NationStates Jolt Archive

I for one am ready to see the UN disbanded. It's so riven by corruption and beauracracy that it fails to accomplish its international functions.

Rwanda. The word "genocide" was never used during the incident at Security Council meetings because if it was classified as one, the UN's charter would require it to intervene. It never did, and millions died.

Sierra Leone. An internal uprising causes the government to hire a South African mercenary company to crush the rebels. After just 22 months, and only 150 men, the mercs have just about annihilated the resistance. The UN, terrified of the idea of private militaries, pressures Sierra Leone's government into terminating the contract with the mercs. They leave, and a 17,000-strong UN peacekeeping force arrives. War returns in under 100 days.

Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Cambodia......all places that the UN could have done something, but chose not to. I'm tired of an ineffective international force. They have the ability to be a real do-gooder organization, but they choose not to be. I think the if the US and some European countries would withdraw from the UN, it'd collapse and we could start over, and maybe build a force that works.

if desolved we would wind up with those that stay and what ever those that left formed
it would lead to worldwar

I just wanna see the U.S. back down from the UN and watch immediatly how much of an ineffective body of bickering nations it can become.

if desolved we would wind up with those that stay and what ever those that left formed
it would lead to worldwar
You mean like how the League of Nations prevented WW2 right?

[/sarcasm]

bah. im ready for a good World War...

The UN should be reorganized or dissolved because it has become as ineffectual as the League of Nations that was the UN's predicesor(sp?).

Woohoo! First yes vote. The UN is a sick joke. I'd say it does more harm than good, but that would imply it does some good. It was sold as a means to prevent war, but the real intent was always nefarious. It was a power grab, and never has the world have so many wars as in the years since it was established.

Have you ever experienced true violence? Ever had someone want to kill you for some absurd reason like he didn't like the accent with which you spoke? If you had, I doubt that you would be so eager for a world war. It's bad enough with psychotic school bullies. Giving them an excuse to use large weapons is just insane.

Having someone try and kill you is not fun.

The UN is a good idea, but today it is both corrupt and ineffective. Besides the fact that certain countries usually end up funding the UN expenditures on their own. It should be reorganized, but not dismantled.

No organisation such as the UN, or the EU for tha matter either, will ever be free from corruption. It will always be taken over by the basic human instinct of greed.

Just because the UN doesnt work properly, doesnt mean it should be brought down, on the countrary: It should be reformed to work in a more suitable way, changing its funding method, its power sharing systems, blablabla; Taking out the UN as a whole and you will find yourself in the situation prior to WW1; Take out some powerful countries from the UN, and you find yourself in the situation that preceded WW2. The thing is, the UN is the only place were nations can sit down and talk in a somewhat civilized manner, and its concept allows the application of certain political pressures that without the UN, would be replaced by war. Shure, the UN as failed to prevent many wars, but it as given decive contributes to end some old conflicts. After all, without the UN many wars would still start, but they probably would last alot longer, no?

After all, without the UN many wars would still start, but they probably would last alot longer, no?
Not really. It would still just fall to the US to fund the majority of the military actions, as well as the majority of the troops. Not only that, but if the UN wasn't there, then the "peacekeeping" forces would actually be able to protect themselves without having their hands tied up. I believe if the UN just went away, then the next time a war popped up that actually needed to be stopped, everyone would still look to the US to end it, but at least we wouldn't have our hands tied. Remember Korea? Desert Storm? All UN sanctioned, and with mostly US funding and military personnel. Just let us go to town on 'em. We may not be as cultured as ya'll Europeans, but we damn sure know how to fight.

Small correction, the US fails to pay it's dues and is not the largest contributor of troops by a long shot. The US is a middle class groop contributor. You may forget your jingoistic "The US is teh best and does teh best everywhere" attitude because it is simply false.

The UN needs to be reorganized slightly. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is this retarded 'veto' that the US, Russia, France, etc. have. They should not have that right. They are not any more special than any other country.

Small correction, the US fails to pay it's dues and is not the largest contributor of troops by a long shot. The US is a middle class groop contributor. You may forget your jingoistic "The US is teh best and does teh best everywhere" attitude because it is simply false.

You see, the US should withdraw. And then everyone would see the UN for the sad pathetic joke that it is.

And I'm onto you Germany, I know you guys secretly have nukes in violation of all the treaties you have signed.

Rwanda. The word "genocide" was never used during the incident at Security Council meetings because if it was classified as one, the UN's charter would require it to intervene. It never did, and millions died.
The US and UK decided not to fund any intervention, as they deemed it a waste of money. Without that money, the UN could do nothing. Not the UN's fault, but those two countries. Actually, I have met at a Model UN conference, the very British diplomat on the Security Council who decided against it.

Not really. It would still just fall to the US to fund the majority of the military actions, as well as the majority of the troops. Not only that, but if the UN wasn't there, then the "peacekeeping" forces would actually be able to protect themselves without having their hands tied up. I believe if the UN just went away, then the next time a war popped up that actually needed to be stopped, everyone would still look to the US to end it, but at least we wouldn't have our hands tied. Remember Korea? Desert Storm? All UN sanctioned, and with mostly US funding and military personnel. Just let us go to town on 'em. We may not be as cultured as ya'll Europeans, but we damn sure know how to fight.


Well, the fact that the US generally funds most of the military operations, happens because the US is so "fast on the trigger".
Peacekeepers have the right to self defence - but they are supposed to KEEP the peace, you want they hands free to do what? Fallujah-style peacekeeping? I don't think so, that is NOT peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping operations are operations designed to restore or protect the peace in certain areas of conflict. They are most often done by the United Nations are initiated by the UN Security Council. On occasssion other groups such as NATO have engaged in peacekeeping.

The thing is, if there wasnt a UN, any country would only intervene in a conflict if it was in its interest, just as it was to the times prior to WW1. The UN is bad enough as it is, were countries constantly bend its goals (of the un) to their own selfish interest.

PS: Actually, the large majority of Peacekeepers are not American. They are not even westerners

Well, the fact that the US generally funds most of the military operations, happens because the US is so "fast on the trigger".
Peacekeepers have the right to self defence - but they are supposed to KEEP the peace, you want they hands free to do what? Fallujah-style peacekeeping? I don't think so, that is NOT peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping operations are operations designed to restore or protect the peace in certain areas of conflict. They are most often done by the United Nations are initiated by the UN Security Council. On occasssion other groups such as NATO have engaged in peacekeeping.

The thing is, if there wasnt a UN, any country would only intervene in a conflict if it was in its interest, just as it was to the times prior to WW1. The UN is bad enough as it is, were countries constantly bend its goals (of the un) to their own selfish interest.

PS: Actually, the large majority of Peacekeepers are not American. They are not even westerners
Actually, the problem I have with the restrictions on Peacekeepers is that even if they are being fired on, they have to obtain permission to fire back. No wonder they accomplish nothing.

The US and UK decided not to fund any intervention, as they deemed it a waste of money. Without that money, the UN could do nothing. Not the UN's fault, but those two countries. Actually, I have met at a Model UN conference, the very British diplomat on the Security Council who decided against it.
Yes, damn the Brits and the Americans, they are supposed to foot the bill for the whole world. Of course, if they do something on their own, then they are attacked for it. But if the UN wants them to do something, then BY GOD THEY BETTER DO IT! [/sarcasm]

Actually, the problem I have with the restrictions on Peacekeepers is that even if they are being fired on, they have to obtain permission to fire back. No wonder they accomplish nothing.

Nothing? Since the first time that Peacekeepers were deployed (suez canal, was it what, 1956?), that they were involved (with various degrees of success, yes) in a huge number of theaters of operations around the world. They accomplish nothing? Go tell that to the people of East Timor, the Kosovo inhabitants (that just dont kill themselves because,well, they got the peacekeepers in the way), just to name a few examples. Shure, there were situations in which the peacekeepers failed, but that is the proof that the UN needs reform. The successes given by peacekeeping operations deem the UN worthwhile, IMHO.

Yes, damn the Brits and the Americans, they are supposed to foot the bill for the whole world. Of course, if they do something on their own, then they are attacked for it. But if the UN wants them to do something, then BY GOD THEY BETTER DO IT! [/sarcasm]
Like, DUH! :rolleyes:

OF COURSE if you do something without the UN's permission you deserve all the ---- you get.

OF COURSE if the UN needs people to work together to solve a humanitarian crisis nations should contribute to the best of their abilities.

You're only stating the obvious there.

The US and UK decided not to fund any intervention, as they deemed it a waste of money. Without that money, the UN could do nothing. Not the UN's fault, but those two countries. Actually, I have met at a Model UN conference, the very British diplomat on the Security Council who decided against it.
Seeing as how the US and UK make up about 1% of the UN's member states, shouldn't they only have to foot 1% of the bill?

Seeing as how the US and UK make up about 1% of the UN's member states, shouldn't they only have to foot 1% of the bill?

For that to happen, the US and UK would have to give away their security council veto rights, and become regular states, like everybody else.. the thing is, if you want to have the power, you have to pay for it... and the opposite is also true: If you don't want to pay, you loose power, and i'm not seeing the US or the UK, or Russia or anyone giving away political power just like that..

For that to happen, the US and UK would have to give away their security council veto rights, and become regular states, like everybody else.. the thing is, if you want to have the power, you have to pay for it... and the opposite is also true: If you don't want to pay, you loose power, and i'm not seeing the US or the UK, or Russia or anyone giving away political power just like that..
Might as well. The UN never actually does anything. Why does Iraq, with it's few many people, have just as many votes as India, with it's near billion people? Why does France's veto, who pays and contributes little, and lacks any significant populance, equal China's veto, with it's billion people, or the US, who pays for about 40% of the UN's cost?

Might as well. The UN never actually does anything. Why does Iraq, with it's few many people, have just as many votes as India, with it's near billion people? Why does France's veto, who pays and contributes little, and lacks any significant populance, equal China's veto, with it's billion people, or the US, who pays for about 40% of the UN's cost?

Here is our point of disagreement: Though I agree in the necessity of reform of the UN, you can't just say that it doesnt anything, that is narrow minded. For the best and the worst, the UN marked the second half of the 20th century in great ways. Yes, it failed alot of times, but it also contributed to solving a great number of problems, and its principles are not only worth being emulated, and continued, but also dangerous to ignore. Taking away the only space of civilized conversation where you can establish some sort of rule of law between nations is leaving the world in a state of armed confusion, where the powerful triumph based on strengh, not on reason. Pick up an history book, and check how international relations where before the UN, that gives you an idea of why its ideal and concept is great (though as i said, the practical institution of the un needs alot of reforms).

Here is our point of disagreement: Though I agree in the necessity of reform of the UN, you can't just say that it doesnt anything, that is narrow minded. For the best and the worst, the UN marked the second half of the 20th century in great ways. Yes, it failed alot of times, but it also contributed to solving a great number of problems, and its principles are not only worth being emulated, and continued, but also dangerous to ignore. Taking away the only space of civilized conversation where you can establish some sort of rule of law between nations is leaving the world in a state of armed confusion, where the powerful triumph based on strengh, not on reason. Pick up an history book, and check how international relations where before the UN, that gives you an idea of why its ideal and concept is great (though as i said, the practical institution of the un needs alot of reforms).
The only reason there hasn't been a Third World War is not because of anything the UN did, but because WW2 smashed Europe to pieces and spread out power away from where it had rested for thousands of years. WW2 flung America, Russia, and China to the top, and France, England, and Germany, nations that since their inception dominated world affairs, fell down into (brief) obscurity. The League failed to prevent WW2, but the US lack of involvement had nothing to do with it, since the US was not part of the original nations that engaged in hostilities. The League failed because regardless of how well your rhetoric may be, in the end only force actually matters. Strength has always won wars, if the US truly wanted to, it could simply kill every single person in Iraq, and probably the Middle East as well. It doesn't because it doesn't feel the need to, not because the UN would slap them on the wrist. If the US decided to kill every single Arab in southwest Asia, what would the UN do? Absolutely nothing, it would sit there being ineffectual until America refused to fund it and headquarter it in New York, at which point in time it would dissolve entirely.

The only reason there hasn't been a Third World War is not because of anything the UN did, but because WW2 smashed Europe to pieces and spread out power away from where it had rested for thousands of years. WW2 flung America, Russia, and China to the top, and France, England, and Germany, nations that since their inception dominated world affairs, fell down into (brief) obscurity. The League failed to prevent WW2, but the US lack of involvement had nothing to do with it, since the US was not part of the original nations that engaged in hostilities. The League failed because regardless of how well your rhetoric may be, in the end only force actually matters. Strength has always won wars, if the US truly wanted to, it could simply kill every single person in Iraq, and probably the Middle East as well. It doesn't because it doesn't feel the need to, not because the UN would slap them on the wrist. If the US decided to kill every single Arab in southwest Asia, what would the UN do? Absolutely nothing, it would sit there being ineffectual until America refused to fund it and headquarter it in New York, at which point in time it would dissolve entirely.

Thank you for proving my point :)

Thank you for proving my point :)
Unless your point was that the UN, while good in theory, actually lessens the chances for peace and has done more to create strife and death than to stop it, I still think we disagree.

Considering that global security issues is like 15% of what the UN is about and it's about the only thing people against the UN use on their arguments, my answer to the poll is... you people should get educated about an organization before screaming for it's end.

I for one am ready to see the UN disbanded.

You're my new best friend. :)

At least it seems the US try to pretend as if they honor their signature under the UN charter. But seeing the warhawks and UN-dissolvement-crybabies here makes me wonder how much the signature of the US is worth. Obviously nothing seeing how quickly this organization is supposed to be disbanded when it largely is a playball of US politics and interests and the illegal Iraq war was the first open defiance of the UN charter by a veto power, as far as I know. The UN was founded to prevent World War 3, because WW3 would mean the end of mankind. It is by now much more involved in international politics due to being an international forum. And that's just about all it is - a forum. Do not blame the UN if it cannot act. The UN is merely a shell, being filled by the representatives of the international community to vote for or against resolutions. If it does not perform to your liking, blame/congratulate the individual nations who hinder action - justified or not. Now that the US saw that they cannot strong-arm, lie and cheat their way through the security council, they want to see the entire thing disbanded. So much for honoring treaties, but what else would one expect from the US - the largest and most dangerous rogue nation mankind has ever seen.

If the UN was dissolved, the US would happily wage war after war, nuking entire nations off the planet and erradicating mankind and ultimately themselves in the process. Shortsightedness and arrogance, as usual. Nothing new from Americans *spit*

If the UN can at least put some limits to the illusions of grandeur the Americans constantly fall prey to, then that is justification enough for it's existence.

the largest and most dangerous rogue nation mankind has ever seen.

No, that would be either Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union.

No, that would be either Nazi Germany or the former Soviet Union.
I disagree. It's clearly the United States of America. Murderous, cheating, lieing, arrogant, fat... just about everything that is bad manifests itself in the US. And the inevitable consequence will be that this black spot on the planet will be cleaned sooner or later. The US will fall and another nation will take it's place as world leader. I hope I will live to see that happen.

The US will fall and another nation will take it's place as world leader. I hope I will live to see that happen.

I hope that doesn't happen. I hope that instead the original US is reborn, the US that respected other nations yet refused to stuff its nose into their businesses, the US that abhorred war and strived for non-interventionism and peace.

The UN staunchly supported Robert Mugabe and his Marxist-Leninist gangsters while undermining (via sanctions, etc.) Ian Smith's government. Here are pictures of what Mugabe and his 'freedom fighters' did to people:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/terrorism.html

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/innocents.html

I disagree. It's clearly the United States of America. Murderous, cheating, lieing, arrogant, fat... just about everything that is bad manifests itself in the US. And the inevitable consequence will be that this black spot on the planet will be cleaned sooner or later. The US will fall and another nation will take it's place as world leader. I hope I will live to see that happen.

The same could be said of your home country, Gigatron (minus the fat part).

The same could be said of your home country, Gigatron (minus the fat part).
A long time ago, yes. Germany was devastated for it and rebuilt as a new nation. The US however will continue to spread like a cancer and hopefully collapse under it's own weight sooner or later.

I just wanna see the U.S. back down from the UN and watch immediatly how much of an ineffective body of bickering nations it can become.

Ya mean it's not already? ;)

The same could be said of your home country, Gigatron (minus the fat part).

I guess you haven't been to Germany then? No shortage of fat there either, my friend.

A long time ago, yes. Germany was devastated for it and rebuilt as a new nation. The US however will continue to spread like a cancer and hopefully collapse under it's own weight sooner or later.

Stop it it Gigatron, you're giving me a chubby!

As an American, nothing would make me happier, since one of the first nescessities following such a collapse would be to return to government by the many states and the long-needed death of centralized federal government.
The U.S. as a confederated republic of sovereign states again?
<drool>
As my second choice, I pick Al Qaeda slipping a nuke into DC during the State of the Union address. BOOM!! Next election with zero incumbents and far fewer professional politicians. Whee!
Maybe at last we'd have the chance to elect actual humans to government offices for a change.

Strength has always won wars, if the US truly wanted to, it could simply kill every single person in Iraq, and probably the Middle East as well. It doesn't because it doesn't feel the need to, not because the UN would slap them on the wrist. If the US decided to kill every single Arab in southwest Asia, what would the UN do? Absolutely nothing, it would sit there being ineffectual until America refused to fund it and headquarter it in New York, at which point in time it would dissolve entirely.

I wouldn't be so sure our forces are capable of such destruction. We'd probably have to use nukes and all the ground forces available. It wouldn't much matter what the UN decided. It's the member nations that would decide to "intervene" in our genocide. The UN could be the forum through which such decisions would be made, but it wouldn't have to be. The US would lose the war against the rest of the world.

I hope that doesn't happen. I hope that instead the original US is reborn, the US that respected other nations yet refused to stuff its nose into their businesses, the US that abhorred war and strived for non-interventionism and peace.

Amen.

Stop it it Gigatron, you're giving me a chubby!

As an American, nothing would make me happier, since one of the first nescessities following such a collapse would be to return to government by the many states and the long-needed death of centralized federal government.
The U.S. as a confederated republic of sovereign states again?
<drool>
As my second choice, I pick Al Qaeda slipping a nuke into DC during the State of the Union address. BOOM!! Next election with zero incumbents and far fewer professional politicians. Whee!
Maybe at last we'd have the chance to elect actual humans to government offices for a change.

You dont study much US history, do you? The reason we switched to a stronger central government was because a confederal system was totally ineffectual. Just as they did then, states would look out for only their own interests, making any kind of decision-making impossible at a national level.
What kind of precendent would that set anyways? "Well, because the states have decided to ignore federal law because they 'created' it, I'm going to ignore state law because I 'created' the states!" [/sarcasm]

As for the second choice, Im not too opposed to that. There are only a few good politicians in Washington anyways........and a whole bunch of innocent civilians.....:/

A long time ago, yes. Germany was devastated for it and rebuilt as a new nation. The US however will continue to spread like a cancer and hopefully collapse under it's own weight sooner or later.
You forget that cancer is the last thing to die in an organism, it uses every resource, and only when everything else is dead will it too succumb.