NationStates Jolt Archive

(Poll coming soon)
Do feel that the UN has failed as an organization and is overall a wasteful investment?

Yes!

It's been a failure from the get-go.

I never really gathered what its purpose was in the first place

its the thought that counts, isnt it?

Given the very little amount of actual power it has, and the ways in which all members of the Permanent Security council use their veto power to keep it toothless, I'd say the UN has done remarkably well, especially in terms of aid to developing nations. UNICEF, anyone? That alone makes them a success in my book.

perhaps the security council needs to be reformed but what retards don't understand is the UN is bigger than the security council. The main goal of the UN is not to organise wars against countries the US doesn't like. The UN provides food, education, and healthcare to millions. As well as giving all countries voices, so no it has not failed, not at all.

No. The UN has provided a useful forum for international debate and discourse; it's individual bodies have aided governments and peoples worldwide (including such successes as the extermination of Smallpox); and it has provided an umbrella for several unfortunate, but unfortunately necessary military actions.

Could it do better? Yes. Could it use a restructuring? Also, yes. But it has done a reasonable job, and worth the money expended.

as soveistan says

UNICEF, FAO, UNESCO etc. all successful.

if they had gone along with shrubs little adventure in iraq would we be debating this?

(Poll coming soon)
Do feel that the UN has failed as an organization and is overall a wasteful investment?

Just think how much we could get out of selling that plot of land the building is on?

UN is a joke, they have been since they were formed.

Given the very little amount of actual power it has, and the ways in which all members of the Permanent Security council use their veto power to keep it toothless, I'd say the UN has done remarkably well, especially in terms of aid to developing nations. UNICEF, anyone? That alone makes them a success in my book.

Yep, what The Nazz said. Especially since it was set up to fail, if you think about it: created with no power to enforce anything that the permanent members of the Security Council don't want.

as soveistan says

UNICEF, FAO, UNESCO etc. all successful.

if they had gone along with shrubs little adventure in iraq would we be debating this?
And you know it's a weird day when Soviestan and I are on the same side of an issue. ;)

Just think how much we could get out of selling that plot of land the building is on?

UN is a joke, they have been since they were formed.

I agree in fact, I would further it by sending them to Paris.

If it wasn't for the UN, Katanga may still be independent today.

perhaps the security council needs to be reformed but what retards don't understand is the UN is bigger than the security council. The main goal of the UN is not to organise wars against countries the US doesn't like. The UN provides food, education, and healthcare to millions. As well as giving all countries voices, so no it has not failed, not at all.

Wah, wah...US is teh evil. Whatever... :rolleyes:

It gives all countries a voice, sure, but it gives them all an equal voice, and that's where it runs aground. Should, say, Togo have the same say in world affairs as India? No. They've got one-shith of the population. Sorry, but no -- emphatically no.

No. The UN has provided a useful forum for international debate and discourse;

Yeah, mostly for developing countries to bitch about the West.

...it's individual bodies have aided governments and peoples worldwide (including such successes as the extermination of Smallpox);

I'll grant you that.

...and it has provided an umbrella for several unfortunate, but unfortunately necessary military actions.

Yeah, and those were a smashing success. Just ask the folks in Srebrenica.
Oh, wait...


Could it do better? Yes.

No, it can't. No international body claiming to represent the whole world can at this point in time.

Could it use a restructuring? Also, yes.

It could use a de-structuring.

But it has done a reasonable job, and worth the money expended.

You must not be from the US. The US foots 25% of the tab for all of this UN shite. It's absolutely not worth it.

I agree in fact, I would further it by sending them to Paris.

France-bashing is so 2003. Didn't you get the memo?

France-bashing is so 2003. Didn't you get the memo?

No, France-bashing is eternal. :p

France-bashing is so 2003. Didn't you get the memo?

Sorry, I never did get that memo.

I was told by a certain Frenchman that they would be delighted to have the UN on their soil. So I wasn't intentionally bashing them. Well, I don't think I was. :D

I, other than knowing how lousy of an organization the UN is, don't appreciate their obvious support for an oppressive leader to heckle my President on our soil. That is completely unacceptable. I really don't care whether or not you like our Commander In Chief, call him what you will outside the USA not on our soil, period. So after the UN obviously support that type of behavior, has just furthered my belief in them being a failed organization who America needs to cut them loose. Stop funding a corrupt organization who has no place nor no stand on American Soil.

I say Good Bye to the UN.

I, other than knowing how lousy of an organization the UN is, don't appreciate their obvious support for an oppressive leader to heckle my President on our soil. That is completely unacceptable. I really don't care whether or not you like our Commander In Chief, call him what you will outside the USA not on our soil, period. So after the UN obviously support that type of behavior, has just furthered my belief in them being a failed organization who America needs to cut them loose. Stop funding a corrupt organization who has no place nor no stand on American Soil.

I say Good Bye to the UN.

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the UN building is considered international soil, so technically, Chavez didn't insult Bush on US soil, at least not while at the UN. He probably did elsewhere while in the US, but the UN can't be held accountable for that.

I, other than knowing how lousy of an organization the UN is, don't appreciate their obvious support for an oppressive leader to heckle my President on our soil. That is completely unacceptable. I really don't care whether or not you like our Commander In Chief, call him what you will outside the USA not on our soil, period. So after the UN obviously support that type of behavior, has just furthered my belief in them being a failed organization who America needs to cut them loose. Stop funding a corrupt organization who has no place nor no stand on American Soil.

I say Good Bye to the UN.

He was not on US soil ... like an embasy

I, other than knowing how lousy of an organization the UN is, don't appreciate their obvious support for an oppressive leader to heckle my President on our soil. That is completely unacceptable. I really don't care whether or not you like our Commander In Chief, call him what you will outside the USA not on our soil, period. So after the UN obviously support that type of behavior, has just furthered my belief in them being a failed organization who America needs to cut them loose. Stop funding a corrupt organization who has no place nor no stand on American Soil.

I say Good Bye to the UN.

How do they support that kind of behavior? They don't control what each member can and can't say.

How do they support that kind of behavior? They don't control what each member can and can't say.

Exactly. To do so would be essentially limiting free speech and a serious violation of the UN's charter.

Exactly. To do so would be essentially limiting free speech and a serious violation of the UN's charter.

How about the "Oil for Food" scandal? Is that not as you say...um...a serious violation of the UN's charter?

UN on N. Korea Nukes.........Security members condemned N. Korea okay let's go home now......wow......what a day at work.

How about the "Oil for Food" scandal? Is that not as you say...um...a serious violation of the UN's charter?

It is and it has been seriously investigated. As is, Chavez was within his rights in the UN with that speech. It was tasteless, it was politically inept, but it was within his rights. I'd rather have a UN that allows for free dialogue between world leaders than a big censoring board to prevent member's feelings from getting hurt any day.

So far, this thread has seemed to invoke people on two sides stating their peace two different ways.

One one hand, those who think the UN isn't a failure may say, "UNICEF and various humanitarian organizations have provided aid to third-world countries and disaster areas. Considering that it's very limited in what it can do, it has done as much as it can with the little power it has."

On the other hand, those who think it is a failure seem to be shouting, "zOMG t3h unITed NaShUnZz izz t3h ebu|!1oneeleventybilliononez SelL t3h pl0tz ov l4nd und3r t3h billding & maketh t3h EWE-ENN go to France!1! zOMG t3h EWE-ENN izz anti-USian!1!flibbityflobbityfloo N00k t3H EWE-ENN!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Disclaimer: Not all anti-UN people seem to be like that, and this was a bit of an exaggeration, but when your best argument against the UN is "The UN Sucks," well, come on.

How about the "Oil for Food" scandal? Is that not as you say...um...a serious violation of the UN's charter?

Yes and it should be followed up absolutly

Unlike your first incorrect example

I always find it hilarious that the vast majority of those opposed to the UN are right-wing Americans. The very same people most strongly against the reform of the Security Council and the removal of the veto from all members; two things badly needed to help 'fix' the UN.

(Poll coming soon)
Do feel that the UN has failed as an organization and is overall a wasteful investment?

Yes. Well done America, you've fucked over the UN.

How about the "Oil for Food" scandal? Is that not as you say...um...a serious violation of the UN's charter?

Corrupt individuals? Nope. Iraq. Thats a violation. And then theres the abuse - witholding funds, undermining UN officials, sabotaging reports and commitees - long before the current crop of clowns and their chimp mascot starting crapping on the whitehouse lawn.

Yes and it should be followed up absolutly

Unlike your first incorrect example

How about the more than a decade of talks and resolutions against Saddam Hussein that were never enforced. The UN is nothing more than Talk Talk and Talk some more. That's their answer for everything, Let's talk. That'll solve the world's problems." That's the answer to the world peace. Now their going to want to talk some more about N. Korea and let's not forgot about Iran. Let's talk to bin Laden while we're doing all this talking.

My point is "Talking" has failed. Talking is NOT a strategy that works. All that this talking does is by the oppressive regimes time to prepare themselves for whatever comes their way or for them to prepare to go on an offensive.

If I were the Head of an organization such as the UN, I'd really would back my talking up by any and all means of resources I had available and also I would have a zero-tolerance for these regimes who thumb there noses in spite of all the resolutions passed and sanctions, too

What is the point in passing a resolution that obviously failed to do what it's intended for and instead of backing the resolutions up with what is written on the resolutions as to the consequences, to pass another resolution, and another and another and another.....for more than a decade.

The UN is nothing more than a humiliated organization that the world all knows hasn't the back bone to support the consequences stated on each resolution. No wonder they aren't takin' seriously. They have failed and they have no future and are a complete waste of funds.

Is this a trick question ?


Wonder how many more nukes have to go off....:D

It depends in what sphere you're talking about, in humanitarian fields they've done absolutely sterling work.

Also, I don't like how people refer to the UN as some kind of monolithic organisation, as though its failure isn't the failure of its constituent countries and their own self-interest.

Yes. Well done America, you've fucked over the UN.

I agree we fucked up by building a world body to come together in hopes to better this world. The UN was created with great expectations and a hope for a better world. We fucked up by trusting that world body to the control of other world leaders. yeah, we fucked up big time. Isn't a first won't be a last. What goes up must come down. We fucked up by bring the UN up and now is the time to correct our mistakes Let's tear her down. Back to the chalk boards we go.

I agree we fucked up by building a world body to come together in hopes to better this world. The UN was created with great expectations and a hope for a better world. We fucked up by trusting that world body to the control of other world leaders. yeah, we fucked up big time. Isn't a first won't be a last. What goes up must come down. We fucked up by bring the UN up and now is the time to correct our mistakes Let's tear her down. Back to the chalk boards we go.

Suggestions on a replacement? And what does "they have done great in curtailing oppressed people" mean, anyway? Shutting them up? Killing them off? Or did you mean bettering their lot in life?

The UN may need reforms badly. At the moment, one veto power can block many things, although a huge majority wants it.

But they didn't fail. OK, these neofacist Americans, who think that they are the ruler of the world, chosen by god, they don't like the UN. Perhaps they should try to make a reform, so that every country has to be the opinion of the holy empire of the USA...

There are many opinions on this world - and as a real democrat (I don't mean the political party, I mean democracy in general) I don't think that there is a right opinion and wrong opinions, before they were discussed.


I would prefer a larger security council with more veto powers.( like India , Japan, Germany, one African country...). But there have to be two vetos to stop something. So, the countries with veto powers are weaker and can't block anything so easily.

Oh, by the way, it would be nice, if the USA would pay their debts at the UN...

No. The UN has provided a useful forum for international debate and discourse; it's individual bodies have aided governments and peoples worldwide (including such successes as the extermination of Smallpox); and it has provided an umbrella for several unfortunate, but unfortunately necessary military actions.

Could it do better? Yes. Could it use a restructuring? Also, yes. But it has done a reasonable job, and worth the money expended.

I agree with this assessment :)

Also, no, it did not fail. It was created to hinder world wars like WWI and WWII. It seems to have done just that.

Suggestions on a replacement? And what does "they have done great in curtailing oppressed people" mean, anyway? Shutting them up? Killing them off? Or did you mean bettering their lot in life?

I don't feel that there should be a replacement. If two countries have a dispute let them attempt to solve it themselves diplomatically. Allow the neighboring countries if they wish to find a neutral zone and talk it out, worse case scenario, a war breaks out.

For all those idealists, who are convinced that it's very much possible for world peace, well, good luck on that idea.

As far as History tells us, as long as mankind walks this planet, there will always be a war.

I don't feel that there should be a replacement. If two countries have a dispute let them attempt to solve it themselves diplomatically. Allow the neighboring countries if they wish to find a neutral zone and talk it out, worse case scenario, a war breaks out.

For all those idealists, who are convinced that it's very much possible for world peace, well, good luck on that idea.

As far as History tells us, as long as mankind walks this planet, there will always be a war.

Makes me wonder why we ever came down from the trees. We always used to live up there. Nice views.

The UN may need reforms badly. At the moment, one veto power can block many things, although a huge majority wants it.

But they didn't fail. OK, these neofacist Americans, who think that they are the ruler of the world, chosen by god, they don't like the UN. Perhaps they should try to make a reform, so that every country has to be the opinion of the holy empire of the USA...

There are many opinions on this world - and as a real democrat (I don't mean the political party, I mean democracy in general) I don't think that there is a right opinion and wrong opinions, before they were discussed.


I would prefer a larger security council with more veto powers.( like India , Japan, Germany, one African country...). But there have to be two vetos to stop something. So, the countries with veto powers are weaker and can't block anything so easily.

Oh, by the way, it would be nice, if the USA would pay their debts at the UN...

Don't you love it when foreigners get all idealistic about the UN? :D [/sarcasm]

How about a veto override, like us Americans have? That seems a good idea, if there's majority support for something, one member, no matter how powerful or long-standing, should be able to stop it.

Of course, the main weakness of the UN is that all countries that joined issued what we call "signing statements," saying essentially that they agree to everything except the things that might impinge on their sovereignty.

Don't you love it when foreigners get all idealistic about the UN? :D [/sarcasm]

How about a veto override, like us Americans have? That seems a good idea, if there's majority support for something, one member, no matter how powerful or long-standing, should be able to stop it.


That would REALLY mean something and even make a bit of sense if the US was the ONLY country with a veto..:D


Try again. Its free.

That would REALLY mean something and even make a bit of sense if the US was the ONLY country with a veto..:D


Try again. Its free.

Doesn't matter who votes No, as long as the rest can override. You might get into vetoing vetoes, of course. Maybe the override vote would throw the question into the General Assembly, that way if the full membership votes to override ... Hey, this could be fun! :p

How about the more than a decade of talks and resolutions against Saddam Hussein that were never enforced. The UN is nothing more than Talk Talk and Talk some more.
...and some military action like in Gulf War I and Korea. And the peace-keeping missions around the world... But nevermind that now, eh?
That's their answer for everything, Let's talk. That'll solve the world's problems." That's the answer to the world peace. Now their going to want to talk some more about N. Korea and let's not forgot about Iran. Let's talk to bin Laden while we're doing all this talking.
Talking to North Korea is what the US wishes. And who wants to talk to Bin Laden, exactly?

My point is "Talking" has failed. Talking is NOT a strategy that works.
Talking works. That's why diplomacy is so gosh darn popular on the international scene - and especially behind the scenes...

All that this talking does is by the oppressive regimes time to prepare themselves for whatever comes their way or for them to prepare to go on an offensive.
Riiiight.

If I were the Head of an organization such as the UN, I'd really would back my talking up by any and all means of resources I had available and also I would have a zero-tolerance for these regimes who thumb there noses in spite of all the resolutions passed and sanctions, too
You don't like Israel, I understand... But that doesn't matter, because the resources you would have available wouldn't be much.


What is the point in passing a resolution that obviously failed to do what it's intended for and instead of backing the resolutions up with what is written on the resolutions as to the consequences, to pass another resolution, and another and another and another.....for more than a decade.
Because one doesn't like what's happening, but have no stomach to do something about it? Like the US doesn't want to go against Israel too much, so they don't put too much pressure on them to live up to their obligations.

But nevermind Israel and Iraq - can you mention another resolution that suffered the situation you describe above? I'm curious...

The UN is nothing more than a humiliated organization that the world all knows hasn't the back bone to support the consequences stated on each resolution. No wonder they aren't takin' seriously. They have failed and they have no future and are a complete waste of funds.
Again, which consequenses and which resolutions? 1441 is very debatable, so if you ignore that one?

I agree we fucked up by building a world body to come together in hopes to better this world. The UN was created with great expectations and a hope for a better world. We fucked up by trusting that world body to the control of other world leaders. yeah, we fucked up big time. Isn't a first won't be a last. What goes up must come down. We fucked up by bring the UN up and now is the time to correct our mistakes Let's tear her down. Back to the chalk boards we go.

No we fucked up in the design ... and we have fucked up NUMEROUS times in pulling the "teath" of the un by vetoing stupid shit

We are as much to blame as any other country is in its falure

...and some military action like in Gulf War I and Korea. And the peace-keeping missions around the world... But nevermind that now, eh?

"Peacekeeping" like in Katanga? Funny how, at the time, Katanga was the one place in the Congo where there was peace and stability. The rest of the Congo was beset by chaos, civil war, tribalism, and instability, yet the UN sent troops to Katanga, and only Katanga. They "brought peace" to Katanga by bayoneting children, raping women, blowing up schools, hospitals, and ambulances, etc. Read all about it in Rebels, Mercenaries,and Dividends: The Katanga Story by Hempstone Smith (a correspondent who saw the whole thing); 46 Angry Men by The Civilian Doctors Of Elizabethville; Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schulyer; and The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations by G. Edward Griffin.

"Peacekeeping" like in Katanga? Funny how, at the time, Katanga was the one place in the Congo where there was peace and stability. The rest of the Congo was beset by chaos, civil war, tribalism, and instability, yet the UN sent troops to Katanga, and only Katanga. They "brought peace" to Katanga by bayoneting children, raping women, blowing up schools, hospitals, and ambulances, etc. Read all about it in Rebels, Mercenaries,and Dividends: The Katanga Story by Hempstone Smith (a correspondent who saw the whole thing); 46 Angry Men by The Civilian Doctors Of Elizabethville; Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schulyer; and The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations by G. Edward Griffin.
I don't know about Katanga - I'll have to look it up. Thanks :)

And I know that the peacekeeping record isn't clean. Someplaces it has worked, someplaces it hasn't. But my point was only that the UN has done more then "just talked" - for good AND bad.

I don't know about Katanga - I'll have to look it up. Thanks :)

And I know that the peacekeeping record isn't clean. Someplaces it has worked, someplaces it hasn't. But my point was only that the UN has done more then "just talked" - for good AND bad.

You're welcome. Most people don't know about Katanga, even people I know who were alive at the time, even the Congo was a hot news story.

i dunno. however it disgust me how the PRC is usingto enforce their one-china policy.

(Poll coming soon)
Do feel that the UN has failed as an organization and is overall a wasteful investment?
No I think the USA killed them.

Also, why do you say 'investment' The USA *owes* shocking amounts of money to the UN. It is only really an investment if you were investing, don't you think?