NationStates Jolt Archive

For or against?
NOTE: In real life.

Real or here?

You should have made a poll.

I'm for it, because the UN has the ability to serve as an arbiter of international disputes, humanitarian aid, and worldwide initatives. However, it has many flaws in its structure and will one day hopefully be replaced with a more effective system with real international power, not just power because nations agree to it.

I'm against an unelected group of appointed delegates pretending to run the world. Heck, I barely trust most elected people.

But then I'm in favor of all the nation's leaders sitting down to a RISK game with expanded territories to cover all nations and fighting it out, winner takes all. More powerful nations get more starting armies. This will be like war without all the nastiness of war and such. Then we all swear fealty to the new world emperor and we don't need the U.N. anymore.

For, but I think it needs reform and needs to be given more teeth to stand up to countries that undermine it, like the US, China, Russia, aww, heck, all the permanent members of the council. The veto needs to be abolished.

bump

Against. It seems to have outlived its usefulness, like the League of Nations.

Well, If you look at the Veto history of the secuity council you will find that for the last years the US has used it the most. USSR/Russia has used it the most, but that was like the first 10-20 years, when they vetoed everything they could get their hands on.

China has like 4 vetos or something. But yes, the veto should be abolished. The problem of course is that the veto nations would never stop complaining, and face it: Except the permanent members of the security council the UN would be weakened. What is needed is a world legislature and judicial branch that can overrule all nations' laws and put into effect new laws, much like the EU is now.

I think that if the veto system will remain India, Japan, and Germany should receive vetos, as they are all significant nations(Germany contributes the most troops except USA and Japan loads of money. India is big and will become a strong nation in the future)

I'm against the UN! Its a dust body that doesn't care about Freedom at all but caters to tin pot dictators.

I'm for the ideals that the United Nations was formed under, but my signature pretty much states its current sad state of affairs.

Can I veto the UN?

Overall, I’m in favour of the United Nations. Despite its flaws.

Well, eventually we'll need to have everyone working together to move forward... I always thought that something like the UN would eventually become the government of the planet.

In real life, I'm iffy, sometimes I like the UN, other times I don't. Like most things, except cake, which I always like.

The NS UN on the other hand...I'm vehemently opposed to it (so much so that I'm about to fight a war to drive it out of my region!)

I'm against any country that doesn't believe in the U.N.
Only through international law designed to keep the world a friendly, peaceful, and generally pleasent place to live in can the world really bring itself out of the barbaric stone ages with idiot men competing with each other over whose dick is biggest.

Against. It seems to have outlived its usefulness, like the League of Nations.
I can understand why people think that. TBH, I think the biggest problem is that the US administration is trying to drive it 'out of business' so to speak, basically by ignoring it.

Blessings
Cyber

I can understand why people think that. TBH, I think the biggest problem is that the US administration is trying to drive it 'out of business' so to speak, basically by ignoring it.

Blessings
Cyber

Did you know that France has ignored the UN and have gone into Western Africa without their permission?

I'm against any country that doesn't believe in the U.N.
Only through international law designed to keep the world a friendly, peaceful, and generally pleasent place to live in can the world really bring itself out of the barbaric stone ages with idiot men competing with each other over whose dick is biggest.

Then why is the UN so full of scandals that have hurt their cause and isn't doint anything for peace? The world is anything but a peaceful and pleasant place to live.

In its current form the UN is unworkable.

I'm completely for the UN, yes it can be reduced to nothing by the US, but would you honestly rather live in a world with out it?

The UN is a horrificly bloated, beuracratic mess that runs on sheer inertia, not authroity or legitimacy. Its walls drip with pointless scandals, backroom deals, and diplomatic palm-greasing. It takes far too long to get anything done through it, and most of what it does anyway is pointless.

The vast majority of what comes out of the UN resembles a diplomatic cultural exchange program. Many of these programs are noble in theory, but pointless in practice. All of them cost vast amounts of money.

The security council is anything but; it neither provides security to those who need it, nor does it seek out deliberations or council. The members go into every situation with very specific agendas and try to bribe, cajole, and cheat their way into an advantageous ruling. The Vetoes are horribly misused, but then again most of the council is horribly misused. Any power on the council immediately blocks any action being taken against it by vetoing, or finding a country with a veto to do it for them.

Simply put: the UN is a mess. Kofi could spend the better part of fifty years reforming the institution without any success in making it a valid and appretiable force in the world.

That said, I support the institution and its goals. I see no other alternative to the UN available and the services it DOES provide are invaluable; namely a open and constant forum for the world's leigons of greivances. To get rid of it now would reduce every nation.

Like I've said in another thread, the UN is not just useless, but harmful. It pretends to be a "world democracy" and claims the authority of the global government, while the majority of member nations are oppressive totalitarian regimes who cry foul as soon as the UN steps on their own toes. UN Human Rights Commission is already so discredited that Kofi Annan himself says it should be "reformed". Every single UN peacekeeping operation was a miserable failure. I say the UN should be scrapped completely. What we need is what the UN was originally supposed to be- a discussion forum for the world's nations, not a body hungry for executive powers.

Like I've said in another thread, the UN is not just useless, but harmful. It pretends to be a "world democracy" and claims the authority of the global government, while the majority of member nations are oppressive totalitarian regimes who cry foul as soon as the UN steps on their own toes. UN Human Rights Commission is already so discredited that Kofi Annan himself says it should be "reformed". Every single UN peacekeeping operation was a miserable failure. I say the UN should be scrapped completely. What we need is what the UN was originally supposed to be- a discussion forum for the world's nations, not a body hungry for executive powers.

Coming from someone from Israel, a country which has been one of those countries to constantly cry foul when the UN has tried to make it respect human rights, all of that sounds quite hollow.

The UN is only as good as the countries in it, and all the countries in it are kinda shitty.

UN is the most bestest! It roxorx my soxorx!!!

Guess I'm a bit bored to say same things over and over. Ok, once more, and very shortly. Vetorights gotta go. Nations which don't follow human right laws (any, almost every nation violates them in some way) should be banned from making human right decisions.

Coming from someone from Israel, a country which has been one of those countries to constantly cry foul when the UN has tried to make it respect human rights, all of that sounds quite hollow.
You mean the country most discriminated against by the UN. Just check out the sheer number of anti-Israeli resolutions- more than on all other world issues combined- as if Israel was committing more abuses than the rest of the world states combined. I would think that the slaughter in Darfur, that produced more fatalities within two years than the Arab-Israeli conflict with all its wars in 50 years, would merit slightly more attention :rolleyes:

The United Nations Human Rights Commission is at a very precarious moment and in an odd way is a victim of its own success. Twenty years ago it never condemned anybody, so it didn't matter. But as it has evolved into a body that has the potential to impose a quite shameful stigma on abusive governments, abusive governments in turn have flocked to the commission as a form of self-defense. In fact, it has become a sort of abusers' defense society, in which the most thuggish governments join hands and try to protect each other from condemnation by the commission... There's no question that Israel faces extraordinary scrutiny by the Human Rights Commission, and that's part of the same process: Rather than accept scrutiny of Sudan or other serious abusers, it's easier for the abusers' society to collectively defend themselves and simply point the finger at Israel.

Kenneth Roth, head of the Human Rights Watch. in an interview with the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1099543819705&apage=1)

The UN is only as good as the countries in it, and all the countries in it are kinda shitty.
*Waves at Monkeypimp*
Hey there! I think we know each other from a while ago- I was here as Womblingdon :)

*Waves at Monkeypimp*
Hey there! I think we know each other from a while ago- I was here as Womblingdon :)

Ah, Womblingdon! I remember you. Good to see you on NS again.

You probably don't remember me, but that's okay. ;)

I'm against it.

I'm completely for the UN, yes it can be reduced to nothing by the US, but would you honestly rather live in a world with out it?

Good God, yes.

Ah, Womblingdon! I remember you. Good to see you on NS again.

You probably don't remember me, but that's okay. ;)
Hey there! I do remember you, vaguely. But I've been away for so long I am surprised I can remember anyone at all.

I'm against it.

It's the simplest arguments that are the best, me too me too.
Quick! Somebody do a lot of interent surfing, linking to articles and impressive people quoting to back up their ideas!!!

The UN makes Kenneth Lay look like an SEC auditor.

I think the idea of the UN is great except the current UN isn't as great as it could be. I think Mark Malloch Brown could be a factor in reshaping the UN into something that could benefit the world much greater than it is right now.

It's the simplest arguments that are the best, me too me too.
Quick! Somebody do a lot of interent surfing, linking to articles and impressive people quoting to back up their ideas!!!
Megh.

The UN isn't any good, they have to rely on the bigger nations to get stuff done, mostly the US..that can be done without a global alliance. And how many times do we hear of countries being attacked, genocide and so on..where is the almighty UN then (I think you all know the ones) At best to me it's nothing more than a formality, you could name all the good things it's done, but the lack of action is just as great.

I'm currently against the UN, not because it's a bad idea. It's actually a brilliant idea, but it wasn't implemented well. Giving 5 power nations the power to kill any bill for good was a bad idea. France/Russia and US/UK will never agree. Russia and France are all for the poor and what not, and the US and the UK are all for the economy of the world and what they can do to better themselves in the long run. Clearly something has to be done such as a veto override, until then I'm not to sure I'm happy with the UN.

Such a good organization.

Oil for Food was such a success. Eh.

That said, I'm against it.

I'm currently against the UN, not because it's a bad idea. It's actually a brilliant idea, but it wasn't implemented well. Giving 5 power nations the power to kill any bill for good was a bad idea. France/Russia and US/UK will never agree. Russia and France are all for the poor and what not, and the US and the UK are all for the economy of the world and what they can do to better themselves in the long run. Clearly something has to be done such as a veto override, until then I'm not to sure I'm happy with the UN.
....Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

*Waves at Monkeypimp*
Hey there! I think we know each other from a while ago- I was here as Womblingdon :)

Hello.

Megh.

Oh com'on!!! Quote!!! Cite sources!!! Show prowess with numbers facts and figures!! Find obscure articles and show superiority.

sorry, not targeting you in particular, just a little drunk. . . :p

Clearly something has to be done such as a veto override.
A fine recipee to turn the UN into a true and working mob tyranny.