NationStates Jolt Archive

Why the United Nations Doesn't Work

(One day, during a U.N. Security Council Meeting)

Russian ambassador: Russia, China, and France have submitted and approved a U.N. resolution, regarding the U.S. human rights abuses of prisoners in Cuba.

Romanian ambassador: Speaking on behalf of Romania and numerous other countries who wish for... ahem... assistance from the United States, we respectfully dissent from approving this resolution.

Russian ambassador: So, with majority approval, the resolution is passed.

U.S. ambassador: I veto that.

Chinese ambassador: The People's China vetoes your veto!

U.S. ambassador: You cannot veto a veto!

Chinese ambassador: The People's veto outweighs your capitalist and exploitative veto!

U.S. ambassador: Oh, please. America INVENTED the United Nations.

French ambassador: *rolls his eyes*

Tanzanian ambassador: *spins around* Blahrlaghlanlghalrnlghalrblab pllbt!

British ambassador: Okay, we aren't getting anywhere, so why don't we just simply take a vote and DECIDE whether or not there will be a veto?

Everyone agrees.

British ambassador: Right then. According to the tally, we have three in favor of the Chinese veto and two in favor of the American veto. And a bunch of non-permanent members' votes that I didn't even bother counting. Therefore, China wins, and the resolution is passed.

U.S. ambassador: I veto that.

Chinese ambassador: The People veto again! The People's revolution will not be stopped!

U.S. ambassador: Communist scum!

French ambassador: I thought we already went through this?!

U.S. ambassador: Screw you, Frenchie, I ain't doing shit.

Why the United Nations Doesn't Work

(One day, during a U.N. Security Council Meeting)

Russian ambassador: Russia, China, and France have submitted and approved a U.N. resolution, regarding the U.S. human rights abuses of prisoners in Cuba.

Romanian ambassador: Speaking on behalf of Romania and numerous other countries who wish for... ahem... assistance from the United States, we respectfully dissent from approving this resolution.

Russian ambassador: So, with majority approval, the resolution is passed.

U.S. ambassador: I veto that.

Chinese ambassador: The People's China vetoes your veto!

U.S. ambassador: You cannot veto a veto!

Chinese ambassador: The People's veto outweighs your capitalist and exploitative veto!

U.S. ambassador: Oh, please. America INVENTED the United Nations.

French ambassador: *rolls his eyes*

Tanzanian ambassador: *spins around* Blahrlaghlanlghalrnlghalrblab pllbt!

British ambassador: Okay, we aren't getting anywhere, so why don't we just simply take a vote and DECIDE whether or not there will be a veto?

Everyone agrees.

British ambassador: Right then. According to the tally, we have three in favor of the Chinese veto and two in favor of the American veto. And a bunch of non-permanent members' votes that I didn't even bother counting. Therefore, China wins, and the resolution is passed.

U.S. ambassador: I veto that.

Chinese ambassador: The People veto again! The people's revolution will not be stopped!

U.S. ambassador: Communist scum!

French ambassador: I thought we already went through this?!

U.S. ambassador: Screw you, Frenchie, I ain't doing shit.
L-O-L, did you make those events up or where they real?

lol, thats funny :P

L-O-L, did you make those events up or where they real?

The fact that you have to ask that is evidence itself that the UN doesn't work. :D

L-O-L, did you make those events up or where they real?
It's indisputable fact. Just like the Drudge Report. Or the link between Saddam Hussein and extraterrestrial invaders from planet Zod.

You don't need made-up arguments to show how frivolous and ineffective the UN is, just look at their history, well more specifically, the events they've chosen to leave out from history, or acted on to little to late to be of real assistance. No one will cooperate if they have differing opinions or goals. The whole system depends on chivalry and good-faith anyway, and cannot be relied upon from the start. As long as people are flawed, their institutions will be no different.

I wish you guys would realize how much fun it is to screw around with the chivalry based method of quoting on nationstates. You can fuck around with anyone, put quotes, and say that person said it. Sure, they can deny it, but where are the rules against false quotes? What's someone going to do? Ban me? I can change IP's! Hence, nationstates doesn't work.

Wow. If someone doesn't realize this isn't what he said, I will cry. Loudly. MONGOOSE!

Wow. If someone doesn't realize this isn't what he said, I will cry. Loudly. MONGOOSE!I've nearly been chewed for doing something similar, only I made it clear I'd changed it...

Why the United Nations Doesn't Work

(One day, during a U.N. Security Council Meeting)

Russian ambassador: Russia, China, and France have submitted and approved a U.N. resolution, regarding the U.S. human rights abuses of prisoners in Cuba.

Romanian ambassador: Speaking on behalf of Romania and numerous other countries who wish for... ahem... assistance from the United States, we respectfully dissent from approving this resolution.

Russian ambassador: So, with majority approval, the resolution is passed.

U.S. ambassador: I veto that.

Chinese ambassador: The People's China vetoes your veto!

U.S. ambassador: You cannot veto a veto!

Chinese ambassador: The People's veto outweighs your capitalist and exploitative veto!

U.S. ambassador: Oh, please. America INVENTED the United Nations.

French ambassador: *rolls his eyes*

Tanzanian ambassador: *spins around* Blahrlaghlanlghalrnlghalrblab pllbt!

British ambassador: Okay, we aren't getting anywhere, so why don't we just simply take a vote and DECIDE whether or not there will be a veto?

Everyone agrees.

British ambassador: Right then. According to the tally, we have three in favor of the Chinese veto and two in favor of the American veto. And a bunch of non-permanent members' votes that I didn't even bother counting. Therefore, China wins, and the resolution is passed.

U.S. ambassador: I veto that.

Chinese ambassador: The People veto again! The People's revolution will not be stopped!

U.S. ambassador: Communist scum!

French ambassador: I thought we already went through this?!

U.S. ambassador: Screw you, Frenchie, I ain't doing shit.

How funny... Let's do away with the UN because it ain't working. Yeah, let's do away with an organization that is as effective as the individual states want it to be. Let's do away with an organization that is paralyzed by the veto right. Let's do away with the one organization that stand above all parties. Let's do away with the World Food Program. I'm sure individual charities will cover that one. Let's bury UNICEF. Let's bury UNESCO. What do we care about children and culture! Let's say screw you to the UN peacekeepers in Congo. "Hey, you might bring peace and stability to the region, but your organization sucks". Let's scrap the WHO. Sure the CDC can take over that organization's work. How funny! It brings tears to my eyes...

I'd say this is more of a reason why the Security Council should be flushed down the toilet. There should definitely be a UN, but it shouldn't be controlled by the winners of WW2...

That quite funny... and probably accurate :D :D :D

I'd say this is more of a reason why the Security Council should be flushed down the toilet. There should definitely be a UN, but it shouldn't be controlled by the winners of WW2...

Winners control everything, or haven't you noticed yet?

I personally believe that the dominant economic powers of the Earth should have sole seats on the Security Council.

Winners control everything, or haven't you noticed yet?

I personally believe that the dominant economic powers of the Earth should have sole seats on the Security Council.

That would include countries like hmmm, India, China (oops, their there already), Japan, possibly Korea (South, not North), Saudi Arabia (oil), Venezuala (oil), Canada (new oil deposits), Singapore (trade hub, so it's a maybe) and whatever else that I have missed.

Security Council is going to get a mite bit crowded. And possibly even less will get done.

I don't see why economic nations should be on the security council...

The five nations with veto are the ones who have nuclear weapons. Sure, pakistan and India do now too, but they play a much smaller role, military and otherwise, in the world. Regional players. While that is true of the now defunct powers(China, Russia), both are undergoing change, so it would be fair to give them some lee-way, for a few decades.

I'm thinking the members of the G-8.

That would include countries like hmmm, India, China (oops, their there already), Japan, possibly Korea (South, not North), Saudi Arabia (oil), Venezuala (oil), Canada (new oil deposits), Singapore (trade hub, so it's a maybe) and whatever else that I have missed.

Security Council is going to get a mite bit crowded. And possibly even less will get done.

Exactly, the Security Council has little to do with the modern distribution of power, and excludes the third world. Of course, vetos are bad enough already with a small council, they should be replaced with a requirement for a large majority vote.

I veto all vetos with my UBER-VETO!

I veto all vetos with my UBER-VETO!

Hah! I infini-veto that, and furthermore lock you in the closet where you can't veto no more.

Exactly, the Security Council has little to do with the modern distribution of power, and excludes the third world. Of course, vetos are bad enough already with a small council, they should be replaced with a requirement for a large majority vote.

Third World nations can't even run their own countries. Why does that ineptitude grant them a vote in your vision for the UN?

Third World nations can't even run their own countries. Why does that ineptitude grant them a vote in your vision for the UN?

In a sentence: Representation of regional and developing powers. Developing nations are somewhat miffed that only two of the five (China and Russia, which has fallen in its rankings) are developing nations, and that four of the five are Western nations. They argue that there needs to be greater representation on the Security Council, from each continent. Especially with regards to regional powers such as Brazil and Nigeria, which while not necessarily strong nations are big players on their respective locales.

Third World nations can't even run their own countries. Why does that ineptitude grant them a vote in your vision for the UN?

Because first world nations can't be trusted to not screw over third world nations if they could and get away with it? Look at how some of the trade policies and dealings are run between some first world countries are done with third world countries.

Policies like calling for removing of tariffs in the third world nation on agriculture while maintaining high subsidies for their own agriculture concerns? That's one example that comes off the top of my head, and it simply spells one thing if pushed through. Total collapse of the agriculture industry in the third world nation because they can't afford to subsidise their own industry like the first world one can.

Bam! Instant monopoly.

The UN is as ineffective as the League of Nations was. It is time to start over. Keep the ideals of the UN but this time, make sure that when a resolution is passed, that it is followed through with!

No more pitty ass measures that the current UN uses.

Third World nations can't even run their own countries. Why does that ineptitude grant them a vote in your vision for the UN?

Who gets to decide what is ineptitude and what is not? First world nations have enough of an economic base and structured society to keep doing well under completely inept management. Singapore was a third world nation with no resources when it became independent, but under good leadership it has been very successful. This would be like denying the vote to poor people on the basis that they are poor at financial management- in reality you are just taking away their representation so their interests are not considered.

The UN is as ineffective as the League of Nations was. It is time to start over. Keep the ideals of the UN but this time, make sure that when a resolution is passed, that it is followed through with!

No more pitty ass measures that the current UN uses.

The ideals of the UN were for member nations to work their issues out and present a united front to global issues. Given the conflicting number of viewpoints that current veto holders have, in fact, the conflicts between nations who put their own self interests first (first world nations are just as guilty of this), it wouldn't really work. All that would happen is that the founder of this new "UN" would only try to push through the views of his/her country at the expense of others.

The only way a new UN would work is if it had a sufficient financial and military base to operate completely independently of any nation as well as enforce it.

But nobody, particularly the US, would like to see a powerful, fair and balanced UN capable of enforcing the treaties that have been signed with it. Maybe you think differently, but I think the current administration would like to keep the UN the way it is. Powerless and as a rubber stamp for its policies to give it the image of 'goodness'.

But nobody, particularly the US, would like to see a powerful, fair and balanced UN capable of enforcing the treaties that have been signed with it. Maybe you think differently, but I think the current administration would like to keep the UN the way it is. Powerless and as a rubber stamp for its policies to give it the image of 'goodness'.

Absolutely, the US is opposed to any international body having the power to back up its words. There are actually plenty of countries that would want a powerful, fair and balanced UN- pretty much any small nation that isn't opressive and doesn't have the power to act unilaterally.