NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so me and Leah were having a talk about the problems of the Middle East, Africa, and N. Korea. We have come to the conclusion that outside the charity work that the UN does, it's basically worthless. I mean let's be realistic, the sanctions are a joke! Hell Kim Jong Il, Saddam, and the President of Iran all use those sanctions as toilet paper! Also, how many wars have we had since the creation of the UN? If the UN was designed to prevent wars, well, it's doing a pretty crappy job of it! The UN had a good (not really) run, but let's face it, it's time to disband the UN, it's worthless, your thoughts?

It took you this long to realize that?

Of course the UN is worthless, it is nothing but a worldwide gathering of worthless liberals who are afriad of using force to deal with the murderous forces that threaten our world...on the grounds of "Human rights"

The UN's quite good, and its humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts are commendable.

Kim Jong's economy is basically stopped from trading, thousands died from the sanctions on Iraq, which I suppose what was really wanted by the US and there aren't any on Iran yet...


And the reason that it doesn't prevent wars is that your government vetoes any motions against itself and Israel, the main perpetrators of war in the last fifty years.

Maybe if nobody had veto power, it would work a whole shitload better. Consider that.

Of course the UN is worthless, it is nothing but a worldwide gathering of worthless liberals who are afriad of using force to deal with the murderous forces that threaten our world...on the grounds of "Human rights"

Yes damn those liberals who consider killing people to be a bad think. Murder for all I say.

Russia has power of Veto and they do not use it.

Ok, so me and Leah were having a talk about the problems of the Middle East, Africa, and N. Korea. We have come to the conclusion that outside the charity work that the UN does, it's basically worthless. I mean let's be realistic, the sanctions are a joke! Hell Kim Jong Il, Saddam, and the President of Iran all use those sanctions as toilet paper! Also, how many wars have we had since the creation of the UN? If the UN was designed to prevent wars, well, it's doing a pretty crappy job of it! The UN had a good (not really) run, but let's face it, it's time to disband the UN, it's worthless, your thoughts?

Yup, let's blame the UN for not being able to do things the member states don't let it do. Let's blame it for all those vetos the US and China and France and Russia and Britain have used for their own purposes. Let's bitch that the UN is as impotent as the grand powers wished to make it.

But, of course, we'll bitch even more if it ever gets those abilities, because we shouldn't be forced ourselves to comply. No, no, it'll be the evil world government, then.

The UN's quite good, and its humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts are commendable.

Kim Jong's economy is basically stopped from trading, thousands died from the sanctions on Iraq, which I suppose what was really wanted by the US and there aren't any on Iran yet...


And the reason that it doesn't prevent wars is that your government vetoes any motions against itself and Israel, the main perpetrators of war in the last fifty years.

Maybe if nobody had veto power, it would work a whole shitload better. Consider that.

Another problem with the UN, it's a socialist organization that doesn't really recognize the sovernty of a nation, world wide tax anyone?

Well, maybe we need to stop thinking of the UN as a world leadership organization and start thinking of it as a humanitarian organization. And start contributing to it as such. If you have a power drill that used to work well as a power drill and a corkscrew, once you figure out it's a shitty power drill but works wonders as a corkscrew, do you throw it away or do you keep it around as a corkscrew? (I can't imagine opening bottles of wine with a power drill, but whatever.)

Another problem with the UN, it's a socialist organization that doesn't really recognize the sovernty of a nation, world wide tax anyone?

Mmm hmm.

Regular socialism sucks. No nationalism allowed what so ever. Really, Marx, allow us a god damned national identity, why don't you?!

*no sarcasm*

Another problem with the UN, it's a socialist organization that doesn't really recognize the sovernty of a nation, world wide tax anyone?
Top end way to waste using a quote... "I'll ignore all of the points and complain about the scary Reds!".

Do you not think that the people of Africa get good value-for-money from the UN, then?

And do you not think that it might be better if there were no nations at all?

Another problem with the UN, it's a socialist organization that doesn't really recognize the sovernty of a nation, world wide tax anyone?

What the fuck are you on about?

Yup, let's blame the UN for not being able to do things the member states don't let it do. Let's blame it for all those vetos the US and China and France and Russia and Britain have used for their own purposes. Let's bitch that the UN is as impotent as the grand powers wished to make it.

But, of course, we'll bitch even more if it ever gets those abilities, because we shouldn't be forced ourselves to comply. No, no, it'll be the evil world government, then.

Couldn't have said it better.

What the fuck are you on about?
Reds are baddies. Don't you remember 50's Indoctrination Lessons?

Couldn't have said it better.

Why is it that I always seem to have a bitchy/nasty comment to reply to you with, but that I am most of the time constrained due to some warped sense of... niceness... not to utter?

The UN's quite good, and its humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts are commendable.

Kim Jong's economy is basically stopped from trading, thousands died from the sanctions on Iraq, which I suppose what was really wanted by the US and there aren't any on Iran yet...


And the reason that it doesn't prevent wars is that your government vetoes any motions against itself and Israel, the main perpetrators of war in the last fifty years.

Maybe if nobody had veto power, it would work a whole shitload better. Consider that.

Yes, but nations often do things in their own best interest, which is the way it should be, because if you don't, then you're basically going to get run over by other countries.

The reason the UN doesn't work, humanitarian work notwithstanding, is because of the way it works and its decisions made. Although it calls itself the United Nations, it just seems to be an outpost of the foreign policy of the 'big five', dominated by the USA. In order to work, that can't happen. It has to be a system that solves problems by consensus of all nations being involved.

To make the UN work, I'd do the following:

~ General Assembly made more proportional to nation population, but not fully so, (A google search pulled up this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_method)) and members chosen by the Parliament of each nation, not the executive.

~ Security council to be expanded and the veto replaced by a 2/3 supermajority.

~ Funding to be replaced by a Tobin Tax.

~ IMF/World Bank/WTO to be under the control of the UN.

Yes, but nations often do things in their own best interest, which is the way it should be, because if you don't, then you're basically going to get run over by other countries.
OTOH this creates the problem that you're fucking moaning about. What's it to be, then?

Well, maybe we need to stop thinking of the UN as a world leadership organization and start thinking of it as a humanitarian organization. And start contributing to it as such. If you have a power drill that used to work well as a power drill and a corkscrew, once you figure out it's a shitty power drill but works wonders as a corkscrew, do you throw it away or do you keep it around as a corkscrew? (I can't imagine opening bottles of wine with a power drill, but whatever.)

I have no problem with it seen as a humanitarian organization, in fact that's a great idea, because it seems to do very well in that area, it just suck at everything else.

Mmm hmm.

Regular socialism sucks. No nationalism allowed what so ever. Really, Marx, allow us a god damned national identity, why don't you?!

*no sarcasm*

Eh Marx had a good idea, however, even though it looks good on paper, in reality it just sucks and doesn't work.

Eh Marx had a good idea, however, even though it looks good on paper, in reality it just sucks and doesn't work.

Riiight. And this has what to do with the United Nations again?

Yes, but nations often do things in their own best interest, which is the way it should be, because if you don't, then you're basically going to get run over by other countries.

According to the government of South Africa, it was in the interest of South Africa to have apartheid. You would therefore, I assume, not have supported sanctions against South Africa because it would 'run them over'?

OTOH this creates the problem that you're fucking moaning about. What's it to be, then?

The problem is, is that the UN is all talk, but no actions, thus it's worthless. Oh and BTW, people in N. Korea were already starving, Kim didn't need the UN help on that part.

Riiight. And this has what to do with the United Nations again?

nothing at all, I was just responding to his post.

According to the government of South Africa, it was in the interest of South Africa to have apartheid. You would therefore, I assume, not have supported sanctions against South Africa because it would 'run them over'?

Or, nations could actually do something about it and send military down there. Of course Africa is a boiling pot of problems, don't even know where to begin in that area.

Or, nations could actually do something about it and send military down there.
And you really think the universal solution to everything is the American Liberation(tm)?

Of course Africa is a boiling pot of problems, don't even know where to begin in that area.
That's a bit off topic, but fair trade seems to be the solution, and support the economies of Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria to give the continent a foothold.

And you really think the universal solution to everything is the American Liberation(tm)?

Notice I didn't say America, I said Nations, implying more than one nation, a coalition if you will.


That's a bit off topic, but fair trade seems to be the solution, and support the economies of Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria to give the continent a foothold.

How do we deal with the terrorist and the nut groups with guns?

Watching you talk about complex international relations is like watching a four year old talk about....well...complext international relations.

First of all, it's easy to make an argument when you make your own definitions. You call the UN worthless because it "can't get anything done" but then put forth the proposition that the only way to "get anything done" is by force.

Well, no shit. The UN is purposefully NOT a forceful organization, it has no military. If you wish to work under the extremely miopic conception that force is the only way to resolve anything then your conclusion is forgone before you even make the argument.

Fortunatly for the world at large this cowboy diplomacy vision of politics is rarely the correct one. SOMETIMES force is necessary, yes. And in those situations the UN can't do much, by design. But saying it's worthless because it's can't do something it was never designed for, or intended to do is like calling a screwdriver worthless because you can't use it to hammer a nail.

More to point you betray your own ignorance by saying that the UN is "worthless" except for the humanitarian efforts it does, since you fail to recognize that the humanitarian efforts is the vast majority of what the UN ACTUALLY DOES.

yes yes..the group of cowardly fools that calls themselves the UN sits and quivers in thier leather, while around the world dictators butcher innocents, children starve, and AIDS is on a rampage. The UN was needed during the Cold War, but the modern world is only hampered by such a giantly innefective nation. All world powers should leave the UN and deal with each other on their own, the UN is a catasthopic failure.

Watching you talk about complex international relations is like watching a four year old talk about....well...complext international relations.

First of all, it's easy to make an argument when you make your own definitions. You call the UN worthless because it "can't get anything done" but then put forth the proposition that the only way to "get anything done" is by force.

Well, no shit. The UN is purposefully NOT a forceful organization, it has no military. If you wish to work under the extremely miopic conception that force is the only way to resolve anything then your conclusion is forgone before you even make the argument.

Fortunatly for the world at large this cowboy diplomacy vision of politics is rarely the correct one.

and yet, sadly, the only things that brutal world leaders understand is force...

They laugh at "sanctions".

And you really think the universal solution to everything is the American Liberation(tm)?
But of course.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-tour.gif

Watching you talk about complex international relations is like watching a four year old talk about....well...complext international relations.

First of all, it's easy to make an argument when you make your own definitions. You call the UN worthless because it "can't get anything done" but then put forth the proposition that the only way to "get anything done" is by force.

Well, no shit. The UN is purposefully NOT a forceful organization, it has no military. If you wish to work under the extremely miopic conception that force is the only way to resolve anything then your conclusion is forgone before you even make the argument.

Fortunatly for the world at large this cowboy diplomacy vision of politics is rarely the correct one. SOMETIMES force is necessary, yes. And in those situations the UN can't do much, by design. But saying it's worthless because it's can't do something it was never designed for, or intended to do is like calling a screwdriver worthless because you can't use it to hammer a nail.

More to point you betray your own ignorance by saying that the UN is "worthless" except for the humanitarian efforts it does, since you fail to recognize that the humanitarian efforts is the vast majority of what the UN ACTUALLY DOES.

Humanitarian efforts scared by Kofi Annan's little scandals, ever heard of the Food for Sex incident? The UN provides just enough aid to justify its own itself, nations do more onn their own then the UN. And force has far more applications then you can ever dream of....

Notice I didn't say America, I said Nations, implying more than one nation, a coalition if you will.
America is pretty much the only country capable of that kind of military activity, and any kind of coalition between America and the other great powers is virtually nil, regardless of the fact that invasion is only a feasible option in a minority of situations.

How do we deal with the terrorist and the nut groups with guns?
Nations with good economies generally don't have them. South Africa and most of Nigeria is pretty stable, along with some on the western coast. Kenya/Tanzania have potential too.

Humanitarian efforts scared by Kofi Annan's little scandals, ever heard of the Food for Sex incident? The UN provides just enough aid to justify its own itself, nations do more on their own then the UN. And force has far more applications then you can ever dream of....
Yeah, like ensuring that rogue states develop nuclear weapons so that force can never be used again. Or in case you haven't noticed, there's a snowflake's chance in hell the US or China or anyone else will ever try and invade North Korea.
I dunno though, maybe you can elaborate on the one application of force that I'm dreaming of.

But of course.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-tour.gif

I do hope you're being sarcastic...

And force has far more applications then you can ever dream of....

The problem is force follows the old maxim of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"

Sure you used force to project your will and get what you want accomplished. And what's the reaction?

Three jumbo jets into national landmarks.

I do hope you're being sarcastic...
<(' '<) <( ' ' )> (>' ')> <( ' ' )> <(' '<) <( ' ' )> (>' ')>
That's my Kirby Dance for finally getting to use that picture!

I think that 'free' nations have a responsibility to ensure other countries are free as well. But I don't support bungling it, and I don't support it as a unilateral decision, which is why the UN must exist. I think that the UN should be more forceful in removing some leaders like Robert Mugabe, and less concerned with liberating oil fields.

So yes, I was being sarcastic. Mostly.

<(' '<) <( ' ' )> (>' ')> <( ' ' )> <(' '<) <( ' ' )> (>' ')>
That's my Kirby Dance for finally getting to use that picture!

I think that 'free' nations have a responsibility to ensure other countries are free as well. But I don't support bungling it, and I don't support it as a unilateral decision, which is why the UN must exist. I think that the UN should be more forceful in removing some leaders like Robert Mugabe, and less concerned with liberating oil fields.

So yes, I was being sarcastic. Mostly.

Okay, you've now saved my blood pressure.:D

Why is it that I always seem to have a bitchy/nasty comment to reply to you with, but that I am most of the time constrained due to some warped sense of... niceness... not to utter?
Oh boy - you don't utter them most of the time? Can't say I could tell.

But it's because you love me. Obviously. :)

Or because I once in a while post some nicely calculated praise for one of your posts.

Take your pick. :p

Okay, you've now saved my blood pressure.:D
Yes, the Kirby Dance is good for that. It looks good in italics too. :)

No worries, I'm a Liberal pansy, with macho-Conservative envy.

Humanitarian efforts scared by Kofi Annan's little scandals, ever heard of the Food for Sex incident? The UN provides just enough aid to justify its own itself, nations do more onn their own then the UN. And force has far more applications then you can ever dream of....


Like Iraq? Or Vietnam? Or Ireland? Force should be the last resort most of the time as it is sending men to die. Force in Ireland= didn't work. Diplomacy and good works there= well peace in the long term.

Scandal? It is a large organisation, it is going to have corrupt men in it, and it still does many good works.

The UN needs to throw away the Veto's but won't be able to, no nation should have the magical power to just override everyone else. The USA and UK dealt the UN a blow with the war with Iraq, the UN should have the power to punish any nation who has done something wrong and should not have to deal with two of its biggest members behaving like spoilt children.

The Humanitarian effort and the peace keeping job it does is enough justification to the keep the UN.

Oh boy - you don't utter them most of the time? Can't say I could tell.

But it's because you love me. Obviously. :)

Or because I once in a while post some nicely calculated praise for one of your posts.

Take your pick. :p

Manipulator.

Of course the UN is worthless, it is nothing but a worldwide gathering of worthless liberals who are afriad of using force to deal with the murderous forces that threaten our world...on the grounds of "Human rights"

Another problem with the UN, it's a socialist organization that doesn't really recognize the sovernty of a nation, world wide tax anyone?

Yeah, and it's leader is the anti-christ too.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and it's leader is the anti-christ too.

:rolleyes:

Witch, witch! Burn the witch!

Its not worthless. Contrary to what neo-cons believe, the UN is NOT designed to drum up support for unnecessary wars around the world. It is designed to resolve conflicts, uphold human rights, and provide aid to those who need it. They do these things effectively.

Actually the conception of the UN was to reduce wars by always having at least this door open to diplomacy. They weren't supposed to have any power at all. It was diplomacy of last resort.

But over the years they have been used for other things which expanded their role in both good and bad ways. They aren't supposed to be a humanitarian agency or a human rights watchdog or a coalition building stage for punishment in the political arena.

Maybe if the UN went back to it's roots it would be effective once again. But that is a pipe dream, because no one (or no agency)willingly gives up power and influence once they have it.