do you think the United Nations should....

be it resolved here, the United Nations should be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism around the world.

opinions.

Its my Debate topic for public forum for themonth of october and i was curious as to what your opinions are.

[b] Hey your on the speech forensic team!! so am i. I have to debate this topic on the 4th. we should def. help eachother out. write me back. U can email or w.e at Iversonbabe76r3@aol.com. -bria

The United Nations purpose was to unite countries and to protect countries. It should lead in terrorism fight because terrorism is an enemy of all people.

yes, but what you think ought to happen is not always what does. the u.n. was opposed to the u.s.'s supposed war on terror.

hey.. i have the same topic for public forum... could you do me a huge favor and IM me or email me so we can work together on it? that would be awesome.. AIM: rozebud12322
email: rozebud12322@yahoo.com
thanks
~rachel~

The UN should lead in the fight against terrorism in the world, but it never will...out of its own choice. When the UN compound in Iraq was hit by a truck filled with explosives, and one of the top ambassadors was killed by terrorists, what did the UN do? They hauled you know what... The body is weak and without US involvement there would be no "force" behind anything the UN tried to do for the world. Let's be clear...the UN is defunct and void of credability and should be dissolved. They will never lead the world in anything but corruption and weakness...and those are no credentials when fighting a war on anything.

Agreed. The UN has little power compared to economic supergiants. The UN agreed that the war against Iraw was illegal, but did it stop the U.S or even reprimand the U.S in any way? No wonder people no longer care about politics. It's not even in our hands.

If anyone should stop terrorism, it should be the countries that colonized other countries, deprived people of economic opportunities, and supplied terrorists with weapons in order to fulfill their own selfish means.

Or the UN could do it. If it had any real power.

quote:

---

The UN has little power compared to economic supergiants

---

All economic super giants are members of the UN.

Take a look at history. The Vietnam War lead by the US resulted in defeat. Around the same period (within 10 years or so) was the Korean War, which was lead by the UN. The result was Korea being divided into two under a peace treaty.

The problem with the Iraq war was the lack of evidence not the UN's guts or balls to fighting a war. This is how the League Of Nations ended. Japan disowned its seat after striking China, which was also an illegal war.

You all miss the point...The UN is worthless..the League of Nations was worthless...it is hard enough to get people in one country to agree on anything, let alone countries plural.

The Vietnam "war" was a police action...and it was run by idiots(democrats...Johnson) who couldn't fight there way out of a paper bag. The battles were all won by the US but they were not backed up by any sense of urgency to defeat an enemy that was willing to go down swinging.

Korea was not ended by a peace treaty...it ended in a cease fire with a provision for new borders for north and south. We are still technically at war with North Korea. That is why thaty situation is just as volatile as Iraq.

And with this "new" type of war...one with no front lines, no rear detachments, no uniforms to distinguish "good from bad", we need to remember that pre-emptivity is not illegal, b ut a new and different strategy. All of the law enforcement agencies in the world are b eginning to look at terror attacks as a preventable occurrance...not something to merely be endured, investigated, and suspects be imprisoned for crimes...thats not how it works any more.

The point is that in a war against terrorism the UN does not have the guts, balls, ovaries, uterus, or any other body part to deal with the threat to the world or themselves. Terrorists want to kill all that is western, all that is "anti-muslim", all that is contrary to the most radical ideas of Islam. They don't care if you wear a blue helmet with your uniform, a camo helmet, a 3 piece suit or a friggin beany...they want us dead. The UN can't handle that kind of threat with their pansy tactics and sanctions.

And who cares if a superpower is selfish...that is how they grow strong and last longer....sounds corny, but its still true.

quote:

---

The point is that in a war against terrorism the UN does not have the guts, balls, ovaries, uterus, or any other body part to deal with the threat to the world or themselves.

---

The UN authorized Afghanistan because of the evidence relating Bin Ladin to the world trade centers. The reason the UN didn't authorize Iraq is there was no evidence linking Iraq to weapons of mass destruction.

quote:

---

The UN is worthless

---

Just because their military power has a large percentage in the United States doesn't make them worthless. They have contributed to many peacekeeping missions around the world.


The whole point of showing the difference between the two wars was the distinguishing factors and success the UN had versus a common enemy.

quote:

---

The Vietnam "war" was a police action

---

And the Iraq war would be called what. It is also a police action war. Just different enemies.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is the proper term, was a declared war against the regime led by Saddam Hussein.
It was then downgraded to a conflict. After this downgrade an insurgency of terrorists arose. Our country is at war with terrorism even though it may not be defined in Webster dictionary terms "a war"...where as Vietnam was NEVER a declared war.

If there were no WMD, then why did the UN place sanctions on Iraq for more than a decade because of chemical and biological weapons research found by UN inspectors? Why were there 17 UN resolutions stating that Iraq must cease and desist all NBC RandD "or else face the use of force"?...look it up on their web site as to the exact wording of resolution17.

Yes they have contributed to many peacekeeping missions throughout the world...they have contributed the US MILITARY!!!!!!! We are the strength of the UN. They need military might who do they call on? NOT Albania, or Greece, or Italy, or where ever Kofi Anan is from...do they? NO! They don't even call the British. The US was the main force in Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War...And before the UN existed it was America the world called on to defeat the Germans twice, and the Japanese...we just got lucky enough to actually get attacked by the Japanese. That made our Pacific decison easier.

The UN has had no succes with out the US. And those successes were given as credit to the US...not taken by the world as UN achievements. And Iraq unfortunately has been run recently like a police action. I hope we help as best we can and come home soon.

quote:

---

If there were no WMD, then why did the UN place sanctions on Iraq for more than a decade because of chemical and biological weapons research found by UN inspectors?

---

They were suspected of WMD but none were found.

quote:

---

And those successes were given as credit to the US...

---

Then why after the UN's first peace keeping mission(the suez crises) the nobel peace prize was awarded to Pearson, a canadian prime minister, who was obviously not American.

quote:

---

I hope we help as best we can and come home soon.

---

Couldn't agree more. I admit horribal things were done in Iraq under Sadaam regime it's just too bad they didn't take him out in the first gulf war.

Was Pearson a whiny liberal? An appeaser?...probably, that's who the nobel peace prize always goes to. That's why Jimmy Carter got a peace prize.

The Iraqi government was not only suspected of having the programs, they had evidence of such programs. The UN cannot sanction anyone without proper evidence. Because of that evidencde found by weapons inspectors the Un placed sanctions on Iraq. I am not talking about "pre-OIF",
I am talking about Gulf War and before. 17 Resolutions...go look at the UN's website yourself if you don't believe me.

And again history has proven that diplomacy instead of force causes a need for more bloodshed in the future...had we taken saddam out in the Gulf War we would not be having this conversation. It needs to be known that tyranny will not be tolerated by Americans, and we need to in the future finish the jobs we start. That is why it is important to do this operation correctly, as quickly as possible, and get the soldiers home.

quote:

---

we need to in the future finish the jobs we start

---

what job?!


War can't solve the problem. The war on terrorism appears to simply be the last desperate act of a west that has become so apathetic and discompassionate that we find it easier to demonise and kill than to take the difficult path of understanding the problem and its causes.

Terrorism may be weakened, but it will never be destroyed. Terrorism is born out of hatred and fanaticism and as long as people feel these two emotions, terrorism will thrive. The Western world going to war to attempt fighting terrorism, isn't going to achieve freedom. Its promoted more insecurity and fear. The killing of innocent people by armies will only give terrorists a valid reason for retaliation. Al-Qaeda itself could not wish for a better government than the one that is now governing the U.S. because, on the policies of issue to Muslims, al-Qaeda believes the US government is wrong on every one and thus allows their insurgency to grow larger to incite other groups to attack Americans.

Apart from the millions upon millions of people all over the world who object to war, one of the striking things about the Iraq War is the extent to which American foreign-affairs professionals-intelligence analysts, diplomats, and high-ranking military officers-recognize it is a tragically misguided venture. The US pursued policies for 30 years which led them to 9/11 and which will lead to further 9/11s.


The UN should have all the globalised power. Fighting terror with armies never works. Once the US learns that humility and friendship are better weapons than dumb bombs, then peace will grow.

We can all sit around and fool ourselves into believing this tripe about understanding terrorists, or using "humility and friendship" to deal with IED's and small arms fire. OR we can combat the use of planes as bombs in our cities, and cars as bombs in other peoples cities, or people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up other muslims in Jordanian cities.

I'm sorry, but "demonization" was not used by America in any portion of this whole terror issue. The terrorists demonized themselves when they blew up 3,000 innocent people in NYC. And let me ask this...when have Americans ever purposefully targeted innocent lives?

In Somalia we announced when we were going on raids to find Aidid...that's why we never caught the guy...he always knew we were coming. We did that to let the innocent get out of the way...to minimize civilian casualties.

In the Gulf war we used the best technology we had to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Smart bombs have saved more lives then they've been used to destroy. And this last venture was even better than the first. Not to mention we are the only country to pay reparations to those civilians whose property, lives, or health is damaged or destroyed. Money can't fix death, but it is the best we can do in this life. No other country will even admit they hit the wrong target or that collateral damage even occurs, let alone pay for it.

Terrorism has been severely weakened, and will continue to do so when the world, and especially the citizens of the US, finally get an attitude of victory over terrorism. It's people like you that keep the "hope" of terrorism alive. Yopu want to negotiate, or try to understand a terrorist...I'll put it in the simplest terms...

You live in a country that is considered part of the western world/society. You enjoy freedom of worship, press, etc. You deserve to die!!! because you do not agree with the radical muslim beliefs. It's simple. And now you don't even have to be non-muslim to be blown up. Look at Jordan.

That is what they believe. and that is what they will do to every last one of us who is a part of the west...if they are given the chance. There is no negotiating with these types of radicals. Republicans and Democrats, liberatarians, etc. can be reasoned with to an extent, but suicide bombers, people who drive explosive filled trucks through buildings and kill 128 people in the middle of Baghdad are a little less receptive to criticism and debate...notice my sarcasm.

I too am opposed to war, but it is unfortunate that we, as humans, are not perfect. Otherwise we could figure this out in other ways. We can't; it has come to a time where certain folks "need some killin'" as they say in the country. It's time to stand up, find those who are responsible for these atrocities of terror...and don't come back with garbage about Bush, or the right wing in America, or US soldiers as being teorrorists. They are the ones keeping the terrorists out of the US, and the Allied countries. They can't can't please everyone in their decisions, but they can make a difference in how many of these attacks take place. They are working hard to be rid of this menace....they want to do their best and come home.

And name those who feel that OIF is a misguided venture...especially in the military...and if you say the name of the General who ran in the last US presidential election primarys...Wesley something...you lose...