NationStates Jolt Archive

A majority of the people who took a poll about the UN General assembly on Aljerzerra agree with many American conservatives. The UN is...well...useless.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/890500CB-E84E-4E17-ACB5-768A7FBF3670.htm

A majority of the people who took a poll about the UN General assembly on Aljerzerra agree with many American conservatives. The UN is...well...useless.
I don't. It needs serious reforms, yes, but I wouldn't ever want to discount it in any way.

On the one hand, it's good to recognize inefficiency and ineffectiveness and corruption and apathy and all that, and critique it. On the other hand, it's not really great if a forum for debate between mortal enemies apart from violence collapses.

Let's compare the costs of fixing the UN to the costs of abandoning it and setting up a new system for international relations.

Let's compare the costs of fixing the UN to the costs of abandoning it and setting up a new system for international relations.
Like what? And by whom?

Like what? And by whom?
Pardon?

If you mean these questions with regard to fixing the UN, well, I'm afraid I can't answer that. I am not a politician nor a social engineer. However, the GA can act as its own modifier, if its members have the political will to change things and appoint trustworthy people.

Also: the poll needs to be edited. Currently it says the UN is either "useless" or "serv[ing] a noble purpose". How about "both"? The UN is currently useless in its attempt to serve a noble purpose.

Yay, another UN bashing thread... :rolleyes:

Yay, another UN bashing thread... :rolleyes:

No, no. The first Aljezerra agrees with American conservatives thread.

I agree with Al-Jazeera viewers.

The American government and the U.N. are both equally useless. With the U.N., you can't expect progress when no member country is obligated to follow any resolutions (and they often break them, like Israel which holds the record for the most violations). Furthermore, the 5 U.N.S.C. countries of the U.N. each have exclusive veto power over any resolution...

Now, obviously, when 5 of the largest countries in the world each have veto power, then these large countries are simply using the U.N. to dominate other countries, always pushing others to follow rules that it does not follow itself. Both China and the United States are perfect examples of this...

If you'd like to know what I mean, read Chinese reports on U.S. human rights violations, then read U.S. reports on Chinese human rights violations. They call eachother hypocrites and they BOTH are.

And neither the U.N., nor the U.S. are going to be any less corrupt until they are direct democracies.

And neither the U.N., nor the U.S. are going to be any less corrupt until they are direct democracies.
In which case absolute and unchallenged power would lie with populists and pundits - the mass media.

As of right now, it is useless.

Why? Because they don't enforce anything they pass. Until they begin to enforce what they pass then maybe it would be taken more seriously.

if its members have the political will to change things and appoint trustworthy people.

Well, they have done neither in the history of the UN, so would it be so bad to abolish it now?

Well, they have done neither in the history of the UN, so would it be so bad to abolish it now?

As it stands now, it can be abolished in accordance with their own charter.

In which case absolute and unchallenged power would lie with populists and pundits - the mass media.
Populists, by their definition, cannot be "unchallenged," because populists are of the people. Dictators may attempt to put forth a populist image, but they are not legitimately populists. Furthermore, with only two parties, where each members are extremely wealthy and with college degrees, and the fact that you need a massive media campaign to win an election, , we already are at the will of pundits.

In direct democracy, we would be at the general will of the people, which is far better than the will of wealthy and demagogic lawyers.

A majority of the people who took a poll about the UN General assembly on Aljerzerra agree with many American conservatives. The UN is...well...useless.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/890500CB-E84E-4E17-ACB5-768A7FBF3670.htm
Interesting, but hardly surprising. The UN has several highly effective and useful agencies, UNICEF springs to mind, but when it comes to effectively mediating between nations headed for conflict, it fails completely, IMHO.

Well, they have done neither in the history of the UN, so would it be so bad to abolish it now?
Well, would it be? Let's look at the alternatives and come to our own conclusions. You know where I stand, because else I wouldn't have made the comments.

By direct democracy, do you mean "what the vote tallies out to, goes"?

That is in some ways fairer than our current system, but provides the people who voted for the choices that didn't win with few protections. Why not vote for all the people of n group to be excluded from entry at places of public accomodation?

If you could elaborate on what you meant, that would be much clearer.

Interesting, but hardly surprising. The UN has several highly effective and useful agencies, UNICEF springs to mind, but when it comes to effectively mediating between nations headed for conflict, it fails completely, IMHO.

Useful, perhaps. Don't you think the recent Oil for Food Program scandal and other scandals within the UN aid programs casts suspicion on all of their programs?

Furthermore, with only two parties, where each members are extremely wealthy and with college degrees, and the fact that you need a massive media campaign to win an election, , we already are at the will of pundits.
That's true, but primarily in the US. In most other countries there still is less of that.

In direct democracy, we would be at the general will of the people, which is far better than the will of wealthy and demagogic lawyers.
That's assuming you trust the people to make the right decision...I saw John Howard win an election here on the basis of a simply false statement that interest rates will rise if the Labour Party was to be elected.
I'm afraid giving the majority absolute power wouldn't exactly fix that problem.

By direct democracy, do you mean "what the vote tallies out to, goes"?

That is in some ways fairer than our current system, but provides the people who voted for the choices that didn't win with few protections. Why not vote for all the people of n group to be excluded from entry at places of public accomodation?

If you could elaborate on what you meant, that would be much clearer.
Yes. I've written about it extensively before. Look through previous posts of mine (I posted an essay on it, recently).

That's true, but primarily in the US. In most other countries there still is less of that.


That's assuming you trust the people to make the right decision...I saw John Howard win an election here on the basis of a simply false statement that interest rates will rise if the Labour Party was to be elected.
I'm afraid giving the majority absolute power wouldn't exactly fix that problem.

I do think this is a little off topic.

That's assuming you trust the people to make the right decision...I saw John Howard win an election here on the basis of a simply false statement that interest rates will rise if the Labour Party was to be elected.
I'm afraid giving the majority absolute power wouldn't exactly fix that problem.
I trust the people far more than I trust any politician.

And I believe in the statement: "Of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Yes. I've written about it extensively before. Look through previous posts of mine (I posted an essay on it, recently).

If you want to talk about direct democracy, please start a new thread. This is off topic. Thank you.

I do think this is a little off topic.
It is.
Sorry. :p

To get back on topic...

I hate all liberals, Kofi Annan is a criminal, and the U.N. is all corrupt and they should dissolve it and replace it with a one-world government run by President Bush and Christianity.

<Insert poorly thought-out, inflammatory one liner here>

It cannot stop the biggest and most obvious rogue state
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm

Rogue States
The Rule of Force in World Affairs
http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/Rogue



in the history of the UN,
it existed to end war via dealing with the root causes
of such: disease, famine, illiteracy, lack of education, general inequality.

not until the 90s did the UN start to do more militarily.

and as always,
when you would read "UN", it generally meant US.
cause nothing gets done without the powers that be.
It is a tool of US foreign policy. What a shame.

A majority of the people who took a poll about the UN General assembly on Aljerzerra agree with many American conservatives. The UN is...well...useless.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/890500CB-E84E-4E17-ACB5-768A7FBF3670.htm

Yep. Now we need to somehow remove this threat of a new world order from our shores.

It cannot stop the biggest and most obvious rogue state
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm
Anything in that many colors is obviously conspiracy-theorism.

Rogue States
The Rule of Force in World Affairs
http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/Rogue
A very good book. Chomsky is one of the few intellectuals in America, whereas other pundits and authors are merely selling mainstream ignorance.

... when you would read "UN", it generally meant US.
cause nothing gets done without the powers that be.
It is a tool of US foreign policy. What a shame.
If it is, it's doing a damned piss-poor job.

The only reason the United Nations is useless is that countries who do not agree with it's decisions don't have to go by them. There are basically the Security Council that controls what decisions are made and they still don't listen to what decision IS made.
The UN also does alot of good things in the world ranging from health care to other humanitarian aide that would not be done otherwise. For that, I have alot of respect for the workers.
Also, if the countries that still owe the UN it's operating monies would pay them, alot more could be done. Right, Mr. G.W. Bush??????????

Useful, perhaps. Don't you think the recent Oil for Food Program scandal and other scandals within the UN aid programs casts suspicion on all of their programs?
Yes, but that doesn't render the programs themselves useless.

Also, if the countries that still owe the UN it's operating monies would pay them, alot more could be done. Right, Mr. G.W. Bush??????????
That's rather like paying someone to beat you up.

The only reason the United Nations is useless is that countries who do not agree with it's decisions don't have to go by them. There are basically the Security Council that controls what decisions are made and they still don't listen to what decision IS made.

You are indeed correct. The UN has never really enforced any of their resolutions. They let dictators do whatever the hell they want and let violations by nations go no matter what! Until this is reformed, the UN shall remain a worthless organization in the realm of international peace.

The UN also does alot of good things in the world ranging from health care to other humanitarian aide that would not be done otherwise. For that, I have alot of respect for the workers.

I guess someone here hasn't read up on all the scandels that has been plagueing many of their programs.

Also, if the countries that still owe the UN it's operating monies would pay them, alot more could be done. Right, Mr. G.W. Bush??????????

And Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and other Presidents that haven't paid. Don't even think that not paying is soley Bush.

Useful, perhaps. Don't you think the recent Oil for Food Program scandal and other scandals within the UN aid programs casts suspicion on all of their programs?
Frankly, no.

Politicans are corrupt- always have been, always will be. Why should anyone be surprised that it happens on a global stage as well as on a domestic stage?

UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO, WHO etc etc are all worthy and good institutions. 'Get rid' of the UN and you get rid of these too.

Frankly, no.

Politicans are corrupt- always have been, always will be. Why should anyone be surprised that it happens on a global stage as well as on a domestic stage?

UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO, WHO etc etc are all worthy and good institutions. 'Get rid' of the UN and you get rid of these too.

How about we keep the agencies thata are deemed worthy and get rid of all the rest of the UN?

How about we keep the agencies thata are deemed worthy and get rid of all the rest of the UN?
Yup. And create a permanent, multi-nation peacekeeping force with an international council elected by all nations whose current governments permit elections. :D

Yup. And create a permanent, multi-nation peacekeeping force with an international council elected by all nations whose current goverments permit elections. :D

I second the motion :D

I second the motion :D
Kewl! :D

I agree with Eutrusca. And no more of this 'veto' business either.

I agree with Eutrusca. And no more of this 'veto' business either.
Exactly! That's been the bane of almost every initiative the UN has undertaken.

I agree with Eutrusca. And no more of this 'veto' business either.

I agree 100%

Pit to hell! Opening as I speak! Corneliu and I agree!

(To be honest, I think everyone with sense would agree on things like this but reality proves me wrong so often...)

As the originator of this thread I exercise my veto power to veto Eut's motion. :D

As the originator of this thread I exercise my veto power to veto Eut's motion. :D

You have no veto power my young padawan apprentice

To get back on topic...

I hate all liberals, Kofi Annan is a criminal, and the U.N. is all corrupt and they should dissolve it and replace it with a one-world government run by President Bush and Christianity.

You mean put The Handmaiden's Tale into practice? :D

Let me make a point about what I see as a clear distinction:
- the Conservative point of view: the UN is useless because it is "against nature", or rather a bad idea in the first place - or, if a good idea, one that had its limited purpose overriden after sometimes in the 1950's/with the end of the Cold War/just this morning.
- another very different point of view (not necessarily a good one) - the UN is inefficent in spite of it being a good idea at all times; as to the reason for that: it got hijacked/it is not as efficient as it ought to be/it was designed with flaws that can or should be discarded/all of its policies are good, but they have not been asserted properly.

Am I right to think that the two approaches are diametral opposites?

You have no veto power my young padawan apprentice

*goes to room - closes door - cries*

*goes to room - closes door - cries*

Awww I'm sorry Celtlund!

*hands you a dozen cookies as a peace offering*