NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money. Our tax money has better things to fund, like the war in Iraq -- there's no reason for the US to be paying for 43% of the UN's expenses. Poll coming.

Only if we want to further alienate the rest of the world.

No, no, no. The first post is wrong in too many ways for me to list.



Well, I'm a pacifist; what did you expect?

Well, if the cracked, fading, badly-painted, and mis-spelled sign on the freeway outside of town is any guide, then my answer is an emphatic "yes".

-- there's no reason for the US to be paying for 43% of the UN's expenses. .

thats backdated payments for money you witheld.

you are not expected to pay 43%, at least be honest with the facts.

I voted no. We should not withdraw from the UN. Of course, there's a difference between what we SHOULD do and what we DO.

No.

You'll still need the UN.

The UN still needs you.

The UN needs to disband.

Either that or get some smart people in there, which willl ikely never happen.

What has the UN accomplished? It's simply an impediment in our efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East, and the food-for-oil scandal sure made their face red. Not to mention that fascist and communist countries, not to mention dictatorships, have a say in the UN. I sure as hell don't want North Korea and Myanmar deciding what the US can and cannot do.

The UN is just another rent-seeking bureaucracy, whose only legitimate purpose is to be ended immediately.

What has the UN accomplished? It's simply an impediment in our efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East, and the food-for-oil scandal sure made their face red. Not to mention that fascist and communist countries, not to mention dictatorships, have a say in the UN. I sure as hell don't want North Korea and Myanmar deciding what the US can and cannot do.

when was the last time myanmar had any say in a decision the US made?

there is a great deal more to the UN than the security council, which you are a member of btw. FAO, UNICEF, UNESCO etc. all worthy and all massive accomplishments.

and the UN an impediment to you spreading what where? get real.

Yes. We do not need the UN, and the UN sure as hell does not need us.

they can do what the Fuck they want, if they withdraw *shrugs* ok.

The US should bomb the UN because the US willingly spent money on it in return for a service.

The US should bomb the UN because the US willingly spent money on it in return for a service.

Bombing New York City, brilliant. That's certainly not reminiscent of anything.

Bombing New York City, brilliant. That's certainly not reminiscent of anything.

If any Mercans get hurt, you could have a national holiday for them.

Mid-Early September sounds good. Nothing of importance happened then.

So THIS is where george bush gets his foreign policy from.

If any Mercans get hurt, you could have a national holiday for them.

Mid-Early September sounds good. Nothing of importance happened then.

I don't know how bombing New York would play with the red-state crowd. They sure to get awfully teary-eyed about a city that seems to stand for everything else they hate. Never quite understood that.

What has the UN accomplished?
A lot actually. Next vapid question?

In Soviet World, U.N. leaves U.S.!

In Soviet World, U.N. leaves U.S.!

Well heck, it would save us the trouble of explaining ourselves!

They sure to get awfully teary-eyed about a city that seems to stand for everything else they hate. Never quite understood that.

As the quote that is often mis-attributed to Voltaire goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." While many conservatives despise many things that New York stands for, we respect their right to have differing opinions and just because they are misguided does not justify the heinous deed perpetrated against innocent civilians.

The UN really needs to pay the $18 million they owe in parking tickets.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-tick0510,0,6470796.story

I think we should, the UN essentially does nothing now. The US should continue to make contributions to the various UN programs that still function, but as a whole the UN is a corrupt morass, apparently designed to make it difficult for nations to function.
Now, if the UN were to take steps to enforce its policies on member nations other than relativly minor violators like the US, I might say otherwise. But while the UN is condeming us for environmental violations, members like Saudi Arabia are decapitating people for theft and Persia is happily running around declaring 'ALL JOOZ R DI! LOLZ!'.
Of course, it wont happen, at least, not until some event occurs which drastically changes international policy.

there is a great deal more to the UN than the security council, which you are a member of btw. FAO, UNICEF, UNESCO etc. all worthy and all massive accomplishments.


Those are facts. UN-bashers ignore facts. They tend to be ignorant of them, and just look the other way and stick their fingers in their ears when faced with them. Facts disrupt their easy, mindless little anti-UN rants.

Those are facts. UN-bashers ignore facts. They tend to be ignorant of them, and just look the other way and stick their fingers in their ears when faced with them. Facts disrupt their easy, mindless little anti-UN rants.

Some UN programmes are functional and serve a useful role in modern society. Similarly, some of Hitler's policies were adequate. Is that any reason to support the entire UN or to support Hitler as a ruler? Of course not.

Some UN programmes are functional and serve a useful role in modern society. Similarly, some of Hitler's policies were adequate. Is that any reason to support the entire UN or to support Hitler as a ruler? Of course not.

Dude...Godwin to the Max.

Some US programmes are functional and serve a useful role in modern society. Similarly, some of Hitler's policies were adequate. Is that any reason to support the entire US or to support Hitler as a ruler? Of course not.
Fixed.

Oh no he didn't ..... ;)

Dude...Godwin to the Max.

Heh. First time someone's used a Godwin on me. I feel all special. :D

Yes, we should leave the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, NATO, and every other organization and entangling alliance, as well as return all our troops from abroad, expel the UN headquarters, end all foreign aid programs, and then sign trade agreements and non-aggression pacts with every nation in the world, and pursue a policy of friendship toward all but entangling alliances with none.

Those are facts. UN-bashers ignore facts. They tend to be ignorant of them, and just look the other way and stick their fingers in their ears when faced with them. Facts disrupt their easy, mindless little anti-UN rants.

Sure some of the organizations within the UN are able to do some great work. But do groups such as UNICEF actually need the UN to do their jobs? Think of how much better funded those groups mentioned could be IF they didn't have that massive moderately corrupt bureaucracy above them that takes a large portion of the income before they get any.

My vote is, drop the UN organization down to the bare minimum, just enough to help the useful portions of the UN monitor and distrbute their funding. Nothing more is needed.

And yeah, time for the US to leave the UN. And while we're at it, start making the UN pay rent on all that expensive New York real estate.

Dude...Godwin to the Max.

I was merely giving an example in no uncertain terms. I did not invoke the spirit of Godwin's law.

The UN really needs to pay the $18 million they owe in parking tickets.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-tick0510,0,6470796.story

Like the US isn't?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4866356.stm

As the quote that is often mis-attributed to Voltaire goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." While many conservatives despise many things that New York stands for, we respect their right to have differing opinions and just because they are misguided does not justify the heinous deed perpetrated against innocent civilians.

Meanwhile you freely execute and torture innocent civilians in other countries all the time. More to the point, you freely and joyfully supress their right to free speech, fair trials, and all that jazzy stuff. Nice to know where your priorities lie.

What has the UN accomplished?

Well, it did manage to destroy a country's independence and re-integrate it, at the cost of many lives, back into the country it seceded from. The seceding country in question: Katanga.

I distrust the U.N., however, if we can kick the European countries out it might be useful to combat the EU... Must ponder this.

I distrust the U.N., however, if we can kick the European countries out it might be useful to combat the EU... Must ponder this.We like beer too! High five!












In your dreams, wanker...

were you the one who started the "who likes america the most" thread?

were you the one who started the "who likes america the most" thread?

I believe that I used the term "loves," but yes.

the U.N does lots of good it represents an unbiased world power (at least its ideally supposed to be) and provides much needed peacekeeping troop outfits (would you shoot a smurf?)

Also its an important forum where even the smallest nation has a voice and no one is ignored by the world (well Ideally anyways thank you very much U.N security council and American veto’s)

Sure. Why not?

It's not as though any of you want to actually participate in it, or anything.

Yes, we should leave the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, NATO, and every other organization and entangling alliance, as well as return all our troops from abroad, expel the UN headquarters, end all foreign aid programs, and then sign trade agreements and non-aggression pacts with every nation in the world, and pursue a policy of friendship toward all but entangling alliances with none.

A little bit of foreign policy wisdon from our founding fathers, that we need to return to following.

Yes, we should leave the UN, the WTO, NAFTA, NATO, and every other organization and entangling alliance, as well as return all our troops from abroad, expel the UN headquarters, end all foreign aid programs, and then sign trade agreements and non-aggression pacts with every nation in the world, and pursue a policy of friendship toward all but entangling alliances with none.

A little bit of foreign policy wisdon from our founding fathers, that we need to return to following.

The UN is a general failure in stopping wars, and the incessant scandals are a thorough discrace.

i laugh at the concept of america leaving the UN. and the Iraq war is a waste and a mistake. why are you promoting it?

i laugh at the concept of america leaving the UN. and the Iraq war is a waste and a mistake. why are you promoting it?

Hey, I was against the Iraq War from the start.

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money. Our tax money has better things to fund, like the war in Iraq -- there's no reason for the US to be paying for 43% of the UN's expenses. Poll coming.You know, for quite some time, it wasn't. Then again, "waste of money", "failed", and "corrupt" come to mind when the Iraq war and its proponents get mentioned. Of course, Israel will be happy now that SC resolutions against it can get passed.

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money. Our tax money has better things to fund, like the war in Iraq -- there's no reason for the US to be paying for 43% of the UN's expenses. Poll coming.

If being a failed, corrupt waste of money is grounds for dissolution, why isnt the republican party first on the chopping block?

If being a failed, corrupt waste of money is grounds for dissolution, why isnt the republican party first on the chopping block?

It should be.

I voted yes, which may be a surprise for those who recognize me. The way I see it, we've gotten so nuts that we're holding the UN back in a lot of ways. If we gave up our veto power then the only problem the rest of the UN would have in getting work done would be China, and the lack of funds. But no amount of money is worth having to put up with John Bolton and NYC real estate.

From a UN perspective, I believe that we have become more of a burden than a boon whose absense would require a difficult adjustment, but would in the end be the better course for them. They don't really need us, they've just allowed themselves to become dependent, and should really quit us cold turkey.

A lot actually. Next vapid question?

Don't you know that to a conservative ignorance of an event = certain knowledge of its non-occurence. That's why they don't believe in evolution. They don't understand it, so it doesn't exist. By the same token, Bill Clinton did nothing to prevent 9/11, Jimmy Carter is a national and moral disgrace because they don't know that he did anything good in the world, and the UN has accomplished nothing, because they can think of things it didn't do.

Which isn't the same as America not doing things. When America doesn't do something its because of a deeply held moral principle such as sovreignty of other nations, promoting global economic growth, or because we don't feel like it. When the UN doesn't do something it's because they're useless cowards who refuse to stand up to us.

In Soviet Union, UN leaves US!

so we are agreed, the us should leave the un so israel can finally be held accountable for its actions

so we are agreed, the us should leave the un so israel can finally be held accountable for its actions

Yes, yes, a hundred times yes!

In Soviet Union, UN leaves US!
You're 31 posts too late... Sorry ;)

You're 31 posts too late... Sorry ;)

noooooo! I thought I was 1st:( ;)

Like the US isn't?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4866356.stm

Ah! But that's a congestion charge, not a parking fine! Here in the US, we're *used* to congestion! :D

Tell you what: You apologise for Graham Norton, we apologise for Donald Trump, and call it all even.

well in my opinion the UN has let too many countries join it without much regualtion over those countries.

therefore it lacks control while handing out benefits. it has become the corrupt welfare system of the world.

in my opinion the US is paying way too much money into it, and i would like to see the US become isolated again. but keeping up on special interest countries/close allies. concetrate alot of the wasteful spending happening overseas within our own borders.

I say we should help fix the many problems that plague the UN before we leave it.

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money. Our tax money has better things to fund, like the war in Iraq -- there's no reason for the US to be paying for 43% of the UN's expenses. Poll coming.

What has the UN accomplished? It's simply an impediment in our efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East, and the food-for-oil scandal sure made their face red. Not to mention that fascist and communist countries, not to mention dictatorships, have a say in the UN. I sure as hell don't want North Korea and Myanmar deciding what the US can and cannot do.

Your being sarcastic right?

What has the UN accomplished? It's simply an impediment in our efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East, and the food-for-oil scandal sure made their face red. Not to mention that fascist and communist countries, not to mention dictatorships, have a say in the UN. I sure as hell don't want North Korea and Myanmar deciding what the US can and cannot do.

And I'm sure North Korea and Myanmar don't like the US deciding what they can do. Still they do not quit the UN. It is easier to change things from inside than going away and simply waiting for other people to line up with you.

The whole UN thing need to be reformed, and the permanent membership to the security council, along with veto power, has to go for good.

What has the UN accomplished? It's simply an impediment in our efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East, and the food-for-oil scandal sure made their face red.

I get the sarcasm; but, BTW, there's not much evidence that goal of spreading controlled democracy is more noble than spreading Christianity (via Crusades), Islam (via Jihad), Socialism (Soviet) or Dictatorship: they all end the same way.

Well - there's absolutely no reason for the US to actually be in a veto controlling position of one of the largest international organizations where it can strongly influence the descisions that group makes to benefit the US.

No reason at all.

Like the 51% share in the World Bank it is a very useful position for the US to hold in exerting it's influence over the world.

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money.


There are other failed, corrupt, useless wastes of money in the UN, why pick on the US?

Personally, The UN plays the same roll as that in which NATO stands for...only NATO actually did something. The UN is filled with a bunch of peace-keeping pansies while NATO went into Bosnia and Serbia and bombed the shit outta everything. I think that the UN should disban because they don't do a damn thing except for writing angry letters. Probably the only reason that North Korea wants to become hostile towards the US is because everyone in the UN sent NK into the very back of the UN council chambers. Think about it...Can you hear way far back?

The UN plays the same roll as that in which NATO stands for...
Not exactly. NATO is a military alliance, UN is a peacekeeping organization. For US, NATO provides military assistance, UN makes things look like US is not a rogue state.

What has the UN accomplished? Quite a lot, actually. Remarkebly much.

It's simply an impediment in our efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East,
Really? How so?


and the food-for-oil scandal sure made their face red.
Indeed an embarrasment. Soooo... What other clear-cut corruption scandals can you mention as proof for the ineptness of this global organisation?

Not to mention that fascist and communist countries, not to mention dictatorships, have a say in the UN.
Not to mention the US! (or Canada)

That's what it's for. Just like how you have a voice here on General - it's an open forum, created for debate and communication.

I sure as hell don't want North Korea and Myanmar deciding what the US can and cannot do.
Well, you see, that ain't going to happen. Something about national sovregnity... And the pover of veto... and majority rule...

The other way around is more likely, and they might not like that...
Well - there's absolutely no reason for the US to actually be in a veto controlling position of one of the largest international organizations where it can strongly influence the descisions that group makes to benefit the US.

No reason at all.

Like the 51% share in the World Bank it is a very useful position for the US to hold in exerting it's influence over the world.

:fluffle:

You're touching on something the most US-centric UN-haters seems to forget. The US is a dominant power! :)

Not exactly. NATO is a military alliance, UN is a peacekeeping organization. For US, NATO provides military assistance, UN makes things look like US is not a rogue state.

US is a rogue state that has no respect for international law, peace and freedom. No different than Soviets or China really, but usually preaches about democracy and human rights etc. to make it look a bit acceptable to public.

The US may be a superpower, but that doesn't make it a dominant power. Hell, it's getting beaten by a bunch of low-tech people in IRAQ~

Personally, The UN plays the same roll as that in which NATO stands for...only NATO actually did something. The UN is filled with a bunch of peace-keeping pansies while NATO went into Bosnia and Serbia and bombed the shit outta everything. I think that the UN should disban because they don't do a damn thing except for writing angry letters. Probably the only reason that North Korea wants to become hostile towards the US is because everyone in the UN sent NK into the very back of the UN council chambers. Think about it...Can you hear way far back?

Just a second, I need to put on my Mystical Boots of Sarcasm...

Oh hurrah,, another warmonger! After all, what on earth would be the point of setting up trade deals, friendly contacts, and aid schemes for those parts of the world, when we can "bomb the shit outta everything"? You know, I think that might make the US even more popular than acting like a sulky child whenever a decision is made that it disaproves of.

'unbuckles boots'

Seriously, the only reason the US gives that money is so that it can remain a part of the UN while ignoring any rulings that might damage them. It's an attempt to make them seem less like a country that only cares about itself, and more like a country that actually listens to it's friends and neighbours.

Also its an important forum where even the smallest nation has a voice and no one is ignored by the world (well Ideally anyways thank you very much U.N security council and American veto’s)
act that will give the control in the UN to the majority of the states.
majority which:
- has dictatorships
- corrupted
- can't control his own problems
- vote automatically against the west
- ignore civil and human rights
- give almost nothing to the UN by money or human forces

no matter how the UN is bad in the current situation, I think he should still be controlled by the major power and not the majority.

Leave the UN? Your kidding right?

It seems that many Americans nowadays are harking back to the 1920s and 30s and advocating "Glorious Isolationaism". This is the 21st century, that won't work anymore. The USA is too heavily involved in the affairs of 80% of the world's nations, withdrawing from the UN would set a dangerous precedent.

Some one on here complained that the UN contains communist and fascist nations - what do you think keeps them in (relative) check? It sure as hell isn't the threat of US military action, its the threat of ostracisation from the rest of the international community via the UN.

What has the UN done? Provided successful peacekeepers to various conflicts all over the world (you only ever hear about the unsuccessful ones), provided aid to third world countries, bailed out several first world economies through the World Bank, and, finally, brought down possibly the most evil regime the world has ever seen - the Nazis. Yes thats right, the UN was originally set up as the association of allied nations fighting in World War II.

Do you need the UN? Yes you do. As the worlds last remaining military superpower, by leaving the UN you would simply create a ready-made alliance to oppose you. I know many people on these forums think differently, but, you can't take on the entire rest of the world and win.

You know, for quite some time, it wasn't. Then again, "waste of money", "failed", and "corrupt" come to mind when the Iraq war and its proponents get mentioned. Of course, Israel will be happy now that SC resolutions against it can get passed.
If USA will leave (and they won't), israel will leave in the exact moment.
I don't think the UN will start war with israel and USA in order to enforce his biased resolutions.

What has the UN done? Provided successful peacekeepers to various conflicts all over the world (you only ever hear about the unsuccessful ones),the unsuccessful are the great majority of them. not to mention, UN peacekeepers from third world countries somtimes comitted war crimes in addition to their impotency.
provided aid to third world countries, mostly this aid used to different goals than the stated ones, help to keep corrupted regimes and didn't help to recover the countries which ask again and again for more aid. not to mention, that PA get most of the aid per capita, while they didn't deserve it (if you don't consider the biased politics in the UN)

bailed out several first world economies through the World Bank, and crashed other economies. what happened in Argentina and other south american states was mainly due to WTO ask for more globalization.
and, finally, brought down possibly the most evil regime the world has ever seen - the Nazis. Yes thats right, the UN was originally set up as the association of allied nations fighting in World War II.

lie. the UN established only after WW2 was ended. before WW2 they had another UN-like body which established after WW1. since both USA and the Nazis quit this community some years before WW2, this thoothless body was even more ignorable.

Personally, The UN plays the same roll as that in which NATO stands for...only NATO actually did something. The UN is filled with a bunch of peace-keeping pansies while NATO went into Bosnia and Serbia and bombed the shit outta everything. I think that the UN should disban because they don't do a damn thing except for writing angry letters. Probably the only reason that North Korea wants to become hostile towards the US is because everyone in the UN sent NK into the very back of the UN council chambers. Think about it...Can you hear way far back?

Not exactly. NATO is a military alliance, UN is a peacekeeping organization. For US, NATO provides military assistance, UN makes things look like US is not a rogue state.
I've got the feeling neither of you know what the UN really is...

If USA will leave (and they won't), israel will leave in the exact moment.
I don't think the UN will start war with israel and USA in order to enforce his biased resolutions.Let's hope it never comes to the point where we would find out whether it would or wouldn't.

Let's hope it never comes to the point where we would find out whether it would or wouldn't.
Bush isn't THAT stupid, and their next leader can't be worse.

Bush isn't THAT stupid, and their next leader can't be worse.Hehe. If there's one thing I've learned in life, it's "never say never". :D

lie. the UN established only after WW2 was ended. before WW2 they had another UN-like body which established after WW1. since both USA and the Nazis quit this community some years before WW2, this thoothless body was even more ignorable.

Sorry not a lie.

Firstly, the current UN is a direct descendent of the Atlantic Charter first signed by Churchill and Roosevelt. The idea of the UN was first floated by Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference and was endorsed by Stalin, De Gaulle and Chiang Kai Shek. This is hoe the five permanent members of the Security Council gained their places - UK, USA, USSR/Russia, France and China. (Incidentally, it wasn't until detente between Nixon and Chairman Mao that nationalist China/Formosa/Taiwan relinquished their permanent place on the Security Council to communist China).

Secondly, the UN-like body you talk of was the League of Nations (incidentally, another US invention) which was nothing like the current UN. It was merely a talking shop, which was why the US left.

Sorry not a lie.

Firstly, the current UN is a direct descendent of the Atlantic Charter first signed by Churchill and Roosevelt. The idea of the UN was first floated by Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference and was endorsed by Stalin, De Gaulle and Chiang Kai Shek. This is hoe the five permanent members of the Security Council gained their places - UK, USA, USSR/Russia, France and China. (Incidentally, it wasn't until detente between Nixon and Chairman Mao that nationalist China/Formosa/Taiwan relinquished their permanent place on the Security Council to communist China).

Secondly, the UN-like body you talk of was the League of Nations (incidentally, another US invention) which was nothing like the current UN. It was merely a talking shop, which was why the US left.I think you're both right. The UN is derived fromt he Atlantic Charter, but it wasn't officially founded until after the war was over.

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money. Our tax money has better things to fund, like the war in Iraq -- there's no reason for the US to be paying for 43% of the UN's expenses. Poll coming.


yes, get your damn veto out of our organisation designed for the betterment of the world. and while you're at it get out of all the other organisations and treaties you keep obstructing with your veto.

I think you're both right. The UN is derived fromt he Atlantic Charter, but it wasn't officially founded until after the war was over.

After the addition of other members to the alliance towards the very end of the war, namely Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Brazil, Persia (Iran), Turkey and Siam (Thailand) the term "United Nations" was in general use for the Allies. Admittedly the UN charter wasn't drawn up until after Germany's defeat, but the ideas and ideals were still there.

In my opinion, it's a failed, corrupt, useless waste of money.....

...And the UN is no better?

My own view would be that the UN is definitely in need of a major overhaul, especially the Security Council. My own belief would be that all nations should be welcome in the UN, regardless of their political leanings. However the voting and funding should be in proportion to population and/or economy.

Sorry not a lie.

Firstly, the current UN is a direct descendent of the Atlantic Charter first signed by Churchill and Roosevelt. The idea of the UN was first floated by Roosevelt at the Casablanca conference and was endorsed by Stalin, De Gaulle and Chiang Kai Shek. This is hoe the five permanent members of the Security Council gained their places - UK, USA, USSR/Russia, France and China. (Incidentally, it wasn't until detente between Nixon and Chairman Mao that nationalist China/Formosa/Taiwan relinquished their permanent place on the Security Council to communist China).the UN maybe was alliance of those nations, but he was established after the war. he didn't had real power in WW2 so it will be absurd to tell the UN fought the nazis.

Secondly, the UN-like body you talk of was the League of Nations (incidentally, another US invention) which was nothing like the current UN. It was merely a talking shop, which was why the US left.
right, I forgot that name.
it doesn't change the fact that both league of nations and the UN had the same purposes and although it was because different reasons both were mostly thoothless.

the UN maybe was alliance of those nations, but he was established after the war. he didn't had real power in WW2 so it will be absurd to tell the UN fought the nazis.


right, I forgot that name.
it doesn't change the fact that both league of nations and the UN had the same purposes and although it was because different reasons both were mostly thoothless.

I really don't know what history books you have been reading. The alliance that fought the nazis was known as the UN. Fact.

The League of Nations was toothless because they made no attempt to enforce their resolutions, unlike the current UN. They did not have the same purpose at all. The LoN originally was established to ensure peace in Europe, provide "self determination" (but not to the European colonies) and ensure the subjugation of the German ilitary and economy. The UN was originally established to provide a forum for ALL world problems to be discussed and resiolved, be they military, political, economic or social.

I really don't know what history books you have been reading. The alliance that fought the nazis was known as the UN. Fact.they were known as "the allies". anyway, there name isn't important. it was war-time alliance latter form the UN.
you could say "the UN fought the nazis", only if the UN was established before the war and pass resolution which demand war against the nazis.
it is importance difference because the UN himself not only didn't fight the nazis, but failed in actions against other regimes who make crimes against humanity (although not in the same level as the nazis).
The League of Nations was toothless because they made no attempt to enforce their resolutions, unlike the current UN. They did not have the same purpose at all. The LoN originally was established to ensure peace in Europe, provide "self determination" (but not to the European colonies) and ensure the subjugation of the German ilitary and economy. The UN was originally established to provide a forum for ALL world problems to be discussed and resiolved, be they military, political, economic or social.the UN is bigger and improved organization on the model of the league of nation.
they both thoothless, although the UN is less.

move the building 600yds east and allow it to sink with all the unites inside

move the building 600yds east and allow it to sink with all the unites inside

A reasoned, thought out and logical response to the thread.

Wait.... wait..... Apologies. This answer actually suits the OP.

I've got the feeling neither of you know what the UN really is...

Acutally, I do know what the UN really is. Also, I'm not a fucking war-mongering lunatic. In fact, I'm completely the opposite.

DOWN WITH THE UNITED NATIONS

I say demolish the whole building. Send everybody back to their home country. The UN is a dysfunctional and corrupt organization.

Only if it is replaced with a much stronger organization that the US listens to.

That would only happen if the US was actually in control of that organization...:D

President Wilson created the League of Nations. However, Congress and the American people didn't care for it and stayed out. It limped on for a little while then died.

If the UN were limited to an international forum, then I'd have no problem with it. Since it's not and has designs of being the world government, get the US out of it, remove it from American soil, bulldoze the building and auction the lot off.