Should the U.S. encourage the U.N. to restrict arms trading among rogue nations?

  • The 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: SoWinif
  • It 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: KnownEvan
  • I 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: PricklyTuan91
  • Yes, 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: l0nerkatz999
  • Arms 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: PreciousMiguel78
  • The 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 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 Barlow
  • Yes, 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 McFarland
  • The 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: P0nyCare
  • 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: PinkMych
  • Everybody 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
  • The 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: R053Neddy
  • 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: MariaR
  • Although 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: I4wryGaI

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.