I'm fed up with the UN - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
September 21st, 2004  
sunb!
 
 

Topic: UN slow because of world wide resistance?


One of the reasons the UN have lost some of her will to action is the undermining of her work due to the strong will of certain nations (such as the US.)

It turns out in the end as "we are all ready to go, but the UN didn't show up". Why? Ever put some time in how to learn how the UN really works? It is a bureucracy, each nation has a vote - the UN do not have a combat ready combat group on 24 hours readiness - each member nation has to contribute to the UN, economically, military, equipment vise.

When nations fail to meet these commitments, things grind to a halt.

Thankfully nations such as France, Germany and countries across Europe still wants to find solutions on conflicts through the UN, but for how long?

Edit: The perhaps most sucsessful thing with the UN is the Security Council.
September 21st, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Hola Mark,
I do agree with you. My first post never called for the end of the UN. I am just fed up with the current BS...

I'll write more later. Time for work
September 21st, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Lets try and improve it but don't trash it!
--
Boots
September 21st, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
The UN in it's present configuration cannot keep in check tin pot third world despots. How do you or they propose to "enforce the UN's will" on world powers.
September 22nd, 2004  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
Lets try and improve it but don't trash it!
Yes yes, there needs to be much improvement.

Lately, the UN has been extremely biased against the US. There were a few resolutions voted on about Israel a few months back. The resolutions condemned the Israeli actions as terrorism but said nothing of the actions of the Hamas and other Palestinian groups. The US was the only nation to veto it citing the fact the palestinians were not condemned. No one would rewrite the resolution to say the Palestinians are guilty of terrorism too. Lets face it, at this point, both parties are guilty of doing some pretty bad things.

In 2001, the UN voted the US off the human rights committee while keeping China and Sudan on it. I do not need to say anything else on this one to prove my point.

Why would the UN be willing to take military action in the Balkans while letting Sadam do his thing with out much of a fight? 15 resolutions does not sound intimidating to me.

Do I think the UN is needed? Yes I do. As said in a few posts here, the UN is a place for countries to try to work out their difference and attend to international conflict. Sometimes the UN can succeed without putting a boot on the ground. But in the end, you cannot combat Evil without the willingness to go to war. There are a rash of dictators in our history who would have never fell if it were not for the swift action of war. AND yes , there were a few instances where no violence was needed.

Until the UN does the right thing all the time, the United States has the right to conduct a military action without the UN's backing. I have no problem with this as long as the US tries to use the UN first. 15 resolutions in Iraq over 10 years shows me that nothing was getting done. I feel the UN would have waited another 10 years before trying to end the problems in Iraq.

SSG Doody
September 22nd, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
With the UN all h*ll breaks loose. Witness Sudan, Rwanda etc.. The UN may be good at aid distribution provided they don't get greedy, but in conflict resolution or governing they are impotent.
As far as aid goes the International Red Cross and The Red Crescent are probably just as good on the distribution end although they need support in logistics.
The UN as a monitor of Nuclear weapons has also been a dismal failure as it has with all WMD monitoring attempts (Iraq) a Country does not comply and continues to manufacture. stockpile and refuse acess for inspection the UN passes a resolution. Which in effect says your a bad bad boy yet no action.
Do countries need to wait for the UN to bless their actions? They do so at their peril.
September 22nd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 

Topic: Re: U.N.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
If the five-veto-power not implemented, wouldn't the most powerful country has say in anything. Wouldn't that country be considered as dictator? Do you think regular and new clear Arm race will start again?

If without U.N, every country will start doing their own thing. It can mean h**l breaks loose.

I
My point is, 5 nations holding an instant kill to any action proposed is a major obstacle. I don't disagree with the idea that there should be nations in the world that merit a special level of representation a world government orgainization, but I think the current listings are outdated. I'll likely catch hell for saying this, but if France and the United Kingdom rate, then so should Germany and Japan. "Victorious Allies of World War II" should not be the sole determining factor.

If the veto of one of the permanent member of the security council could be bypassed, the UN would stand far greater chance of being an effective World Government body. I don't think granting ANY nation the autority to kill a UN action permanently is a good thing. No, I don't intend to even hint that only one nation ought to have the power, just pointing out one of the problems with the current system.
September 23rd, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
I agree.

The present veto system has to change. If I knew the best model to go with I wouldn't be a bloody teacher but have a job at the UN.
September 23rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Unfortunately, just try asking any one of the 5 permanent members to give up their veto power. Not gonna happen. For instance, do you think ANY citizen of France would favor anyone proposing to take away their veto? Not bloody likely. So with the current setup, the French ambassador would just veto the motion and that would be it. Same scenario for any of the others.
September 23rd, 2004  
sunb!
 
 

Topic: Re: UN


It seems like, from reading the posts here, that most people seems to disgrace the UN?

What you guys really intend to say is that we can shut down the UN system and give the UN role to USA, China, Russia and the rest of the members of the security council - or to certain key states?

What if we shut down the UN functions and leave them to ie USA, France, UK, Germany, Russia and China? Each country have the right to decide what happens in own designated areas of the world. No questions asked if military intervention takes place in civil war, crisis or other issues.

Could it work better than with the UN? Each country seems to have the will to interact in any crisis (with exception of Germany to some levels), USA, China and Russia have the military equipment and personell needed for instant action wherever in the world.

Thankfully I am not a politician....