• a body of representative from nations around the world that have nothing better to do with their time. "Let's see; world peace or this piece of crap, crap wins"
  • the U.N needs to be disbanded before they try to kill us all. religions too. this will definately start a war.
  • cool. can we start on Answerbag?
  • We do not need freedom of speech to protect polite speech because it is always accepted without complaint, we need freedom of speech for that which others may find objectionable. When only speech which does not offend any is permissable then there is no longer freedom. Our forefathers faught and spilled their blood for us to have our freedoms remain intact. To quote George W. Bush " We are the land of the free because we are the home of the brave".
  • I guess the US has a veto for a reason, as do several other members of the security council. The CNN source was the first alert here. The UN cannot "criminalize" anything, nor can it enforce this sort of resolution, "binding" or not. In fact, the democratic nature of the UN is what is allowing this sort of stupid discussion which, it appears the broadcaster would stifle simply because he does not like it. I wonder what he would do if he was in charge? The broadcast actually says what the problem is... Islamic countries want to have it a certain may... the majority of the UN is not Islamic and the resolution will not pass in any shape that might allow it to have some impact anywhere but Islamic countries.... which of course, if they wanted it, have it now within their countries. Even if it did, it cannot be passed in the US because it is against the US Constitution. Most other democracies have similar protection. The idea of scrapping the UN because of this sort of thing is like saying the US should be scrapped because some jerks use the media to advance agendas which are other than they present. This guy knows many people in the US get uptight as soon as the word Islam is mentioned, so for good and person reasons (though Islam is less the problem and evil doers who call themselve Islamic are). He hates the UN and wants to marshal his forces... what better way... say the US is threatened by a guest body resident on its own soil (even though this was negotiated by treaty) full of "foreigners". He advocate democracy but wants discussion of what he does not like, stifled and then stoped on. I have no more love of Islamic radicalization than anyone else. I do not think the UN a well run place. I do think both would be better to change and become more reasonable and inclusive and a hell of alot more cost effective. It is however the only stage on which all can talk right now. I do not think the way to improve the place is to force the game. We can see many, many current and past example of how effective force is. It is better to talk and waste breath, than to shoot and end up with none. I will be interested to see how "free" my speach is respected here. The questioner asked what we thought. My answer is just an opinion. I expect it will be dissed (- points) by those who advocate silence. I did give the questioner + points
  • If the UN isn't careful, it's going to totally alienate the US. If we withdraw, the entire structure will collapse. Obviously, they have no clue as to what "freedom of speech" means vis-a-vis the US Constitution.
  • It doesn't surprise me. After all, it encourages genocide, in a horrible manner. So why not promote something that will cause religious wars as well?
  • It sets a bad precedent. First we can't criticize religion, then we can't criticize the Government. Sounds very Big Brother.
  • Sorry for the duplicate.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy