The Student Room Group

The UN should not be based in New York, a grave mistake

Scroll to see replies

I agree with most of your points, but stop mentioning Hiroshima, completely different scenario.
Original post by Stalin
Yeah, forget what the rest of the world thinks. Act unilaterally! 'Merica, **** yeah!


When I was a teenager the U.S. cared what the rest of the world thought. Those days are gone.
Original post by zgb1
In Switzerland. It is a neutral country without the influence of the EU or any other organisation.

I mean, the US is whining how they give to much money to the UN, so there is a chance to cut the spending by relocating the UN in Switzerland.


We haven't paid dues in 5 yrs. I think. Not sure why.
Original post by Zainabahlulbayt
Direct from the BBC's website: "Under international law, the US as the host nation for the UN is obliged to grant visas to states' representatives."

Iran has chosen its ambassador. The UN is a multi-international organisation. Iran needs to be able to take part in talks, and the US have barred Iran effectively from attending the UN meetings because the UN - which SHOULD not be bias towards the US and remain neutrla- is located in the US, and hence the US won't give the iranian ambassador a VISA.

I hate terrorists, i hate the taliban, i hate those who murder and opress. Either upfront like the taliban, or hidden behind deceitful foreign politics and lies like the USA, i.e it's illegal invasion of Iraq.

But that is besides the point. According to international Law, a country may choose whomever it wants as ambassador. The UN have no problems whatsoever with Irans choice.

I accept the US can refuse a VISA to whomever so they wish.

The issue is, the UN is supposed to be a neutral organisation. Hosting it in a country like the US, which bars Iran from participating in peace talks absolutely shatters and mingles UN neutrality with US politics.





These people don't:

PLACE: HIROSHIMA
Event: USA DROPS A NUCLEAR BOMB KILLING COUNTLESS.




USA DRONE STRIKES BREAK DOWN



What a bunch of crap. It's been estimated that it would have taken a year to end hostilities on the Japanese mainland. Think about the Japanese civilian deaths and I'll think about the U.S. deaths. The fire bombings near the end of the war took a far greater toll. This is the kind of Anti American dribble that's making the American people think your all crazy.
Original post by Oldcon1953
What a bunch of crap. It's been estimated that it would have taken a year to end hostilities on the Japanese mainland. Think about the Japanese civilian deaths and I'll think about the U.S. deaths. The fire bombings near the end of the war took a far greater toll. This is the kind of Anti American dribble that's making the American people think your all crazy.


Afghanistan has taken what, over a decade ? Should we have also nuclear bombed Afghanistan, killing and wiping out civilians and whoever survived to children with mutations ?

I love a lot about America, please don't confuse America or Americans with the poli foeign tics.
The UN wants the US to support it so they have political power. You can't have both.
Reply 46
Avatar for nexttime
nexttime
22
Its hardly the worst example of the US using its power to abuse the UN. This one is pretty sneaky though I'll give you that - in past years they'd have just assasinated him.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 47
Avatar for nexttime
nexttime
22
Original post by Oldcon1953
What a bunch of crap. It's been estimated that it would have taken a year to end hostilities on the Japanese mainland. Think about the Japanese civilian deaths and I'll think about the U.S. deaths. The fire bombings near the end of the war took a far greater toll. This is the kind of Anti American dribble that's making the American people think your [sic] all crazy.


THAT is the bunch of crap that the US propaganda machine has been spinning ever since. Japan were collapsing in the pacific, they were collapsing against the russians on land... it was finished. Dropping the bomb, and all the firebombings too yes, were acts of revenge (11% of the US said they wanted the japanese wiped out as a race in a poll the year before) and acts of intimidation towards russia. Pure terrorism. There were other options.

Here's where you repeat some more wartime propaganda about how all japanese people were all inhuman crazies who would never ever surrender...

Its this kind of shory-sighted pro-american dribble that reminds the world that american foreign policy has about the dirtiest track record out there and that you better stay in line because they have no problem announcing you're a terrorist and drone striking your children.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 48
Avatar for Lovefist
Lovefist
Original post by nexttime
THAT is the bunch of crap that the US propaganda machine has been spinning ever since. Japan were collapsing in the pacific, they were collapsing against the russians on land... it was finished. Dropping the bomb, and all the firebombings too yes, were acts of revenge (11% of the US said they wanted the japanese wiped out as a race in a poll the year before) and acts of intimidation towards russia. Pure terrorism. There were other options.


I'm pretty sure that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done with the consent of the UK government, considering the Quebec agreement and all. Referencing what happened in world war II for an argument against the United States hosting the UN is pretty stupid.
The UN needs to be based somewhere, BUT I think that the building of the UN should be independent of any country. New York is a great city, but it's in the US, and at turbulent times, is it any wonder that countries such as Russia and China feel that the UN completely backs the stance of the USA? I personally think that we should look at relocating the UN to a more neutral country such as Switzerland or Finland.
Reply 50
Avatar for gladders
gladders
16
Original post by nexttime
THAT is the bunch of crap that the US propaganda machine has been spinning ever since. Japan were collapsing in the pacific, they were collapsing against the russians on land... it was finished. Dropping the bomb, and all the firebombings too yes, were acts of revenge (11% of the US said they wanted the japanese wiped out as a race in a poll the year before) and acts of intimidation towards russia. Pure terrorism. There were other options.


Name these options, please.

Here's where you repeat some more wartime propaganda about how all japanese people were all inhuman crazies who would never ever surrender...


Provide counter-evidence, please. The average Japanese person may have been perfectly pleasant, but their loyalty to the Emperor and the government was cast-iron, and the dominant parties in the government were zealously anti-peace.

Its this kind of shory-sighted pro-american dribble that reminds the world that american foreign policy has about the dirtiest track record out there and that you better stay in line because they have no problem announcing you're a terrorist and drone striking your children.


This isn't pro-american dribble; it's historical fact. You're the one parroting anti-american dribble.
OP, your justification for them being terrorists is poor, there is ALWAYS collateral in war. And if you actually did your studying at school you would be aware that it was most likely the best move to use nuclear weapons on Japan because, not only did it allow field testing, but also removed the necessity of invasion with projected casualties in the millions.

As for the drone strikes, again, it's war, there is collateral and it is substantially safef for those launching the strikes sikce they don't have to put men out to do the job, potentially get killed or wounded, lose equipment and have the targrt know they're coming and run.

However, if the US is refusing access it should be based somewhere else, really it should be based somewhere neutral anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Stalin
Stick to football.


Lol okay pal.
It's funny how no one is saying "Aboutalebi is a top ambassador, he's done nothing wrong" or "Aboutalebi is one of Iran's senior figures in diplomacy, what happened in the past isn't important".

Instead, it's descended very quickly into trashing the US's stance and record on foreign policy and we've thrown in a good old Hiroshima reference for good measure.

Interesting.
Original post by Jammy Duel
OP, your justification for them being terrorists is poor, there is ALWAYS collateral in war. And if you actually did your studying at school you would be aware that it was most likely the best move to use nuclear weapons on Japan because, not only did it allow field testing, but also removed the necessity of invasion with projected casualties in the millions.

As for the drone strikes, again, it's war, there is collateral and it is substantially safef for those launching the strikes sikce they don't have to put men out to do the job, potentially get killed or wounded, lose equipment and have the targrt know they're coming and run.

However, if the US is refusing access it should be based somewhere else, really it should be based somewhere neutral anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Why is it when the US does something wrong people come up with excuses to downplay it and even support those actions. I can almost guarantee you if it had been the other way around japan would never have lived it down. Also you talk about history but it's often skewed because it's almost always written from the perspective of the victor.
OP please stop going on about Hiroshima.

A) You seem to be completely ignoring Nagasaki.

B) The bombings of both those cities were done to end the war with Japan quickly. Japans attitude to war was you couldn't honourably surrender, which meant their soldiers were fighting to the last man, and civilian populations at the encouragement of their government were commiting suicide rather than be taken by the US forces. The battle of Saipan has 22,000 civilian casualties and most were suicides.

There only other option was to wage a long bloody campaign that would have caused more deaths on both sides than the destruction of two cities would have caused.

The total death toll for both cities was at most less than 250,000, whereas a full invasion would have caused an estimated at most 800,000 casualties for the US and 10,000,000 for Japan.

It is not a decision anyone should ever have to make, but it is completely different to the current political situations going on today.
Original post by littleangel9914
Why is it when the US does something wrong people come up with excuses to downplay it and even support those actions. I can almost guarantee you if it had been the other way around japan would never have lived it down. Also you talk about history but it's often skewed because it's almost always written from the perspective of the victor.


So are you trying to say that given how fanatical the Japanese people were with regards to their emperor that they would have just let the Americans march into Tokyo without a fight? Given what was known about the Japanese which would you do?

Use a couple of weapons that need testing in the field that could end the war there and then with the loss of at most a couple of hundred thousand,

or a full scale invasion with considerable extra cost significant loss of life on both sides, probably more on each side than the maximum projected casualties of the nukes, not field testing these weapons that need field testing and not showing off to the world your ability to remove a city from the face of the earth at will?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 57
Avatar for Swanbow
Swanbow
19
Original post by Zainabahlulbayt
Afghanistan has taken what, over a decade ? Should we have also nuclear bombed Afghanistan, killing and wiping out civilians and whoever survived to children with mutations ?
.


Ludicrous comparison.

The Taliban government was toppled in just over a month using conventional means. Following the invasion the mission in Afghanistan has turned into state building and counter insurgency. Dropping a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan would have achieved nothing.

In 1945 Japan was a state which was unwilling to surrender. Dropping a nuclear bomb coerced them into surrender. Far less died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki than would have through another year of continued strategic bombing, along with an Allied invasion.
Reply 58
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Please stay on the topic at hand, If you want to discuss the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima then please make another thread.
Original post by StretfordEnd
It's funny how no one is saying "Aboutalebi is a top ambassador, he's done nothing wrong" or "Aboutalebi is one of Iran's senior figures in diplomacy, what happened in the past isn't important".

He has said (and I haven't seen a shred of evidence from anyone that suggests otherwise), that: 'he was not part of the group that took over the US embassy, and was only later asked to translate for the students.' He is an experienced and prominent diplomat for Iran; he has been Iran's ambassador to Australia, Belgium, Italy and the EU.

Talking about the US's history of breaking international law and disregard for human rights (Guantanamo Bay anyone?) just shows how this incident isn't anything that shouldn't be expected of the US.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you