How Do You Feel About the UN?

How do You Feel About the UN?

  • Yeah they're good... Get a lot of work done.

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Argue too much, don't get work done, it's like putting enemies in one room.

    Votes: 17 70.8%

  • Don't know.

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Total voters
    24
Me neither. You'd lose friends and gain em. But mostly lose them lol. About 150 nations in the UN and there's ALWAYS a catch to their decision making... as soon as they're about to make a decision, they find a reason to argue... lol.
 
If the UN cannot do what it is supposed to, it is because they rely on some of thei big players t much:

- on thier money (many are withholdig their contractually due money for poitical reasons)
- on their will to actually solve a prob
- on their armed forces supplöy (those Blue Helmets you were asking about are forces supplied - or not - by member nations)

etc., etc.

Rattler
 
I'm undecided on the UN. It's a noble idea and all, but...

I've seen a lot of things that have made me come dangerously close to losing all faith in them.

On the other hand, they have done (and still do) some really great work out there.

I think the advantages of having them around outweigh the disadvantages.
 
Personally, I like the UN. a great organization and a wonderful idea where, if countries such as the US paid it any mind, could solve all sorts of problems.
 
"While the United Nations may be over 60 years old, not everyone is familiar with it and the work that it does. In fact, just one-quarter of Germans (25%) and French adults (28%) say they are familiar compared to a plurality of British adults (40%), half of Spaniards (48%), a majority of Italians (55%) and almost two-thirds of Americans (64%). While they may not all be familiar with what it does, people in these six countries all believe that the UN does good work. Three–quarters of French adults (75%), two-thirds of Italians (69%), Germans (67%) and Britons (65%) and at least three in five Spaniards (63%) and Americans (60%) all say the UN does more good than harm."

Harris poll November 2008

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=984

According to Harris it seems the US population is near the top in understanding and supporting the UN.
 
Paper Tiger .. Toothless Wonder ....................

5.56 is correct .....
It can ONLY suggest and pass unenforceable dictums. Without the support of the major players, it can't even act as peace keepers anywhere in the world.

While the idea is good, the actual entity is a Paper Tiger and a Toothless Wonder. Unless/until it revamps it's entire SOP/Charter, it will continue to be a laughing stock where world peace is concerned.
 
I had great respect for the UN in theory, always hoping that it might one day be more effective.

Whilst in Timor my son worked closely with UN workers there, and was totally disgusted with what he saw. His impression was that they were more worried about improving their lifestyle and power base, taking credit for everything that they could regardless of their lack of input, to him it seemed they were only interested in the Timorese if there was something to be gained for themselves.
 
I could see that being a problem. When the peacekeeping force has no ties or interest in the country or people where they're deployed then self interest could become their sole function. It probably comes down to weak leadership among the UN peacekeepers.
As for the UN as an entity, I agree is is a noble concept lacking in implementation. Sure they depend on big nations' money, that's the nature of the UN but they could do better job preventing conflicts rather than to just always send a token force in after the fact.
 
senojekips said:
Whilst in Timor my son worked closely with UN workers there, and was totally disgusted with what he saw. His impression was that they were more worried about improving their lifestyle and power base, taking credit for everything that they could regardless of their lack of input, to him it seemed they were only interested in the Timorese if there was something to be gained for themselves.
Click to expand...

X2 Spike. That is precisely what everyone else I know who worked over there at the time thought. A lot of NGOs were over there with bare bone resources and they were doing most of the helping - including helping each other. The UN not so. They had these great logistics and were busy stuffing their faces. I sh1t you not. They wouldn't even offer guests any food or drink if they deemed them to be a "nobody."
But I do understand that without the UN, the NGOs would have had a much harder time operating in the area.

I guess the UN's role needs to be redefined.
As a forum... maybe but I think sides that are likely to sort their differences through dialogue would sit down and talk their differences out, UN or no UN and parties that are not likely to do so can talk all they want in the UN but they won't be listening anyway.

I can't really speak for the 3rd world armies being used as peace keepers but for armies doing peacekeeping duties for the UN, the whole issue on self interest whatnot becomes irrelevent as they have a mission assigned to them from the UN via their government. The main groups we're having issues with are the other elements who go in as the UN and the UN only (i.e. not an organization loaned/contracted by the UN). Actually in peacekeeping, having a force from a country that has no real interest/motivation in that region of conflict would be a plus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top