NationStates Jolt Archive

Hell no!

Hell no!
Hell maybe!

Hell maybe!

I like your reply, lol! :)

The UN isn't supposed to work for anyone. People are supposed to work to make the UN work.

hell yes!

(it had to be done)

yes and no
we need a place where countries get together to iron out issues
a place where international forces can be gotten together to do peace keeping missions

but DAMN they are corrupt and ineffective. they waste money by the bushel load. and they bung up parking in NYC

The UN has been totally ineffective many times. There are vital humanitarian functions which the UN performs, and having a global government is good, but it needs to be more decisive and it needs to be more open, like Parliament, and the secretary general should be a nobel peace prize winner, nothing less!

No. Its there fault Septembur 11 happend because they didn't do nothin about Saddam Hussein

I suppose the UN is a good idea but it can be ineffective so I guess I'll have to go with undecided.

And they didn't do nothin but the Taliban :rolleyes:

No. Its there fault Septembur 11 happend because they didn't do nothin about Saddam Hussein



Art Thow Shittin me?

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or did you fail to read the 9/11 Commission?

Art Thow Shittin me?

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or did you fail to read the 9/11 Commission?

There ain't no commmision cause the Un wouldnt let there be none. And peopel say IM stupid :rolleyes:

There ain't no commmision cause the Un wouldnt let there be none. And peopel say IM stupid :rolleyes:


I cant comprehend how dumb that statement was

The UN has been totally ineffective many times!

The UN can only be as effective as it's member states. The UN was never meant to solve every ones' problems, it was meant as a place to go for you to solve your own problems. In other words, it was a venue for countries to come to , to diplomatically settle disputes. The mandate of the UN is to stop wars from happening in the first place. The mandate of the UN is to promote peace. The way I hear some people talking about it you'd think they thought it was suppose to actually have it's own army or some thing. I believe a lot of people simply don't understand the UN's mandate.

There ain't no commmision cause the Un wouldnt let there be none. And peopel say IM stupid :rolleyes:

You know, it's really hard to tell whether or not your serious.

If you guys are gunna be mean I ain't never comin back. Im leavin for good. Good BYE. :mad:

If you guys are gunna be mean I ain't never comin back. Im leavin for good. Good BYE. :mad:

Can some one get me a number of how meny times he has said that?

Can some one get me a number of how meny times he has said that?

I've counted at least four personally. I'm sure there are more.

I think 5 or 6, but I'm not sure. Obviously, he'll be back. :(

serbietza

rawanda

dufar

bribes from saddam

trying to pull a fast one on abortion in the UNDP

is there anyway there they're not evil

I guess the best we can do is get rid of him for a day or two oh well

the UN? in the RL or NS world?

the NS UN is fine. It doesn't adversely affect my beautiful Protectorate of Clam Fart Ampersand, and it just passes laws that increase my ratings.

the RL UN is a worthless, bureaucratic mess that, although it does have its merits in helping residents of third-world countries, generally seems to be a lot more trouble than it's worth. Like any organization, it's only worth the parties that are in it, and many UN member nations are just dead weight.

Has anyone ever heard of Katanga before?

I find it mildly amusing.. what people don't understand is the UN is just a name.. We are the UN, every single member state. The UN is not an entity unto it's self here people. The reason the UN works the way it does, is because we made it work that way. The member states set UN rules and the charter. If the UN can't work and doesn't work, there is only one simple conclusion we can and must come to, the world can't work together. So, give up, pack it in, because we are without hope if we can't.

The UN is a good consept, but it's entirely ineffective. The UN(speaking about the real UN) should just be an international meeting place for nations to discuss publicly known internal affairs, and international problems. Any legislative documents passed should strictly be between nations who agree upon it, rather than every member nation of the entire UN(goes for SN and real UN, that is if that's how it works there). It's near impossible to find something everyone will agree on, and forcing other nations will only agravate them, and lead to internal conflicts, as well as conflicts between them and other nations that are more zealous in what ever issues the disagreeing nations have been forced into.

which UN is it? If it is the real UN then I think they are alright because of the humanitarian organizations in which they head but on foreign policy and dealing with rogue nations etc. the UN needs to stop bickering amongs themselves. They sometimes remind me of the old League of Nations on the eve of WWII. The NS UN is alright too, but it needs to be taken more seriously by all who make proposals. Some are just silly (for those who know of what I speak)

The UN is an organization designed to represent the entire world, the one and only restriction being that your nation can't be Taiwan. It gives exactly one vote to every nation, no matter how tiny it is or how horrible its dictator is. And there are a lot of dictatorships out there. Based on a premise like that, how could the UN be anything other than a fundamentally evil institution?

It's ironic how the UN was created by President Eisenhower originally as a way for countries to recieve aid to fight commies and spread democracy and now it is a socialist tool. It allows anyone to do anything including letting Syria be on the Human Rights council unless you're Taiwan or Israel. Speaking of Israel, the UN created it in 1948 and didn't help the Palestinians because their leader sided with Hitler. Now it's like it completely flip-flopped on the very situation it created. Now, we know that it's very corrupt seeing how Kofi Annan and other UN cronies turned a bind eye to Rwanda, Sudan and the Oil for Food scandal in fear that speaking out might get them ousted from their power seats. Speaking of corrupt, UN diplomats owe NYC like 20 million in parking tickets but since they fall under "international law", none of the fines can be collected. Stupid international law.... Those crappy resolutions don't even do the tiniest things. Then, they have those "world courts", which here in the US would be so unconstitutional it wouldn't be right because they convict people in absentia and etc. The "world courts" also just gave a serbian war criminal who held a genocide so he could have more real estate only 13 years in prison.... So weak, corrupt and flawed. No wonder if anything is going to be done right, it has to be done unilaterally.

OK, so the UN isn't perfect. But if there was no UN, who would be the impartial arbiter of international law?

Also, which "world courts" are you refering to Dian? The ICJ? The ICC? The War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (can't remember it's official name)? Those courts often have different rules for a reason.

And exactly how are UN officials any more corrupt than other high-ranking officials? And if you want to talk about unpaid fines, how about all those reparations that the US has never paid after the ICJ made judgements against it?

I will post more on this topice when I have a bit more time to do some proper research.

I definitely don't like how the real world UN runs, but the NS one is even worse, in my opinion. I don't understand how the creator allows proposals, such as the ban on euthenasia, to be put up to vote as a legitimate UN resolution? The real UN doesn't even touch subjects like that (and i believe rightly so), but this one dabbles in trying to enforce dumb laws on member states in a variety of ways.
If the NS governing body is supposed to force members to enact laws, I'd say don't call it the UN; it's incredibly misleading.

I definitely don't like how the real world UN runs, but the NS one is even worse, in my opinion. I don't understand how the creator allows proposals, such as the ban on euthenasia, to be put up to vote as a legitimate UN resolution? The real UN doesn't even touch subjects like that (and i believe rightly so), but this one dabbles in trying to enforce dumb laws on member states in a variety of ways.
If the NS governing body is supposed to force members to enact laws, I'd say don't call it the UN; it's incredibly misleading.

You actually can resign from the UN you know.. no one is making your nation join, it's your choice.

However, I believe this was more a discussion on the real UN ;)

You actually can resign from the UN you know.. no one is making your nation join, it's your choice.

However, I believe this was more a discussion on the real UN ;)

Actually, I'm pretty sure the above statement applies equally to the real UN. But then you probably knew that.

Edit: Stephistan's statement that is. Stupid English language with its accursed ambiguities. :mad:

You actually can resign from the UN you know.. no one is making your nation join, it's your choice.

However, I believe this was more a discussion on the real UN ;)

I thought the discussion touched on both, so i talked about the one i felt strongly about. And the game is more fun being apart of the UN...and then being able to bitch about it :) I just really don't like that it's called the UN...the UN has certain connotations that i can't get away from when i read it

Actually, I'm pretty sure the above statement applies equally to the real UN. But then you probably knew that.

Edit: Stephistan's statement that is. Stupid English language with its accursed ambiguities. :mad:

good point, i actually had not been really thinking that way. But to back myself up a bit, if there is group, such as the UN, that wields all the real power, wouldn't you say you have to be a member of it whether you like it or not? (both in terms of the game, and i suppose also for the realy UN)

good point, i actually had not been really thinking that way. But to back myself up a bit, if there is group, such as the UN, that wields all the real power, wouldn't you say you have to be a member of it whether you like it or not? (both in terms of the game, and i suppose also for the realy UN)

You don't belong to the UN, you don't recieve its protection. What's unfair about that?

Also, I'm a bit rusty on the old international law, but I'm pretty sure that compulsory membership would offend some of the principles on which the UN is founded, such as the sovereignty of states. You do understand that all those UN charters only apply to nations who have ratified them?*

* Sorry, that came across as being a bit sarky. It wasn't intended that way.

Conisdering the number of leaders of totalitarian regiemes which commited genocide, and other human rights abuses, that went unpunished and the fact that Sudan was made head of the UN Human Rights Commission this year, which replaced Libya, I have very little respect for such an organisation. The UN only serves as a means for people from tinpot dictatorships, who would probably be goat herders in their home nation if they didn't have a role at the UN, to boost their own egos and get an attractive salary at the same time.

Conisdering the number of leaders of totalitarian regiemes which commited genocide, and other human rights abuses, that went unpunished and the fact that Sudan was made head of the UN Human Rights Commission this year, which replaced Libya, I have very little respect for such an organisation. The UN only serves as a means for people from tinpot dictatorships, who would probably be goat herders in their home nation if they didn't have a role at the UN, to boost their own egos and get an attractive salary at the same time.

So, then you believe by theory, that not allowing them to take part in the system, this would make them better or worse? Perhaps by keeping them within a system that shows how other countries work and lets face it, the strongest economies in the world are democracies.. that perhaps we can lead by example, give reasons to people to change, put pressure on people to change? Surely we can't invade them all.. so if they are not part of the UN.. where are they? There needs to be more justice in the world, no argument, but for every one. Isolating countries doesn't work.. we've been at a stalemate with N. Korea for how long now? You can't make war for peace, it's fucking for virginity.. we do what we can as a world, but as long as we in the west eat up all the justice, the problem will remain the same.

If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it?

It is not so much whether I "like" the UN but more a question of whether I respect the UN. I have to say the answer is no.
Any organisation that has Sudan as a member of its Human ights Commission has no credibility whatsoever. Let alone its bureaucracy and rorts.

No. Its there fault Septembur 11 happend because they didn't do nothin about Saddam Hussein

First of all Hussein didn't have anything to do with September 11 and second of all what could the UN do about it? Why should they have done anything? Just because the UN HQ is in NYC?
The UN has done great stuff and they might have done some not so great stuff. I read a book about the first Swedish UN mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1993-94 and what they did was great. When I get older I might even consider going on an UN mission somewhere.

So, then you believe by theory, that not allowing them to take part in the system, this would make them better or worse? Perhaps by keeping them within a system that shows how other countries work and lets face it, the strongest economies in the world are democracies.. that perhaps we can lead by example, give reasons to people to change, put pressure on people to change?

The UN has been in existence for 59 years, I don't think it is working.

Surely we can't invade them all.. so if they are not part of the UN.. where are they? There needs to be more justice in the world, no argument, but for every one. Isolating countries doesn't work.. we've been at a stalemate with N. Korea for how long now? You can't make war for peace, it's fucking for virginity.. we do what we can as a world, but as long as we in the west eat up all the justice, the problem will remain the same.

If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it?

What do you mean by the west eating up all the justice?

I think the root of all political problems in the world are philosophical. The people of a nation which manage to overthrow their oppressive regieme will soon find themselves in the same situation as they were before they overthrew the regieme due to a lack of a philosophical base, one which upholds the fundamental right to live and all rights that stem from it, in their new political system. This is the reason why the United States, and other such nations, have survived for so long. However, if you use Christianity and Islam as an indication of how long it would take for the world, or a large portion of it, to change it's philosophical views to ones based upon rationality and reason then it would probably take hundreds of years for global political stability to occur.

The UN has been in existence for 59 years, I don't think it is working.



What do you mean by the west eating up all the justice?

I think the root of all political problems in the world are philosophical. The people of a nation which manage to overthrow their oppressive regieme will soon find themselves in the same situation as they were before they overthrew the regieme due to a lack of a philosophical base, one which upholds the fundamental right to live and all rights that stem from it, in their new political system. This is the reason why the United States, and other such nations, have survived for so long. However, if you use Christianity and Islam as an indication of how long it would take for the world, or a large portion of it, to change it's philosophical views to ones based upon rationality and reason then it would probably take hundreds of years for global political stability to occur.

So, is it so beyond the scope in your opinion to come to an agreement. While we may not ever change other nations to believe as we do here in North America and that's simply a reality, not every one shares our values, but so beyond the scope that we could not find a way to co-exist in a way that we could try to proactively encourage, but not ram down people's throats at least the basic tenets of human decency, just human rights would be good.

You have no hope for this ever? Are we truly lost in your opinion that people who live in despair may have the chance to live at least a peaceful life without worry of human right abuses even if we disagree in ideology? That perhaps if we took a different approach (I don't claim to know what that approach might be, but there has to be another) that things might not be at least possible?

I personally am perhaps too idealistic. I believe that if we really want some thing bad enough, nothing is truly beyond our grasp. Maybe it's my belief in freedom, maybe it's the wine. ;)

The UN are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers. Katanga, anyone? :(

The UN has never done anything and never will. They got a moron in control. The MAIN problem is that a country like Luxemborg has just as much say as China or Russia or the US.

The UN has never done anything and never will. They got a moron in control. The MAIN problem is that a country like Luxemborg has just as much say as China or Russia or the US.

They've done things, all right...evil things.

I'll give you the Katanga story in a nutshell:

Early 1960's. Pro-Soviet Patrice Lumumba becomes premier of the Congo. Moise Tshombe, the pro-US, anti-communist, Christian president of the Congolese province Katanga, has Katanga secede from the Congo. Lumumba whines to the UN. The UN comes in and commences bombing the bejesus out of Katanga. Hospitals, schools, ambulances, blown to smithereens. Children bayoneted. Women raped. Mass atrocities and slaughter everywhere. Katanga is forcibly reunited with the Congo. :(

I hate all treaties. I also hate all people who think that all treaties are eternally binding. :mad:

I hate all treaties. I also hate all people who think that all treaties are eternally binding. :mad:
Do you mean like all those people and the UN who whined because the US pulled out of the ABM treatys?

yeah, but they need to be stronger if they're really going to make a difference.

The UN, not just no but *you have got to be kidding me*.

Do you mean like all those people and the UN who whined because the US pulled out of the ABM treatys?

Oh you mean the ABM treaty that was signed with the now defunt USSR?

As for the UN, I don't respect it! I used to respect the UN but after what I've been seeing and hearing about the UN, I don't anymore. Maybe they can gain some respect from me with Sudan but I doubt it though.

bump

The UN is a choked, bureaucratic morass. When it does make a decision, it's useless; like trade sanctions, they do nothing except cripple the populace because whatever government they impose them on takes money away from other things to keep it's military that the trade sanctions were invoked because of running.

bump
Curse you!

Curse you!

What'd I do? :(