Hi all.

I think I have to agree with most of the US people here and say that I think its time the UN was dropped as a world body. Much like the League of Nations before it.
As it currently stands its become a bit of a joke, what with the whole crisis in Sudan being ignored, to the fact that nutjobs dictators likes Robert Mugabe are cheered and applauded.

The UN has become corrupt and dishonest, as shown with the whole oil for food debacle, plus they also freely admit to having members of terrorist groups on their payrolls, i.e. Hamas. Although in all honesty, as they've decided to also elect Libya to chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, its not really a surprise!

Links to all articles below:

http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?c...&ao=122677&t=1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...325792,00.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/pr...=news&id=69954

Oh and sorry if this is not how you post links! I'm a newbie!

About the VETO power:

If the VETO power is abandoned, how to make decisions?
Via voting? Majority wins?
That does not work either, since there are many tiny countries who has a population of some 50,000 ppl, you ask me to treat those tiny countries equally with one vote? NO WAY.

I do admit, it is a mess in UN, also the VETO's are not perfect, but hel, that is the Game we are playing now.

My point is that its UNFIXABLE. You can adjust representation in the UN based on population or whatever you like, but the problem is that the big 5 will not allow themselves to lose their Veto and they can simply Veto any action trying to take it from them.

If the problem were fixable, I don't think that a simple majority should be sufficient for certain actions. Police and military actions should require something closer to a 2/3 majority. I'm not 100% sure on basing the level of representation ENTIRELY on population. But consider one thing -- this is all about reinventing the UN.

Would you admit that the UN is pretty powerless in its current state then?

Would you admit that the UN is pretty powerless in its current state then?

It is pretty powerless. But better than nothing.

We should ask why UN is pretty powerless. Why? I think the USA is the trouble maker there. If USA does not act like a Bull in UN, then many many things can be figured out/fixed pretty easily.

UN is a in the first place a Diplomatic mediating powerhouse, but USA likes to act as a Bull or Cowboy, USA believes in Fist, does not want to listen to the wisedom of Diplomacy, that's the main reason UN is not yet functioning quite well.

I think when USA starts to realize it is not the chosen World Police, then UN will have a good function to do. But also, when some other big powers rise to same might as USA has now, then those big powers can force USA to act more moderater and force it to sit down and listen and cooperate.

Just my opinion.

Name for me ANY action other than of the following that is not virtually guaranteed to be vetoed by at least one of the 5:
1.) humanitarian
2.) rebuilding or helping out peacefully
3.) diplomatic discussion

I'm coming up with a blank list. You?

The USA fills in for the fact that the UN is powerless, albeit we look to our own interests first -- not exactly what you want in a "World Policeman" but once again, its all you've got right now. If someone else stepped into the role, I very much doubt they'd do better and certainly could do a lot worse. The United States, for all its faults, is not bent on global conquest. Reality says somebody will probably surpass us in time. Reality also says that human beings tend to be tuned into concepts like conquering the world and pursuing their own selfish interests. Will the United States' replacement an improvement. Very, very unlikely. Lets hope we don't end up with complete tyranny.

The United States stopping with is World Policeman role would not force the UN to step up and fill that role. Either China, the UK, the USA, or France veto for their own selfish reasons and nothing is ever accomplished.

I agree that the UN is better than nothing. It has its uses.

Well here is a fact I like that I found.


The Un was set up to be a body upon which the nations of the world would come and discuss peace, now isn't it funny the USSR, the largest dictatorship at the time was invited to be a founding member and to even be allowed to be on it's most powerful body?

The "Biggest" victorious allies of World War II

Somebody thought it sounded like a winner. Somehow, that included France too, but nobody's perfect. USSR couldn't be excluded ... and hey, maybe somebody thought they were a peaceful nation who was just terribly misunderstood.

Isn't it funny though if America had not delcared war on germany and had only attacked Japan that no one would give the USSR a second thought, it would just be part of the NG Empire.



However the UN is a little crazy, you have the top 5 Nations in the world ruling everyone, yet you have some of the people from the poorest nations in the world being the General Assembly Presidents.

yet you have some of the people from the poorest nations in the world being the General Assembly Presidents.

But you know what Puppet is?
Or something like Ambassadar of Peace and Friendship like that?

Serioiusly I think in terms of security, the UN should be a discussion zone and nothing more.
In terms of actually doing the work, it should be down to either a single entity or a temporary coalition of sorts. Or even PMCs.

In other words, no more Blue Helmets.