I'm fed up with the UN

Duty Honor Country

Duty Honor Country

Active member
Some of you already know that I am not a big fan of the United Nations. I just read that there is opposition to a US resolution that would threaten oil sanctions against Sudan (article link below). Sudan fell into a civil war in FEB 2003. Since then about 50,000 people have died and 1 million people have been driven from their homes. Much of the violence against civilians has come from government-backed militias. Now there is a growing humanitarian crisis with the 1 million displaced people.

So with thousands of lives in danger, the UN has once again shown its true colors. I must remind everyone that the UN also looked the other way during the slaughter in Rwanda. Almost one million people died in 100 days. I would think that the UN would have learned its lesson about inaction. Maybe the UN does not care about Africa. I remember the world was quick to act when Yugoslavian forces invaded Kosovo and killed about 2,500 (10,000 were reported but it was revised) Albanians and displaced many more.

If there are any UN supporters on the forum, you should be ashamed of your organization. The United States was criticized for not having UN support. Who needs the support of an organization that ignores genocide? As of now, I do not care if the US does something against the wishes of the UN.

SSG Doody

Article Link
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/09/17/2003203237
more articles in google news
 
UN is good when it concerns slower action like food aid, relief, education.. etc
However, it cannot act well when it concerns troop deployment as it has very little power over the world nations on troop deployment.

It's a club for the nations to interact. 8)

The world needs the US for firm, resolute action when there's danger... the UN can do the humanitarian work after the main action by the US is completed.
 
Doody said:
Some of you already know that I am not a big fan of the United Nations. I just read that there is opposition to a US resolution that would threaten oil sanctions against Sudan (article link below). Sudan fell into a civil war in FEB 2003. Since then about 50,000 people have died and 1 million people have been driven from their homes. Much of the violence against civilians has come from government-backed militias. Now there is a growing humanitarian crisis with the 1 million displaced people.

So with thousands of lives in danger, the UN has once again shown its true colors. I must remind everyone that the UN also looked the other way during the slaughter in Rwanda. Almost one million people died in 100 days. I would think that the UN would have learned its lesson about inaction. Maybe the UN does not care about Africa. I remember the world was quick to act when Yugoslavian forces invaded Kosovo and killed about 2,500 (10,000 were reported but it was revised) Albanians and displaced many more.

If there are any UN supporters on the forum, you should be ashamed of your organization. The United States was criticized for not having UN support. Who needs the support of an organization that ignores genocide? As of now, I do not care if the US does something against the wishes of the UN.

SSG Doody

Article Link
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/09/17/2003203237
more articles in google news
Click to expand...

Doesnt care about africa, where did you get that idea? The mission in africa now is Congo. UN also have big aid programs for many countries in africa.
 
The UN is also high speed and low drag when it comes to trading those oh so important rations for oil. That and critizing the U.S. for protecting it's interests.
I'm with ya on this one Doody the UN is worthless.
 
AlexKall said:
Doesnt care about africa, where did you get that idea? The mission in africa now is Congo. UN also have big aid programs for many countries in africa.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the UN does good stuff in the name of aid.

The UN is in Congo right now, but why won't it get involved with Sudan? The problem in Sudan is much worse than that of Congo.

The mission of the UN is much more than just aid. The UN's mission ( http://www.un.org/english/ ) includes Peace and Security, economic & social development, human rights, humanitarian affairs and issues of international law. I clicked on the security council link and found what "the functions and powers of the Security Council are under the Charter"


FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations

to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction

to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement

to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken

to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression

to take military action against an aggressor

to recommend the admission of new Members

to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas"

to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

Read that and tell me that the UN security council is doing their job.

SSG Doody

03USMC, I am glad to know someone else sees this problem too
 
They are not doing their job within the confines of their Mission Statement.The UN Security Council and the Secertary General have tried to appoint themselves as the overseer of the worlds goverments.
They fail to realize that they are not a governing body. If you you remember Liberia in the Summer of 2003 the UN was going to send a "peacekeeping force" then it was ECOMIL then it was the UN and when troops failed arrive it was the U.S.'s fault for not having boots on the ground to stop the assault on Monroiva (again according to the vaunted UN).ECOMIL finally deployed Nigerian troops and who took credit for it? Yep the UN.
 
A quick poll.....

How many here have worked under or with UN forces?

I have my opinions, not many good. I agree with Sooner and 03USMC, but what is the real charter? It has mostly become a debating forum.
 
Rediculous...

After everything that has been happening in the last dcade in the world, evry time that the US takes action the UN skolds us. Now I hear that the UN President (whatever his name is) is saying that the Iraq war is illegal. WTF!!! I'm getting tired of this! I now begin to question the purpose of the UN in general. Why should two countries have to have the permission of the rest of the world to go at it. Should it not be left to the people to decide if they want to. When it comes to aid, yes the UN is good. But when it comes to military actions, the sit around on their :cen: es and wait for things to be convenient for them.
 
The UN is a good idea, in theory. Having a system of World Government is a great idea. The problem is that the 5 permanent members of the security council are constantly sabotaging each other. This makes the UN, in reality, an international council that is so crippled that it proves incapable of taking decisive action about ANYTHING until 5-10 years after its already too late. There is one exception: Humanitarian Aid often gets approval without much trouble.

The setup of having 5 nations with veto power is a big problem. Imagine the United States having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President, the Vice President, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House ALL with veto power. But the veto power is an unrecoverable kill of whatever action, so no 2/3 majority in both houses to overcome it. What would the result be? Nothing would ever get done, plain and simple.
 
Re: A quick poll.....

Lil Hulk 1988 said:
How many here have worked under or with UN forces?
Click to expand...

I've worked in Lebanon and Macedonia (UNIFIL and UNPREDEP)

The UN system is a real pain in the a*s to work under.
as others have commented here it's a real slow system.
One example is that we had to plan and order equipment three years ahead in Lebanon, and we were lucky if we got half of it.
Most of the critical equipment (radios etc.) we had to buy ourself from Norway, because it was not possible to get them in time from UN..

I agree that UN is a good idea, but there's a lot of internal "issues" that needs to be sorted out.
 
Did you hear?

Did any one hear about the recent Oil for food scandal. This is yet another rediculous thing about the UN. Our three biggest opponents in the Iraq war and the ones that called us criminals are the real criminals. Tonight I watched the Fox News special report on the Oil for Food program, it was called Bloo Money. France, Russia, and China have been making billions of dollars off of Saddham Hussein in order to keep him in power and fund him. Much of this was found by both the 9/11 Commission and the Free Iraqi Press who have recieved several documents from former Baath party members who served under Saddham. There even mention of possible bribes to the current president of the Oil for Food program. When asked by the Fox News, the former president of Oil for Food blamed the US and the UK for not doing anything to stop it. He said it is all our fault, he did not even mention Saddham until the interviewer mentioned that he should recieve blame. He said that we should have stopped it when we noticed it, yet he did not place a bit of the blame on the president of Oil for Food nor the countries (France, Russia, and China) who were involved. The UN needs drastic reform, and I think that France, Russia, and China should lose their power in the Security council. It will not happen, and justice will never be served, and this is why I have lost all faith in the UN.
 
I think we need to drop out and let them find someone else to spearhead their military conflicts. Every single time they get in trouble they come crying to us to send the troops in.
 
Big_Z said:
I think we need to drop out and let them find someone else to spearhead their military conflicts. Every single time they get in trouble they come crying to us to send the troops in.
Click to expand...

Exactly, we've become a rent-a-army for the UN.
 
I don't think we're rent-an-army.

When US interests coincide with the UN, we will push them. When US interests run counter to the UN, they hit a road-block.

It's more coincidence, in my opinion.
 
U.N.

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 hell breaks loose.

I
 
Big_Z said:
I think we need to drop out and let them find someone else to spearhead their military conflicts. Every single time they get in trouble they come crying to us to send the troops in.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
Oh and by the way, the five countries in charge of everything is what makes corruption. Look, the cold war is over now, the Security Council will not keep another Arms Race from breaking out. In fact, we technically have a black market arms race going on at the moment. The veto system gives the power for five countries to decide what the rest of the world needs. You do not think that is corruption. The world can vote for itself, we no longer need this veto system.
 
I agree with you there, the veto system makes decision making too slow and it only takes one veto to stop a decision even if most other countries are in support
 
First of, the UN is an international organization...we can't even get things done nationally (like help Sudan on our own if we are so concerned...by the way, the French have started to a weeks ago while Powells and Annan debated the word "genocide") and we hope that the UN can achieve it.
Second, it has a security council with members that are the super powers of the cold war and veto each other all the time. Hard again for everybody to agree.
Tertio, the Un is a multitude of less known agencies that do wonders in the field.
The Un does not have a president and in the field, even for a mission that reached a consensus, countries just fulfill their own agendas, thus sabotaging the whole thing.
The UN is an international agency undermined by its own internationality!
When a country want some legitimacy for its agenda, it uses it and supports it.
When the same country does not get support, it just bashes it or sabotages it....
Too bad....it was a good concept!
Fortunately, some good comes out of the UN, success stories, relieved people, refugee camps, money to restore artifacts, money to help poor children in poor countries...
I say let's keep it because it still brings some good!
 
well here goes..please pardon the post.

For all the faults of this organization, it still provides one of the few areas where international service to the people, either peaceful in nature, as an arbitrator between two parties that want to work out their differences, or final defensive measures for those too weak to resist aggression can be acquired. its not perfect: it is run by human beings, so it ain't superman. its as good as the support it receives.

what probly makes it unattractive is the potential for the establishment of a one world government, which most reliegous factions would view as the begining of the end of humanity, or governments founded on self rule would take as a threat to their sovereignty. while i do not adhere to this, i wouldn't go against belief: its a very powerful thing to avoid messing with.

just a thought. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top