I honestly don't see a use for it anymore. You have the UN not really doing anything in places like Sudan. Also, it is known that the UN has not used the word "genocide" in some places because then they would be legally obligated to help. Although they are able to send people to the US to oversee the elections. Also, you have the African countries where they enlisted the help of the South American mercs (forgot the name of the group but they were very good, former South American SF) which defeated rebels numbered in the thousands. The mercs were only a couple hundred. (You saw this if you watched the private military contractor show on the history channel.) Then the big ol UN said "that is our job, no mercs, etc." So they come in with thousands of troops and it costs many more millions than it did to pay the mercs and within a short amount of time the rebels were owning the UN troops.

It still has its uses but now the whole "We're challenging against anything America does" attitude is hurting it a LOT.
The UN's job is to help people in need but it refuses to do so because of some petty political power play in where if the UN "wins" and the Americans fail the consequences for that would be worse off for everyone (i.e. failure in Iraq).
It still does some good though.

As long as they dont keep messing with the US.

The U.N can't be counted on for military operations. It's useless, they're too slow to react... I do believe that they're good for providing economic aid/cleanup.

A GOOD PLACE FOR THE DO-GOODERS TO FORCE THE NASTIES TO DO A LITTLE GOOD WORK. FEED THE STARVING ETC.
_________________
"What I learned in training are the three most important words, ATTITUDE, ATTITUDE, ATTITUDE." Jack Lynch, Member Class-29
http://sealstrike.com/jcroat

Many people here see the U.N. as sort of a liability – someone who can’t be counted on to solve real problems. I see the U.N. as an organization that is bent on world domination, and they will be wicked in their ways to achieve this. Everything they are doing is aimed at taking control of nations, but they will rationalize this with “good intentions.” They may not be influential now, but they will gain more power if the aren’t stopped. They want the United States to fail in Iraq because we represent a power that acted without the U.N.’s permission.

They want to control the militaries of nations, so they can grow powerful enough to subjugate all those who don’t fall in line. They will give the excuse that sovereign nations are the cause of all war, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the U.N. wants a big war so they can go on a power grab.

They want to control the election process of nations, so they can put in a leader who is aligned with their cause. They will give the excuse that only properly sanctioned elections can be fair, but believe me, if the U.N. gets their hands on the polls, it will be anything but “fair.” The U.N. want to put a leader into power that will hand over sovereignty to them.

They want to remove freedom or individual rights; namely, they want to get rid of the right of self-defense. They want an international gun control act so people won’t be able to defend against their regime. They will give the excuse that guns kill and need to be removed to prevent violence., but if a brutal dictator on the other side of the world is murdering civilians, the U.N. doesn’t want them to defend themselves; instead, they want to send U.N. troops to assume control.

The U.N. is the biggest threat to world that I have ever seen.

Just let the bastards try to take our "Liberty teeth".
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=33584

That's..... actually a pretty good post.

UN still does something very important.

It also has a big Symbolic Role.

Suppose there was no UN more tomorrow, then it will become very easy for Dogs to bite Chicken, Chicken to fight Ducks, Ducks to chase on Birds, you will see plenty of fists flying in the air, what a mess.

UN at least has a role of Mediating.

Originally Posted by FlyingFrog

Suppose there was no UN more tomorrow, then it will become very easy for Dogs to bite Chicken, Chicken to fight Ducks, Ducks to chase on Birds, you will see plenty of fists flying in the air, what a mess.

I seriously doubt the world would go to hell in a hand basket like some of the U.N. apologist say it would; verily major powers will not slug it out like they used to since most have nuclear weapons. Times change, but it's not like the U.N. or League of Nations or any other of it's incarnations has ever been really useful.

Originally Posted by FlyingFrog

UN at least has a role of Mediating.

Baloney! Any power can mediate without taking sides on an issue. The U.S. mediated ceasefire between Russia and Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t take any sides and I believe he won a Nobel peace prize for that. The French mediated a peace treaty between Spain and United States in the Spanish American war. Again, preceding the signing of “Treaty of Paris 1898”, French diplomats mediated without bias.

But think again, what is UN? UN is simply the 5 UNSC powers, right?

UN not usefull equals to say the 5 UNSC members are nuts.

UN is the place where a big powers gather to decide something important to them all, but of course, it will not always work as men would like, but many times it does work.