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
I think the UN went from being a noble idea after WWI, to a toothless tiger (say about the 1970's onwards) and is now an expensive toothless pussy. Some of its humanitarian programmes are very good but individual nations and private charities seem to do just as good a job in getting supplies and resources to those who are victims of war, famine or natural disasters.
 
Here is my opinion...

jitcrunch.aspx


It's anti-American, a waste of my tax money, an excuse for a international body to stop human rights abuses when it has nations that abuse human rights lead the Human Rights Commission, is a gaggle of tin pot dictators and despots, and lastly is pretty much a waste of restate in New York City.

It was founded for just causes and sadly it has become a fat sack of crap. Scrap it.... It's a Paper Tiger and a Toothless Wonder.
 
Last edited:
Well put. For Example USA at the same table as Iran. Now sort it out. Those are the two countries that can't sort out crap for their lives because they hate each other.
 
Padre said:
I think the UN went from being a noble idea after WWI, to a toothless tiger (say about the 1970's onwards) and is now an expensive toothless pussy. Some of its humanitarian programmes are very good but individual nations and private charities seem to do just as good a job in getting supplies and resources to those who are victims of war, famine or natural disasters.
Click to expand...

I think you mean after WWII. The League of Nations was formed after WWI and disappeared when it failed to stop WWII.
 
LOL couldn't stop WW2! An organization with a BUNCH of different countries trying to stop a war? Some will want it, some won't, the fact that they weren't able to stop it was inevitable.
 
Just a reminder lets try not to get off topic I've been spoken to by a moderator today ={ two times in one day!!!
 
Tovarish1 said:
LOL couldn't stop WW2! An organization with a BUNCH of different countries trying to stop a war? Some will want it, some won't, the fact that they weren't able to stop it was inevitable.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with the UN is that it is in a position that Americans don't seem to understand, it is not there to stop wars it is there to try and prevent wars by giving nations a forum to present their issues.
The UN has no borders, it has no military and it has no mandate to pass laws and most of all it is not a police force or a sovereign entity in its own right.

However if you get past the fixation of the UN as a military force and look at the humanitarian work that it does (yes I expect the right wing to whine about this, how dare people help each other) then you will see the real value of the UN.
 
But doesn't the UN have those peacekeepers? You know the ones in the light blue helmets? They're not considered military are they? But yeah I sort of made a mistake there by saying "stop" wars. But as TomTom said, it's a waste because they're not doing what they're suppose to due to their constant arguing. Putting Iran and the US in one room LOL sure that'll help.
 
i would not call the UN anti-american since they have such an influence in it.

but these last few years the UN has not done anything and i think its a waste of money. Europeans now have the European union and the Eurocorps and allied western nations have NATO and those do much better work (but have lost of room for improvment ;) )
 
The UN worked one time in terms of security: the Korean War.
Can't really say I remember the UN being able to pull off a successful collective security effort after that.
The quieter sides of the UN that don't get a lot of press do help millions of people across the globe.
Unfortunately it's the noisier side that deals with diplomacy and peacekeeping that get all the press and gives everyone the impression that the UN is some kind of dog and pony show.
Having said that, I wasn't very happy with the UN folks when I was in Southeast Asia. They didn't have the sort of mission humility that other organizations like CARE and USAID had. Their snobbish attitude was just disgusting and made you want to just slit their throats and take their cargo. Didn't even share their food or offer a seat even. But considering the sheer volume of aid they got the people in need, can't say it's a total failure.
The total failure was waiting and time wasting until the folks in East Timor ran out of ammunition and things to blow up, then marching in and pretending like it had brought peace to the area.

As for UN peacekeepers, it's not a standing army or anything. They're units loaned from various countries to carry out operations for the UN. Exactly how the whole system works, I don't know.
 
Mikefrombelgium said:
i would not call the UN anti-american since they have such an influence in it.

but these last few years the UN has not done anything and i think its a waste of money. Europeans now have the European union and the Eurocorps and allied western nations have NATO and those do much better work (but have lost of room for improvment ;) )
Click to expand...

The problem is that they cant do anything because of politics.

Seriously get 220 of your friends together and try and agree on something to do and then when you do have some agreement run it past 20 randomly chosen friends of both sides to get their agreement (aka the security council) then just to make sure it all falls over run that result past 5 other people who have a vested interest in getting different results (aka the permanent members).

If you want to give teeth to the UN all you have to do is get rid of the 5 permanent members and make everything a majority vote in the general assembly with the security council acting as a facilitator for the result.

The up side of that is that you will have an organisation that acts on the will of the majority of nations (what could be fairer) of course that would make 5 nations very uneasy when they found they couldn't paralyse the UN with their own national politics and then blame the UN for failing to do something.
 
Hey Mike, the only reason the EU was formed was because each country had a different currency and it was a pain in the butt to export/import goods from country to country because you had to pay a different currency just to get into the country, so the EU just made it so that Euros became the currency. But yeah the Eurocorps. is kinda like the UN for Europe lol.
 
Chukpike said:
I think you mean after WWII. The League of Nations was formed after WWI and disappeared when it failed to stop WWII.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson, but I actually and deliberately do mean "after WWI." I wanted to refer and did refer to the "idea" of a "united nations" forum. The concept of the UN was born well before 1945/46 in the L of N, but the latter included the US whereas the US Senate defeated President Wilson's dream of the US joining the L of N. :confused:
 
MontyB said:
The problem is that they cant do anything because of politics.

Seriously get 220 of your friends together and try and agree on something to do and then when you do have some agreement run it past 20 randomly chosen friends of both sides to get their agreement (aka the security council) then just to make sure it all falls over run that result past 5 other people who have a vested interest in getting different results (aka the permanent members).

If you want to give teeth to the UN all you have to do is get rid of the 5 permanent members and make everything a majority vote in the general assembly with the security council acting as a facilitator for the result.

The up side of that is that you will have an organisation that acts on the will of the majority of nations (what could be fairer) of course that would make 5 nations very uneasy when they found they couldn't paralyse the UN with their own national politics and then blame the UN for failing to do something.
Click to expand...


i'm hearing you on the majority vote, but as you say those 5 permanent members wouldnt go with it. glad i'm not a politician ;)
 
Tovarish1 said:
Hey Mike, the only reason the EU was formed was because each country had a different currency and it was a pain in the butt to export/import goods from country to country because you had to pay a different currency just to get into the country, so the EU just made it so that Euros became the currency. But yeah the Eurocorps. is kinda like the UN for Europe lol.
Click to expand...


hehe yeah but i hope it will be more active then UN troops.

but they havent been tested yet, so we willl have to wait and see ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top