NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, in the wake of a tsunami one would think an organization like the UN would, you know, do something constructive. Instead, their greatest acheivement to date is leasing two helo's to use in the area. Now this is pitiful in and of itself but apparently they had a reason for this. They were working on a 3000 page report found here:

http://unmp.forumone.com/index.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13063&Cr=millennium&Cr1=development

Isn't the UN such a useful organization.

the un should be remade as what it should be. that is an organization consisting of a representative from all nations in a congress like thing where no one gets more power than anyone else and majority vote rules, it should have a impartial court, which would either require people to man the court from a neutral country (hard) or take people chosen from various countries, give them the position for life and isolate them from their countries so they wont be influenced or biased. and they should be a political organization, the member countries should be doing all the crap, the un should just oversee, moderate, mediate, and try them in courts

Now, in the wake of a tsunami one would think an organization like the UN would, you know, do something constructive. Instead, their greatest acheivement to date is leasing two helo's to use in the area. Now this is pitiful in and of itself but apparently they had a reason for this. They were working on a 3000 page report found here:

http://unmp.forumone.com/index.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13063&Cr=millennium&Cr1=development

Isn't the UN such a useful organization.

The UN is an organization designed to preserve peace by providing a place where countries can come together for dialogue and debate rather than being forced to settle all matters through the use of force. The UN was never meant to provide any sort of disaster releif and does not have the necessary resources to do so. All it can do is recommend that member nations help in the releif effort, and this it has already done.

the un is a shambles it could be doing more than it does now, it needs a major reform , i mean the website is awful

what the un needs is the ability to have all of the countries attack any one country that falls out of line. Like, if Iraq were to attack Iran, everyone would be forced to kick iraq's ass

the UN should find some funding

the US and Japan provide over 80% of the UN funding

if either of them were to leave of feel like not paying (somthing the bitchier countries often do) the UN would fold in a month

Attacking the UN for it's inefficent bureaucracy and scandal-ridden leaders misses the point. True, those are problems, but they're really side-effects of a larger issue: the fact that a "global government" is too distanced from the people it claims to rule, and therefore has no accountability. We shouldn't be shocked by the recent scandals: they've been going on for years, now theyre surfacing. People need to wake up and return to the most basic tenet of democracy: a just government is only derived from the consent of the governed. When's the last time the UN asked for consent from the billions of people it claims power over?

Attacking the UN for it's inefficent bureaucracy and scandal-ridden leaders misses the point. True, those are problems, but they're really side-effects of a larger issue: the fact that a "global government" is too distanced from the people it claims to rule, and therefore has no accountability. We shouldn't be shocked by the recent scandals: they've been going on for years, now theyre surfacing. People need to wake up and return to the most basic tenet of democracy: a just government is only derived from the consent of the governed. When's the last time the UN asked for consent from the billions of people it claims power over?
the UN is not a direct governing body

I have never really liked the UN. Everytime two nations want to duke it out on the battlefield, it steps in. What ever happened to the old days, the days when the word "Honor" ment something? Just let the nations duke it out and get it over with. Leave it up to individual countries to step in and try to intervine.

the UN is not a direct governing body

That's the inherent problem. If their power is limited, as it is now, they are irrelevant and useless. If they had real power, they would be labelled as a bunch of nazis, ordering us around.

I have never really liked the UN. Everytime two nations want to duke it out on the battlefield, it steps in. What ever happened to the old days, the days when the word "Honor" ment something? Just let the nations duke it out and get it over with. Leave it up to individual countries to step in and try to intervine.honor hasnt meant anything for a good 50 years

the UN is not a direct governing body

That's what it claims, but obviously it attempts to be. Just look at what happens when member states ignore their "resolutions". Look at their courts, trying to legislate global law and prosecute people under completly illigitimate legal codes. Look at the WTO, an arm of the UN, constantly telling the US our tarriffs are "illegal". And more recently, look at the ideas of UN-approved military actions and even global gun control. Of course it's a governing body.

honor hasnt meant anything for a good 50 years

This is true. And the UN has played a vital role in making this so.

Of course it's a governing body.

It tries to be anyways.

If two countries decide to have a nuclear war, then it is the concern of every nation in the world, leaving them to duke it out isn't really the best idea. For example, if you have two groups of apocalyptic extremists, who want to kill each other with no regard for the rest of the planet, then it isn't wise just to let them nuke each other.

That's what it claims, but obviously it attempts to be. Just look at what happens when member states ignore their "resolutions". Look at their courts, trying to legislate global law and prosecute people under completly illigitimate legal codes. Look at the WTO, an arm of the UN, constantly telling the US our tarriffs are "illegal". And more recently, look at the ideas of UN-approved military actions and even global gun control. Of course it's a governing body.
is the us supreme court a direct governing body?

This is true. And the UN has played a vital role in making this so.
riiiight.

This is true. And the UN has played a vital role in making this so.

Honor gave us such wonderful things as WW 1.....

Honor gave us such wonderful things as WW 1.....

And WW2!

Here's the purpose of the UN: Talk about stuff, try to come to agreements about shit, and keep records. They have no other reason for their existence. They've been very effective in acheving this end. The organization does not carry the force of law, and it never will. It's absolutely not an effort to forge a world government, and it has no more power than its constituent nations.

Now, in the wake of a tsunami one would think an organization like the UN would, you know, do something constructive. Instead, their greatest acheivement to date is leasing two helo's to use in the area. Now this is pitiful in and of itself but apparently they had a reason for this. They were working on a 3000 page report found here:

http://unmp.forumone.com/index.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13063&Cr=millennium&Cr1=development

Isn't the UN such a useful organization.


I think you are completely missing the point. There is the main UN body which sets policy, and the actual organizations under their umbrella doing the work.

The various UN agencies such as UNICEF, the FAO, UNHCR, UNESCO etc. have been knee deep in providing neccessary services and supplies from day one. The UN main body that you are commenting on do the policy setting and effectiveness studies to ensure that needs are being met.



What you are doing is the equivalent of looking at the output of the Senate Armed Services Committee and trying to equate that to the work of the military.

It's just not a valid presentation of the facts of the matter.

Edit: Actually, given that you are equating the output of the Millenium Project to the relief work being done in South East Asia, let me rephrase that: You are doing the equivalent of comparing the output of the most recent Medicaid study to the reconstruction work being done in Iraq.

IT makes no sense at all.

That's what it claims, but obviously it attempts to be. Just look at what happens when member states ignore their "resolutions". Look at their courts, trying to legislate global law and prosecute people under completly illigitimate legal codes. Look at the WTO, an arm of the UN, constantly telling the US our tarriffs are "illegal". And more recently, look at the ideas of UN-approved military actions and even global gun control. Of course it's a governing body.


It's odd though, you never seem to complain when a WTO ruling goes in YOUR favour.,


Here's a thought, if you don't like the WTO then stop signing trade agreements that make the WTO the arbitrator of disputes.

This is true. And the UN has played a vital role in making this so.
I'm sure the cold war helped just a tiny bit as well.

And WW2!
fear mongering and economic downfall gave us WW2

fear mongering and economic downfall gave us WW2
Fear mongering and economic downfall as a result of World War I, which was a result of an "Old Europe" mentality that it was a 'good time for a war.' What happened to that 'honor' (which, as a sidenote, I don't see sending poor people to die because someone feels hurt as honorable, but thats another discussion) was barbed wire, machine guns, mechinization, and nuclear weapons. In short, war got more destructive by massive degrees. The cost (like economic downfall and the rise of fear mongerng) became too high.

Honor didnt give us WW1 or even WW2, WW1 and WW2 gave us Honor.

What definition of "honour" are we talking about here?

What definition of "honour" are we talking about here?

Honor, as in being honored, or honoring a soldier of war, or a king or president.