Should we quit the UN

P

papasha408

Active member
Should the democracy's of the world quit the UN and form a union of democratic states. The UN has become increasingly corrupt. From it's 70's resolution equating zionism with racism to allowing Gaddafi to sit on councils concerning human rights to allowing a minister of Zimbabwe's state to sit on a council concerning economic development. One expects a punchline here but unfortunatly these things did happen. The UN has become a farce and it's time for all Democratic countries to say, "we have had enough. There are many more examples of UN uselessness but for the moment I shall do just one thing. And that is to ask anyone how they feel about the UN.
 
papasha408 said:
Should the democracy's of the world quit the UN and form a union of democratic states. The UN has become increasingly corrupt. From it's 70's resolution equating zionism with racism to allowing Gaddafi to sit on councils concerning human rights to allowing a minister of Zimbabwe's state to sit on a council concerning economic development. One expects a punchline here but unfortunatly these things did happen. The UN has become a farce and it's time for all Democratic countries to say, "we have had enough. There are many more examples of UN uselessness but for the moment I shall do just one thing. And that is to ask anyone how they feel about the UN.
Click to expand...
Virtually all of the problems you outline are caused by corruption related to certain member countries geopolitical aspirations.

As for Zionism not being Racist, You should look up what the definition of Racism is. Israel purports to be against racism, yet it has laws forbidding the purchase of certain land to non Jews. That's just the start. I suppose that's not technically racism as Jews are not a "Race" but it amounts to the same.
 
the UN is based on fairness to all member countries. the UN was designed to take over from the league of nations and eliminate the downfalls of the league. one of the reason that hitler was successful was because that every one in germany hated the league. so what if some dodgy mistakes are made? the leaders in question would probably make a huge stink if they suspected that they were excluded because of there leaderships of their countries. its okay if they let them sit in on the meetings, but its another thing all together if they were even allowed to suggest things
 
Re: Should we quit the UN info

I don't think it would be wise to quit the UN. Yes the USA will save money BUT..... when countries are against each other, the UN can provide 'smoke and mirrors' solution where the countries involved can save face and with assistance of the UN.
To me the graphic example is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both the USSR and USA were ready to go to war than to back down and be humiliated. Both the countries were willing to use the UN as a shield and, tell their fellow citizens their version of the resolution.
The USA said the Soviets backed down and removed their missiles.
The USSR said, they were able secure a promise (in writing) that the USA will not or not allow an invasion of Cuba with any assistance from the USA. They only sought protection for Cuba!
There was a side agreement in which the USA would remove the IRBMs in Turkey and Italy. (The missiles were old and not much of a threat.) The USA did as it had promised.

The UN's greatest blunder was they did not settle the Palestinian problem. It still 'festers' and causes a major problem in the entire region.

Both Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein could have benefited from the UN coming in and negotiate an agreement, where they could leave with bunches of money. Live somewhere where they still had influence to those who loved them.
 
Palestine was one of those Americans ideals to provide the Jews with a homeland and they sent weapons and support to Jewish people and still do. Okay I have no objection to a Jewish state, but as it keeps pushing into Palestine territory and taking more and more of their land, then peace will never come.
 
I would keep the UN. It has many faults but also many good ones. If the democratic countries join forces, so wil the non-democratic ones and we will propably get another cold-war. The first thing that has to be tackled is the sluggish bureaucracy.

Is it possible to leave Israel and Palestine out of this discussion and focus on the tread title.
 
VDKMS said:
I would keep the UN. It has many faults but also many good ones. If the democratic countries join forces, so wil the non-democratic ones and we will propably get another cold-war. The first thing that has to be tackled is the sluggish bureaucracy.

Is it possible to leave Israel and Palestine out of this discussion and focus on the tread title.
Click to expand...


Agreed on all of that. While we may not necessarily like the UN, it is what gives lots of our countries the influence that it have. Especially so for UK, USA, China, and Russia. If we make it a "democratic" union, it could potentially cause a confrontation with other nations. It will automatically kick China out of it, which I am sure they would not be happy about. Example would be NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

U.S I am pretty sure hates the U.N more than a lot of the countries that are in it, but we must realize we need it for now. No major player in the U.N wants to quit more than the U.S does imo.
 
Only a buffoon would think the UN a Good thing, armed Neutrality is the way to go, no-one will mess with you if you can destroy them overnight.
 
I remember when the UN stood by and did nothing in Rwanda.

The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.

In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.

Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.

At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.

"The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of the pledge 'never again,'" he said, referring to the promise made after the Holocaust.

The council stopped short an all-out apology similar to the one delivered by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt one week ago in Kigali.

Instead, the 15 council members focused on the lessons to be learned from their failure to act, particularly in Africa where wars continue to rage.
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said: "The prevention of another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the core elements of US policy in the Great Lakes, and is one of the United Nations' greatest challenges."
"In the days ahead, how we act to help bring peace to Congo will be the best evidence that we've learned the lessons of our past failures," he said.
Rwanda's UN Ambassador, Joseph Mutaboba, welcomed the report and its recommendations but said the council could do more. "It's never to late to make things right," he said.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994, commissioned the report and was out for criticism for not passing on warnings about the impending genocide.

Mr Annan said he fully accepted the report's conclusions.
 
Zultra said:
Only a buffoon would think the UN a Good thing, armed Neutrality is the way to go, no-one will mess with you if you can destroy them overnight.
Click to expand...

You better come out of your cave. We live in a world were everything is linked toghether. In order to solve problems that comes with it you need a global institution. The UN is not perfect but for the moment nothing else comes close.
 
VDKMS said:
You better come out of your cave. We live in a world were everything is linked toghether. In order to solve problems that comes with it you need a global institution. The UN is not perfect but for the moment nothing else comes close.
Click to expand...

So you want a single order dictating what other countries can and can't do at will? I guess you like the fact that Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps you will think that is a good thing and that you want to live in fear of attack from the Imperalist Institution.
 
BritinAfrica said:
I remember when the UN stood by and did nothing in Rwanda.

The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.

In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.

Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.

At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.

"The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of the pledge 'never again,'" he said, referring to the promise made after the Holocaust.

The council stopped short an all-out apology similar to the one delivered by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt one week ago in Kigali.

Instead, the 15 council members focused on the lessons to be learned from their failure to act, particularly in Africa where wars continue to rage.
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said: "The prevention of another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the core elements of US policy in the Great Lakes, and is one of the United Nations' greatest challenges."
"In the days ahead, how we act to help bring peace to Congo will be the best evidence that we've learned the lessons of our past failures," he said.
Rwanda's UN Ambassador, Joseph Mutaboba, welcomed the report and its recommendations but said the council could do more. "It's never to late to make things right," he said.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994, commissioned the report and was out for criticism for not passing on warnings about the impending genocide.

Mr Annan said he fully accepted the report's conclusions.
Click to expand...

A sniper of the same Paratrooper unit saw it all happen and contacted his command. They were imediately ready to intervene but the UN high command told them to stay put.
When the rebels started to cut the achilles tendons with their machetes the paratroopers overpowerd some of the rebels to take their guns, hid in a mud hut and defended themselves until rpg's and/or granades killed them all.
I heard this second hand. It was a French speaking para unit.
When they arrived in Belgium they teared apart theur UN caps.
It was a sad day for my country but that doesn't mean that the UN is not usefull.
 
You want to fix the UN just remove the power of veto and upgrade the Security Council to 30 moving the 5 permanent members onto the council with 25 elected members.

People sit here and blame the UN for inaction when the UN has no capacity to do anything, without its member states (aka our governments) agreement it can not pass laws or go to war, it has no standing army god knows how someone here thinks it has a high command.

What should the UN have done in say Rwanda?
- Despatch its military oh wait it doesn't have one.
- Maybe it could arrest the bad guys and pass new laws to prevent it happening again oh that's right it cant do that either.

So rather than blaming the UN why not blame the countries that make up the UN, whether you keep the institution or not is irrelevant as failure lies with the individual countries and that will exist with or without the UN.
 
Zultra said:
So you want a single order dictating what other countries can and can't do at will? I guess you like the fact that Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, or perhaps you will think that is a good thing and that you want to live in fear of attack from the Imperalist Institution.
Click to expand...

That "single order" consists of almost all the countries in the world. Decisions needs a majority. Major superpowers have veto rights.
Most civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to local terrorists.
 
MontyB said:
You want to fix the UN just remove the power of veto and upgrade the Security Council to 30 moving the 5 permanent members onto the council with 25 elected members.

People sit here and blame the UN for inaction when the UN has no capacity to do anything, without its member states (aka our governments) agreement it can not pass laws or go to war, it has no standing army god knows how someone here thinks it has a high command.

What should the UN have done in say Rwanda?
- Despatch its military oh wait it doesn't have one.
- Maybe it could arrest the bad guys and pass new laws to prevent it happening again oh that's right it cant do that either.

So rather than blaming the UN why not blame the countries that make up the UN, whether you keep the institution or not is irrelevant as failure lies with the individual countries and that will exist with or without the UN.
Click to expand...

If one wants a completely overhaul of the UN we must consider some things. The voting is one vote for each country, this means that China, with a population of 1.4 billion has the same voting power as Monaco with a population of 36 thousand. On the other hand , China is not a democracy so voting power lies within the political party while in democracies the government is chosen by its people.
A UN army would be OK, but who's going to be the biggest general? Someone from the US? China? or maybe Zimbabwe?
The US pays 22% of the UN budget but has 1 vote, the same as Nicaragua.
Czechoslovakia had one vote, but they split up their country, now the same people have 2 votes (czech republic and Slovakia).
I don't think that (for now) the veto power is not that bad but that France and the Uk might be better replaced with say India and Brasil.
Those are just a few things that pop up into my mind. I really haven't thought about it.
 
Nope, the Elites will still be running the show, but will just have a whole world with no resistance to play with.
 
Alan P said:
The U.N. Over these last few years, are nothing but Toothless Tigers.
Click to expand...

I would suggest less toothless tigers and more scapegoats, it always amazes me when people blame an organisation for its failings when invariably it is the people that make up the organisation that have brought it down.

You want to know why the UN is toothless look to yourselves and your governments as that is the UN and stop blaming the building they are housed in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top