some rogue countries of the world.
Posted by: Kri5GoodYes, arms trading among rogue nations should not be allowed, because it could turn dangerous very quickly.
Arms trading among rogue nations could turn into something dangerous. There are too many leaders out there who are hell bent on using their power for evil, and all they want to do is destroy other nations. Instead of sitting down and coming to a peaceful solution, they just wish to go to war to prove their point, and trading arms only helps this brutal act.
Posted by: l0nerkatz999The U.N should restrict arms trading among rogue nations so that weapons don't fall into the wrong hands.
Why shouldn't the U.N restrict arms trading among rogue nations? Why give these countries the chance to get out weapons? Think about it: if Iraq or Afghanistan got their hands on nuclear weapons, like an atomic bomb, we would all be doomed. Something needs to be done to stop this. I'm sure the rest of the world wants to live, while the rogue nations could care less.
Posted by: E BarlowThe U.S. must obtain international cooperation against the arms trade because it is a pathway to further nuclear proliferation.
Insofar as the arms trade involves nuclear weapons, then the argument in the affirmative is self-explanatory. The trade and proliferation in nuclear-arms components, such as from rogue state North Korea, increases nuclear danger. It is also true that conventional arms sales props up the North Korean regime, as well as its nuclear program. In the future this may be the case for other regimes and therefore, the enforcement against machinery against arms trading must be ready. The U.S. must support this at the U.N.
Posted by: 53xyMyIoIt is in the best interest of the U.S. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations, and the U.N. is the only organization with enough power to do so.
The U.S. is the strongest individual power on the planet. This makes it the likely party to respond, when needed, to deal with rogue nations. As a result, it is in best interest of the U.S. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations. The only organization capable of exercising non-military power over rogue nations is the U.N. This means that the only option, short of military intervention, the U.S. has to restrict arms trading is the U.N.
Posted by: KnownEvanYes, due to their unpredictability, I think that it would be good for the U.S. to encourage restrictions in arms trading among rogue nations.
I think that it would be good for the U.S. to encourage restrictions in arms trading among rogue nations. The reason why I think it would be a good idea is that the rogue nations are unpredictable and unstable. So letting them trade arms is a bad idea because you do not know who they might aim them at.
Posted by: M McFarlandThe U.N. should control arms trading among any country that doesn't wish to follow universal agreements, for the safety of others.
While controversial, any nation that makes it public that they do not wish to play fairly, or in agreement with the U.N., should be limited in their access to military support, to the best of our collective ability. Far too many times in history have we allowed open trade of weapons, only to have said weapons used against others soon thereafter, without just cause.
Posted by: daveyxh
The UN is of no value to the world as a political organization.
We should not ever encourage the UN to do anything political in the world. The only thing that the UN should be encourage to do is promote humanitarian and equal rights causes in countries of the world that are lacking in these things. While the UN may be recognized as a political organization, a sort of governing body, it never acts in any valuable way to govern the world. With this knowledge in mind it would be unwise to encourage it to act politically.
Posted by: MariaRThe US should not declare itself the authority over who has arms and who doesn't.
The US insists on keeping its nuclear arms, yet it has no problem trying to bully other nations into restricting theirs. I recognize that some nations are at higher risk (crime rates, corrupt government, etc.) but for the US to decide it's the Nuclear Arms Police is a bit arrogant. Holding peace talks and negotiations is a better way to deal with the paranoia of this problem rather than expecting other nations to just accept "you can't have arms" as a scolding. If they're going to want to build their own arms race, forcing them isn't going to stop them, only reasoning will.
Posted by: R053NeddyAlthough this an issue that should be addressed we have more important issues to focus on.
Right now the economy is in the tank, taking time and resources that we do no have to deal with yet one more issue outside of the US is a complete waste. If we could quit worrying so much about other nations, maybe ours would improve.
Posted by: I4wryGaIEverybody should be free to have weapons.
Bad guys will always find a way to get weapons. UN restrictions will not deter bad guys from obtaining them, but may in fact restrict good guys from obtaining guns. There is no way to get rid of violence in other people. We can only control violence in ourselves.
Posted by: R4v4g3rPavI