NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations has been around for over 60 years. It took part in the Korean war, has been doing peacekeeping missions since 1957, a Canadian idea:) . And it has created many bodies that protect Human rights, Refugees, and other branches.

It however has also had failures, with the oil-for-food crisis, the sex abuse scandal, and failures in Bosnia, and Somalia via peacekeeping.

However, since this is a job I want to take up, either as a UN peacekeeper or UN aid worker, I would like to know your opinion.

Is the UN a good organization?

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

And if you like the UN personally.

Is the UN a good organization?

No.

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?
No.

And if you like the UN personally.
No.

Don't forget the failure in Rwanda... IMO the UN needs some serious reform in a number of areas, at best its a flawed organization, at worst its one big international joke.

Its a good concept, at present its not a good organization.

Important, possibly, after some much needed reform, at present no.

I like the idea, I don't like its present incarnation however.

Is the UN a good organization?
No, not in its current form.

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?
Yes.

And if you like the UN personally.
Yes.

Its a good concept, at present its not a good organization.
It's not. It's a crap concept. Do some people really think that every country wants to work together to promote development and solidarity worldwide? This isn't international Communism for buggery's sake. Countries will always look after #1 before anyone else. The UN has no jurisdiction over countries that don't want it to have any jurisdiction over them. For example - Israel. It's currently in breach of, I believe, 5 UN sanctions. Does it do anything? No. Why? Because it doesn't have the power to enforce anything. Countries will do what the bloody hell they like, for their own good, before what someone else wants them to do for the greater good.
It'd be nice if it worked.

It's not. It's a crap concept. Do some people really think that every country wants to work together to promote development and solidarity worldwide? This isn't international Communism for buggery's sake. Countries will always look after #1 before anyone else. The UN has no jurisdiction over countries that don't want it to have any jurisdiction over them. For example - Israel. It's currently in breach of, I believe, 5 UN sanctions. Does it do anything? No. Why? Because it doesn't have the power to enforce anything. Countries will do what the bloody hell they like, for their own good, before what someone else wants them to do for the greater good.
It'd be nice if it worked.

The concept of a greater framework for the many nations of the world to work together on common interests is a good concept, but its been warped into what you speak of. Ideally the UN would have its membership limited to democratic states, they have the most in common, and it would not have such a socialist bend to it.

Also the UN should have teeth, among many other changes.

Thats what I mean by saying the concept is sound, but the execution is flawed.

I say we just let Bush take over and call the world America instead of Earth. Then we can all enjoy the greatness of America

I say we just let Bush take over and call the world America instead of Earth. Then we can all enjoy the greatness of America

LOL! :p

The UN is currently not worth the paper its resolutions are printed on (mind you, that's quite a bit of paper, with very little in the way of actions to go with it).

The UN is a good concept. Sure, people will always look out for #1, but through the UN can impose pressure on other countries to reform via sanctions etc. and improve quality of life and security via international peacekeeping. If the UN could be reformed and streamlined (yeah, like you'll ever get all the permanent Security Council members to universally agree on *anything*; let's go for something a bit more realistic) it might actually get some great things done.

LOL! :p

Why not? It's not like any other country matters

UN Peacekeeping Forces were also very successful in first slowing and then stopping the atrocities in East Timor following the independence vote. Yes, there have been problems, but there have also been great successes.

You know I've found that most Americans I talk to are very literate, intelligent, and well mannered.

Shame you have to make the whole look bad. :rolleyes:

I suppose I should keep from posting when I'm in a bad mood

No.


No.


No.

dammit

you took all my answers.

The un is a group of sniveling cowards who destroy everything they touch.

I just thank god that the US managed to keep control of the internet domain name system from the un recently

The un is a group of sniveling cowards who destroy everything they touch.
You get a cookie for making me grin.

Why not? It's not like any other country matters
damn straight.

hy hey hey Ear Falls. let's not confuse patriotism with lack of intelligence.

If i honestly believe that my country is the greatest country on earth, what's so wrong about saying that?

You get a cookie for making me grin.
i aim to please.

fedX for the cookie please

The United Nations has been around for over 60 years. It took part in the Korean war, has been doing peacekeeping missions since 1957, a Canadian idea:) . And it has created many bodies that protect Human rights, Refugees, and other branches.

It however has also had failures, with the oil-for-food crisis, the sex abuse scandal, and failures in Bosnia, and Somalia via peacekeeping.

However, since this is a job I want to take up, either as a UN peacekeeper or UN aid worker, I would like to know your opinion.

Is the UN a good organization?

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

And if you like the UN personally.

i dont really care much for the UN, it served a purpose a while back, it is becoming less and less usefull (corruption etc...)

for everyone that likes to bash the USA on getting into the business of other countries, the UN is just as bad.

the world will never get along and we shouldnt pretend that someday it will, there will always be at least 2 countries in this world, and a war for some reason. so having a group of countries getting together to solve the problems is kind of usless.

If i honestly believe that my country is the greatest country on earth, what's so wrong about saying that?
a) That doesn't mean that other countries don't matter.
b) You don't back your claim up with evidence.
c) You'd be wrong.
d) That kind of thing has killed more people than any other political movement.

The UN is a corpse on it's last seconds of life support and the USA (which has been PO'ed by the UN on several occasions) has it's hands on the plug and we are jiggling the cord.

Happy 60th Birthday UN!:)

The concept of a greater framework for the many nations of the world to work together on common interests is a good concept, but its been warped into what you speak of. Ideally the UN would have its membership limited to democratic states, they have the most in common, and it would not have such a socialist bend to it.

Also the UN should have teeth, among many other changes.

Thats what I mean by saying the concept is sound, but the execution is flawed. (emphasis mine)
You mean like America? The country that's pretty much the reason the UN doesn't work as well as it could? Or look at the EU - they're all democratic countries, but they still work for themselves rather than the greater good. What's standing in the way of CAP reform right now? France. Why? Because they have such a large agricultural sector that's doing so bloody well out of it. Unlike some English farmers who are being pushed right to the poverty line because of it.
Yes, the concept is sound, but it's one that will never work. No amount of reforms is going to make the UN the utopian organisation some people want it to be or believe it could be.

Most of the arguments against the UN are of the style "the UN was supposed to make things better, but things are still crap," or "the UN has no power."

I believe you can only judge an international organisation by asking "would the world be better or worse if it didnt exist?" Sure, countries will still "look after #1." But the UN forces countries to take positions on issues which they previously considered "someone else's problem." And the Israel/Palestine example is a prime example of this - the UN does not solve everything, but it does raise public awareness of the issues, and international condemnation DOES HAVE impact on the behaviour of both parties.

You will find that many people working in the UN are idealistic and do want to make the world a better place. Of course, going against short term national goals is impossible, but soft persuasion goes a long way.

a) That doesn't mean that other countries don't matter.
b) You don't back your claim up with evidence.
c) You'd be wrong.
d) That kind of thing has killed more people than any other political movement.

a) that was mostly a joke
b)it's very subjective. if you can't see that a statement with the words "believe" and "greatest" in it is not subjective, there's a problem
c)Subjective again. No i wouldn't be wrong that i believe that. as for the statement itself - what you want 200 years of glorious history?
d)now it's your turn to play the evidence game

If i honestly believe that my country is the greatest country on earth, what's so wrong about saying that?
There's a pretty big difference between saying that you're proud of your country and saying that all other countries are worthless.

Just like there'd be a difference between me thinking I'm better than you (which I do;)) and saying that you're entirely, completely worthless (which I don't).

The-Republic']There's a pretty big difference between saying that you're proud of your country and saying that all other countries are worthless.

Just like there'd be a difference between me thinking I'm better than you (which I do;)) and saying that you're entirely, completely worthless (which I don't).

see above

beat you to the response

see above

beat you to the response
After thinking long and hard, my official response is: "So?"

Subjective again. No i wouldn't be wrong that i believe that. as for the statement itself - what you want 200 years of glorious history?
There simply isn't one single greatest country on earth. I'd doubt that you could find very much glorious history anyways, considering that pretty much every period in US history was overshadowed by crimes, exterminations or racism of some sort anyways.

now it's your turn to play the evidence game
That Nationalism/Patriotism has killed plenty of people?
This (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm) should probably do the trick - I'd say that there has not been a single war that was not at least partly about settling the issue who's country is better.

There simply isn't one single greatest country on earth.

what im saying is that this is impossible to truly determine.

I'd doubt that you could find very much glorious history anyways, considering that pretty much every period in US history was overshadowed by crimes, exterminations or racism of some sort anyways.


unlike, of course, the rest of the world and all of history

I'd say that there has not been a single war that was not at least partly about settling the issue who's country is better.
only if you include all of the cold war intervention wars as usa against russia.

You know I've found that most Americans I talk to are very literate, intelligent, and well mannered.

Shame you have to make the whole look bad. :rolleyes:


Just goes to show what an arrogant blow hard you are. How can you say that most Americans you've met are all these great things and then say that this ONE person makes the rest look bad? Christ man!!!


Oh yes. Back to the topic at hand. I think it's funny how the U.N. in this game and the U.N. in real life mirror eachother. Basiclly both are a worthless joke.

only if you include all of the cold war intervention wars as usa against russia.
But wasn't the whole cold war based on ideological (boiling down to national) superiority?

But wasn't the whole cold war based on ideological (boiling down to national) superiority?

well, really economic systems, but what i was saying is that it's the old six degrees of seperataion problem. sure, you can link nationalism with amost any national action, but does that make it the cause?

unlike, of course, the rest of the world and all of history.
For you to be consistently claiming the moral high ground and tell me the US is the greatest country on earth, and other countries don't matter (or matter less), the US would have to have been better than the rest of the world consistently.
And it wasn't, and it isn't.

only if you include all of the cold war intervention wars as usa against russia.
I second Colin's point - that too was about "My country is better than your country!".

sure, you can link nationalism with amost any national action, but does that make it the cause?
Name the one you were thinking about.

All of them, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and so on were started initially by locals who were fighting for what amounted to nationalism. But you're right, it was not only that, there were cases of "my form of government is better than your form of government" - but it is the same concept, the same impulse.

Thanks for all your responses to this. It is very interesting to see what everyone thinks about the real UN.

My parents say I am crazy for wanting to join the UN, but not because it does not work, but because there is a real possibility that I will be killed.

However, I do want to make the world a better place in my nieve sense of mind, and if I am killed than that is alright with me, but I do believe that if the UN wasn't created the world would be in a worst off position than it is today.

The UN hasn't always been perfect, but it did stop the Suez crisis, it has had some good peacekeeping missions and some bad ones, but it has also created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it did create UNICEF among others, it has fed millions of people during starvation, and the US cannot pull the cord on it. Other Security Council members have pulled out of the UN for short periods of time and have suffered more than what the UN suffered so if the US backed out of the UN it wouldn't suffer as much as the US.

And the UN can remain in New York because the land it is on, is International territory, not U.S.A territory.

Thanks for the comments though.

I second Colin's point

Who told you my real name??? Where's my tinfoil hat?

Oh, the US isn't pulling out of the UN and we all know it. Its a little bit of bluster and posturing thats gone on before with other states. In a few short years, it'll all have blown over and she'll come back into the fold. Its better for both parties in the long run.

Canada, what kind of work do you want to do in the UN?

Thanks for all your responses to this. It is very interesting to see what everyone thinks about the real UN.

My parents say I am crazy for wanting to join the UN, but not because it does not work, but because there is a real possibility that I will be killed.

However, I do want to make the world a better place in my nieve sense of mind, and if I am killed than that is alright with me, but I do believe that if the UN wasn't created the world would be in a worst off position than it is today.

The UN hasn't always been perfect, but it did stop the Suez crisis, it has had some good peacekeeping missions and some bad ones, but it has also created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it did create UNICEF among others, it has fed millions of people during starvation, and the US cannot pull the cord on it. Other Security Council members have pulled out of the UN for short periods of time and have suffered more than what the UN suffered so if the US backed out of the UN it wouldn't suffer as much as the US.

And the UN can remain in New York because the land it is on, is International territory, not U.S.A territory.

Thanks for the comments though.

Following from my poor ignored post some time ago, thanks for your commitment. People like you have a much bigger chance of changing the world than any of the critics in this thread.

Following from my poor ignored post some time ago, thanks for your commitment. People like you have a much bigger chance of changing the world than any of the critics in this thread.

I'm for the UN, and I'm glad that there are people willing enough to give themselves for the betterment of the world, I'm just insanely cynical

Well everyone, I am either going to be a UN peacekeeper because I am in the Canadian military, or I am going to become an aid worker with UNICEF because I enjoy working with children, and the UN has an excellent child-help program, at least UNICEF does for war-torn children.

I am already taking courses from the UN on how to become an aid worker or peace keeper, what is required and the dangers that is faced.

And being in the Canadian military, there is an agency that can put you on 'contracts' internationally that work for the UN or other peacekeeping organizations. I have already gotten information also, on how to become an aid worker with UNICEF.

.....
The UN hasn't always been perfect, but it did stop the Suez crisis, it has had some good peacekeeping missions and some bad ones, but it has also created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it did create UNICEF among others, it has fed millions of people during starvation, and the US cannot pull the cord on it. Other Security Council members have pulled out of the UN for short periods of time and have suffered more than what the UN suffered so if the US backed out of the UN it wouldn't suffer as much as the US.
.....

Am I mistaken or is there some kind of an undermining campaign going on by the US against the UN?

Because, indeed, the UN would be much more efficient if US was working with them, but not against.

As for the topic, yes the UN is entirely important. It needs reform indeed, but so do many countries. The US, for instance.

Because, indeed, the UN would be much more efficient if US was working with them, but not against.

I guess that explains why no one gives the UN more money than the US - we given them about 22 percent of their budget.

I guess that explains why other members of the Security Council also have a veto and have used it to stymie things at the UN (just like the US).

If you think that everything would be just fine at the UN if the US just sat outside, think again. Everyone inside would be still playing the same stupid games - just with each other.

I guess that explains why the US and NATO went in to Kosovo to fix things because the UN couldn't be bothered to get off its ass about genocide.

I guess that explains why nothing is being done in Darfur - are you going to blame that on a US veto? You can't.


The UN, without any help from the US, has presided over or tolerated the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed by Hitler.

All the while, the US has only made substantial obstructions in the area of action against Israel. Do you really think that the UN would have been a far more effective organization if we had let the Arabs turn Israel into another one of their corrupt states? Mmm?

The United Nations has been around for over 60 years. It took part in the Korean war, has been doing peacekeeping missions since 1957, a Canadian idea:) . And it has created many bodies that protect Human rights, Refugees, and other branches.

It however has also had failures, with the oil-for-food crisis, the sex abuse scandal, and failures in Bosnia, and Somalia via peacekeeping.

However, since this is a job I want to take up, either as a UN peacekeeper or UN aid worker, I would like to know your opinion.

Is the UN a good organization?

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

And if you like the UN personally.




I think you should remember Rwanda and the current issue of Sudan. The idea of the UN is to delay or prevent the outbreak of war. The UN has a military arm not like the former League of Nations that failed to stop World War Two. In my opinion the UN is trying to bring peace to the world. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails.

I guess that explains why no one gives the UN more money than the US - we given them about 22 percent of their budget.

I guess that explains why other members of the Security Council also have a veto and have used it to stymie things at the UN (just like the US).

If you think that everything would be just fine at the UN if the US just sat outside, think again. Everyone inside would be still playing the same stupid games - just with each other.

I guess that explains why the US and NATO went in to Kosovo to fix things because the UN couldn't be bothered to get off its ass about genocide.

I guess that explains why nothing is being done in Darfur - are you going to blame that on a US veto? You can't.


The UN, without any help from the US, has presided over or tolerated the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed by Hitler.

All the while, the US has only made substantial obstructions in the area of action against Israel. Do you really think that the UN would have been a far more effective organization if we had let the Arabs turn Israel into another one of their corrupt states? Mmm?

What stupid games?

In Darfur, it is the United States that is pulling out money for the funding for the AU peacekeepers in Darfur not the UN. So yes I can blame the UN, because the funding that is needed has been dropped by 100 million dollars because the US and this is what an official said, "it's not on our radar right now."

First off, the area that you are talking about was Palestine, it was an Arab state under British control until a Jewish population came. However, in 1947-48, the area was suppose to be split into two nations, one Israel, one Palestine under UN guildelines. However, the Israel people massacred the Palestinians, they slaughtered them actually, and took the whole area. That is why their are anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. Not because they are Jewish, but because first they did not accept the territory given to them, and secondly they have salughtered Palestinians, UN soldiers and Arabs in general at least six times, with US weapons.

With Kosova, mass graves were never found. They put the casualties at 10,000 in 2001, 3,000 and now they don't even give a figure of how many Albanians were killed but it is a known fact under US watch that 2,000 serbs were killed, and another 100,000 fled that is genocide.

I think you should remember Rwanda and the current issue of Sudan. The idea of the UN is to delay or prevent the outbreak of war. The UN has a military arm not like the former League of Nations that failed to stop World War Two. In my opinion the UN is trying to bring peace to the world. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes it fails.

I actually support the UN. They have had failures, but they have also had successes. That is why I either want to become a UN aid worker or a UN peacekeeper.

I guess that explains why no one gives the UN more money than the US - we given them about 22 percent of their budget.

I guess that explains why other members of the Security Council also have a veto and have used it to stymie things at the UN (just like the US).

If you think that everything would be just fine at the UN if the US just sat outside, think again. Everyone inside would be still playing the same stupid games - just with each other.

I guess that explains why the US and NATO went in to Kosovo to fix things because the UN couldn't be bothered to get off its ass about genocide.

I guess that explains why nothing is being done in Darfur - are you going to blame that on a US veto? You can't.


The UN, without any help from the US, has presided over or tolerated the massacre of more people since its inception than were killed by Hitler.

All the while, the US has only made substantial obstructions in the area of action against Israel. Do you really think that the UN would have been a far more effective organization if we had let the Arabs turn Israel into another one of their corrupt states? Mmm?

Don't be so bitter. The US should not sit outside in the cold. They should sit inside and make themselves useful. They should also not compare stories of world-managing mistakes.

Mmmm? Were you going to say something else?

Well thanks for the comments everyone.

Is the UN a good organization?[/QUOTE]

It is, in some ways, a good ide. Unfortunately, like any huge bureaucracy, it is choked with red tape and corruption. The problems inherant in bureaucracy in general are exacerbated by the fact that many of the players come from very corrupt governments, oversight is virtually nil, and nearly all jobs are by appointment rather than election.


Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

Depends on where you are. The UN's usefulness/import is pretty heavily dependant on the size of the country assessing it. Think of a bell curve. On one end of the curve, you have tiny countries like Tuvalu, Surinam, or Trinidad and Tobago. These countries aren't powerful enough to have real influence in the UN so they end up being casual observers or supporting players to the bigger nations. On the other side of the spectrum, you have major world powers like the US or China. These countries are so politically, economically, and militarily powerful that the UN borders on irrelevance. It is asometimes a conveniant tool, but they wouldn't miss it if it were gone. Then you have everyone in the middle. Countries like France, Germany, Japan, or India are influential enough to get the UN moving, but not yet (or anymore) powerful enough to get everything they want done alone. For them, the UN is a boon.


And if you like the UN personally.

No. At the best of times it is merely corrupt and ineffectual, at the worst of times it is corrupt and a threat to the sovereignty of nations.

d) That kind of thing has killed more people than any other political movement.


*cough*monotheism*cough**cough*

Damn cold...

Oh, the US isn't pulling out of the UN and we all know it. Its a little bit of bluster and posturing thats gone on before with other states. In a few short years, it'll all have blown over and she'll come back into the fold. Its better for both parties in the long run.

Now, I'm not a fan of Bush, but the one thing he did right so far was to do better than pull out of the UN. Bolton as UN ambassador. Heh. The man might as well walk around with a neon sign that flashes "...and the horse you rode in on, too!"

All the while, the US has only made substantial obstructions in the area of action against Israel. Do you really think that the UN would have been a far more effective organization if we had let the Arabs turn Israel into another one of their corrupt states? Mmm?

Hey now. Thats a serious case of the pot and the kettle. Neither the arab states nor Israel has managed to maintain the high ground. Buth sides are assholes, it just that Israel happens to be full of politically connected assholes and Egypt/Iran/Iraq/etc happens to be filled with politically powerless assholes. Personally, I don't see why the world bothers. Build a wall, wait a decade, come back and offer a seat at the table to whoever is left.

Because, indeed, the UN would be much more efficient if US was working with them, but not against.

well, not only do we provide a disproportinate amount of funds for the amounmt of support we recieve, but why should the us work together with the un in all cases?

the us and its citizens are proud people, and don't have the tendency to care too much for others opinions of us. if the us thinks something needs to be done, we shouldn't have to wait for the un to approve it before we act.

In addition, the un has some seriously oppresive regimes in it.

whose bright idea was it to give a permanent seat on the defense council to a country like china?

The UN is not designed to build democracies. It is to build peace. If that comes from democracies that is fine, if it doesn't that is okay with the UN as well.

It is to build peace
Unfortunately the UN has failed miserably at that in the past decade (Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, oil-for-food). And it doesn't respect natn'l sovereignty as it is....:headbang:

Is the UN a good organization?
Yes, but it is undoubtebly in need of reform.


Is the UN an important organization for todays world?
Yes. As an international forum and a center for communication, I believe that the UN has fulfilled it's primary obligations, namely to prevent wars of a global scale, to promote social progress and better standards of life, and to promote and strenghten international law. The WHO, UNICEF, WFP and UNHCR are continuing to do important work and the International Court of Justice is needed still. The UN are responsible for the creation of many conferences and summits, and has taken the initiative in many important cases. The UN is so much more than the security council and peacekeeping-missons, even if they are important as well. Trade, development, science, human rights... Few, if any, areas of international interest are untouched by the UN.

Yes, there have been failures as well, but I believe that the UN's achievements continue to outweigh those.

And if you like the UN personally.
Yes, but I hope they will improve.

The UN: Sometimes difficult to live with, can't live without it.

The UN is not designed to build democracies. It is to build peace. If that comes from democracies that is fine, if it doesn't that is okay with the UN as well.

That statement alone is enough to explain why I have such a dislike for the UN. It is the international face of trading freedom for security.

Everything the UN touches turns to shite, sort of a reverse Midas touch.

The UN did not solve Suez, the US did by blackmailing Britain financially, and the USSR did by threatening nuclear response.

It is not a centre for communication. Were it simply this, all it would need to do rent a convention centre, and hold conferences.

What has the UN prevented? Nothing. Sometimes the UN acted as a forum, but the real solution came from the old way of diplomatic negotiations.

It corruption, and refusal to deal with it in any meaningful way, demonstrates the main problem, it is unaccountable.

.....
What has the UN prevented? Nothing. Sometimes the UN acted as a forum, but the real solution came from the old way of diplomatic negotiations.
.....

What it has prevented cannot be established, for obvious reasons. How will you count things that didn't happen?

National sovereignty is overrated. How can world peace be?

What countries oppose the UN the most? The peaceful ones?

Is the UN expensive? How much does a war cost?

whose bright idea was it to give a permanent seat on the defense council to a country like china?Yours..?

The United Nations has been around for over 60 years. It took part in the Korean war, has been doing peacekeeping missions since 1957, a Canadian idea:) . And it has created many bodies that protect Human rights, Refugees, and other branches.

It however has also had failures, with the oil-for-food crisis, the sex abuse scandal, and failures in Bosnia, and Somalia via peacekeeping.

However, since this is a job I want to take up, either as a UN peacekeeper or UN aid worker, I would like to know your opinion.

Is the UN a good organization?

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

And if you like the UN personally.
Perhaps surprisingly enough, I have always been an admirer of those with the sheer audacity to establish the United Nations. A noble idea indeed. It is, however, a toothless tiger.

Yes, the UN has some great programs. UNICEF springs to mind. But, like any human organization, it contains the seeds of its own destruction: the Security Council is an abomination, the lack of a standing military is a major deficiency, and ( most critical of all ) its dependence on the major industrial nations renders it virtually impotent in many situations.

Perhaps someday we will all be able to come to grips with the greed vs. need issues that beset us as a race and create a truly global government, but it certainly won't be in my lifetime.

Perhaps surprisingly enough, I have always been an admirer of those with the sheer audacity to establish the United Nations. A noble idea indeed. It is, however, a toothless tiger.

Yes, the UN has some great programs. UNICEF springs to mind. Don't say that's the only one... just don't! But, like any human organization, it contains the seeds of its own destruction: the Security Council is an abomination, the lack of a standing military is a major deficiency, and ( most critical of all ) its dependence on the major industrial nations renders it virtually impotent in many situations. The lack of military might in a discussion forum is a major deficiency... ok. Being from a country the big ones can just sweep away, I can see why you see it that way... I DON'T

Perhaps someday we will all be able to come to grips with the greed vs. need issues that best us as a race and create a truly global government, but it certainly won't be in my lifetime.Let's hope.

What has the UN prevented? Nothing. Sometimes the UN acted as a forum, but the real solution came from the old way of diplomatic negotiations.

The UN has not made diplomatic negotiations a thing of the past, but rather encourages problems to be solved by "friendly" diplomacy rather then by other means.

Difficult question, what has the UN prevented. It's not easy to see, and as Quagmus points out - How can you count things that didn't happen? Well, let me try a bit:

* Prevented many deaths due to their participation in the eradication of smallpox.
* Prevented loss of life by distributing food aid to needy people. (US$2.9 billion worth of food aid to 113 million people in 80 countries in 2004, according to their website (http://www.wfp.org/english/)
*In different ways aiding and protecting about 9,237,000 refugees in 2004 (UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home) )
etc.

But what is expected of the UN anyway? It has, after all, not much more power than granted by the collective will of the international community.

Don't say that's the only one... just don't! The lack of military might in a discussion forum is a major deficiency... ok. Being from a country the big ones can just sweep away, I can see why you see it that way... I DON'T

Let's hope.
Um ... I didn't. :p

"Discussion forum?" I was under the impression that one of the primary purposes of the UN was to actually ... like, DO something. Without a military to enforce its decisions on recalcitrant nations, the UN is exactly what I said it was: a toothless tiger.

"Discussion forum?" I was under the impression that one of the primary purposes of the UN was to actually ... like, DO something.Oh, of course discussing things and trying to bring opposing views closer to eachother is not DOing anything. My mistake. Without a military to enforce its decisions on recalcitrant nations, the UN is exactly what I said it was: a toothless tiger.It has military might...The strongest in the planet in fact: Your country's and mine plus everyone elses... it's just we can't agree on the aims/whens/hows... :)

Thanks for all your responses to this. It is very interesting to see what everyone thinks about the real UN.

My parents say I am crazy for wanting to join the UN, but not because it does not work, but because there is a real possibility that I will be killed.

However, I do want to make the world a better place in my nieve sense of mind, and if I am killed than that is alright with me, but I do believe that if the UN wasn't created the world would be in a worst off position than it is today.

The UN hasn't always been perfect, but it did stop the Suez crisis, it has had some good peacekeeping missions and some bad ones, but it has also created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it did create UNICEF among others, it has fed millions of people during starvation, and the US cannot pull the cord on it. Other Security Council members have pulled out of the UN for short periods of time and have suffered more than what the UN suffered so if the US backed out of the UN it wouldn't suffer as much as the US.

And the UN can remain in New York because the land it is on, is International territory, not U.S.A territory.

Thanks for the comments though.

The US provides 22% of the UN's funding. You're telling me the UN wouldn't miss the several billion dollars the US gives it every year, and the US would be worse off for having those several billion dollars to spend on its own country?

Is the UN a good organization?

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

And if you like the UN personally.
NO
Yes because it provided for a funny family guy episode (Petoria anyone?)
Gawd NO!!!!!!!

And the UN can remain in New York because the land it is on, is International territory, not U.S.A territory.

Thanks for the comments though.

Trust me, if the US decides to tear down the UN and put up a Mega-Starbucks, nothing will happen.

Is the UN a good organization?

no

Is the UN an important organization for todays world?

Not only "no", it's acutally actively harmful.

And if you like the UN personally.

no

Not only "no", it's acutally actively harmful.


How's that then?

The UN has not made diplomatic negotiations a thing of the past, but rather encourages problems to be solved by "friendly" diplomacy rather then by other means.

Difficult question, what has the UN prevented. It's not easy to see, and as Quagmus points out - How can you count things that didn't happen? Well, let me try a bit:

* Prevented many deaths due to their participation in the eradication of smallpox.
* Prevented loss of life by distributing food aid to needy people. (US$2.9 billion worth of food aid to 113 million people in 80 countries in 2004, according to their website (http://www.wfp.org/english/)
*In different ways aiding and protecting about 9,237,000 refugees in 2004 (UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home) )
etc.

But what is expected of the UN anyway? It has, after all, not much more power than granted by the collective will of the international community.

That is a matter open to some debate. While the food aid has occasionally saved lives, it has also been seriously corrupted and contributed to sub-saharan Africa's inability to build sustainable economies. For information regarding the economic consequences of western food aid go here: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html

Oh, of course discussing things and trying to bring opposing views closer to eachother is not DOing anything. My mistake. It has military might...The strongest in the planet in fact: Your country's and mine plus everyone elses... it's just we can't agree on the aims/whens/hows... :)


It's pretty clear that when it comes to military commitments, the UN is third on the US (and most of Europe's) list. No UN member country is going to lend it's military to a cause that runs counter to their interests, the interests of the country in question will always be #1 when determining military commitment. After that, there is NATO. The UN can request troops until it is blue in the face, but NATO is a contract promising to provide them, not a beggar's table.

Trust me, if the US decides to tear down the UN and put up a Mega-Starbucks, nothing will happen.

Thats a testament to the irrelevance of the UN if I ever heard one...

basically the idea of a world organisation for helping all of humanity is a very good one.

however the way it is set up is stupid especially the security council.

no country should be on it permenantly

no country should have a veto

the united nations should be based on an area where it has complete controll in effect governed by the un seperate from any other country.

secondly certain countries should really be kicked out of the un *cough cough US cough* as they either ignore it or try to rule over it.

rather then each country giving troops to the UN when called on to do so the UN should have its own standing forces loyal to the UN and the ideals of the UN not to any paticular nation (they should be classed as citizens of the world and have to renounce any loyalty to any other body then the UN)

also UN resolutions should be acted on and penalties for not acting on them should be harsh.

The only thing that can reform the U.S. is a bulldozer.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no20/vo13no20_beasts.htm

The UN is an Evil corporate organistaion and must be destroyed, like all governments

Most of the arguments against the UN are of the style "the UN was supposed to make things better, but things are still crap," or "the UN has no power."

I believe you can only judge an international organisation by asking "would the world be better or worse if it didnt exist?" Sure, countries will still "look after #1." But the UN forces countries to take positions on issues which they previously considered "someone else's problem." And the Israel/Palestine example is a prime example of this - the UN does not solve everything, but it does raise public awareness of the issues, and international condemnation DOES HAVE impact on the behaviour of both parties.


Erm... It was the UN that STARTED that problem in the first place. :/

The UN great concept, at the moment though it is seriously flawed. If you want any greater point of why the UN is vital look at Europe before the 1st world war, and before the second world war. Yes before the 2nd world war there was the LoN but that ahd no power or athority-just like the modern UN.

Without the UN places would have nowhere to talk and beiiger nations would just attack smaller ones, but unfortuntly the UN is being undermined and many of it's good acts, WHO for example and UNICEF, are being ignored.

First off the veto has got to go, perminant memberships on the security council should go the the G8 country at the time (If you fall out of the G8, you are expelled from the council and replaced by the new nation) plus 12 other nations, which serve 2 years each. The UN also needs to be given teeth, it's resoloutions have to count for somthing, not just being peice of paper. What the UN says should go.

First off the veto has got to go, perminant memberships on the security council should go the the G8 country at the time (If you fall out of the G8, you are expelled from the council and replaced by the new nation) plus 12 other nations, which serve 2 years each. The UN also needs to be given teeth, it's resoloutions have to count for somthing, not just being peice of paper. What the UN says should go.

One major problem there. Lets say the UN passes a resolution ordering France and the US to stop subsidizing crops and selling them at dumping costs. France and the US say no. What happens next? You can't have an embargo against either of thse countries, at least not one that ANYONE would respect. If you fine them and they refuse to pay, you're basically stuck. Military action is right out, because the only natons on earth with even a chance of challenging NATO has no incentive (Russia has little to gain and China has their economy to lose). The UN cannot have teeth when it comes to the top 20 or so nations, and it is utterly importent when it comes to the G8.

One major problem there. Lets say the UN passes a resolution ordering France and the US to stop subsidizing crops and selling them at dumping costs. France and the US say no. What happens next? You can't have an embargo against either of thse countries, at least not one that ANYONE would respect. If you fine them and they refuse to pay, you're basically stuck. Military action is right out, because the only natons on earth with even a chance of challenging NATO has no incentive (Russia has little to gain and China has their economy to lose). The UN cannot have teeth when it comes to the top 20 or so nations, and it is utterly importent when it comes to the G8.
Which is the problem, you just have to hope people would respect the embargo/or the internation pressure becomes so great they bow to it. It's better than nothing though.

The UN has its roots in Rotary International - not arguing the Canada point but Rotary (which has a seat on the UN) had a huge influence on the formation of the UN. As a Rotarian, I am proud that the Rotary has formed the base of what is a great concept. In reality, the UN is currently corrupt and it seems that Human Rights violators are put in positions of power. The concept is a great one but the current state of the UN is shameful.

December 9 is UN International Anti-Corruption Day. Maybe they will take a look at their own organization on this day but I don't see it on their agenda. http://www.transparency.org/un_day/

Is the UN good? Not currently - it is in need of reform.

Is the UN an important organization for todays world? Yes

And if you like the UN personally. I like the concept but not the follow through

The UN has its roots in Rotary International - not arguing the Canada point but Rotary (which has a seat on the UN) had a huge influence on the formation of the UN. As a Rotarian, I am proud that the Rotary has formed the base of what is a great concept. In reality, the UN is currently corrupt and it seems that Human Rights violators are put in positions of power. The concept is a great one but the current state of the UN is shameful.

December 9 is UN International Anti-Corruption Day. Maybe they will take a look at their own organization on this day but I don't see it on their agenda. http://www.transparency.org/un_day/

Is the UN good? Not currently - it is in need of reform.

Is the UN an important organization for todays world? Yes

And if you like the UN personally. I like the concept but not the follow through
It has it's roots in the league of Nations-or so I thought.

The Rotary is unofficially at the root of the formation of the UN. When the UN Charter was adopted in 1945, the official delegations of 29 countries included 49 Rotarians. Since much of the leadership were already working together in charitable causes through the Rotary - it made for an easier transition to accepting the idea of a UN.