NationStates Jolt Archive

I always hear the right-wingers say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth. Usually this is on a thread about something else, so the subject is moved past as the discussion continues. This makes me curious, as I don't often see people extol the UN's accomplishments.

Anyway, what are some GOOD things about the UN?

It's UN American.

The HQ has a nice view of New York.

Their aid programs and peacekeeping forces?

The HQ has a nice view of New York.

Something isn't clicking here.
*thinks*
Nope, still can't make the connection.

Their aid programs and peacekeeping forces?
Ya, because they did such a great job in Rwanda and have since continued their honorable tradtion of sitting on their hands while people get butchered.

I always hear the right-wingers say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth. Usually this is on a thread about something else, so the subject is moved past as the discussion continues. This makes me curious, as I don't often see people extol the UN's accomplishments.

Anyway, what are some GOOD things about the UN?

they make for good comedy: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19ycp_south-park-saddam_fun

How they went into Rwanda and saved all those people from slaughter. Then that other time when they bailed out all those poor people in Darfur. Can't forget how they helped the poor starving people in Iraq with the Oil for Food Program. Can't think of anything else right now but give me a minute and may come up with more.

UNESCO
UNICEF
World Health Organisation
Peacekeeping
The General Assembly
ICOJ

For me those are the six best parts of the UN, and parts that would be difficult to replicate in another fashion.

UNESCO
UNICEF
World Health Organisation
Peacekeeping
The General Assembly
ICOJ

For me those are the six best parts of the UN, and parts that would be difficult to replicate in another fashion.

Care to elaborate?

How they went into Rwanda and saved all those people from slaughter. Then that other time when they bailed out all those poor people in Darfur. Can't forget how they helped the poor starving people in Iraq with the Oil for Food Program. Can't think of anything else right now but give me a minute and may come up with more.

Lol, the willingness and power of the UN depends upon the willingness of it's member states, and it's most powerful member states is the US. Any inefficiency therefore reflects worst on the US.

WHO
UNICEF
United Nations Women's Council
UNESCO
IAEA

Some of their humanitarian programs are alright, but with the current structure, most of its political (and several of its 'humanitarian') orgranizations are the equivalent of letting the prisoners run a jail.
Human rights council, anybody?

Lol, the willingness and power of the UN depends upon the willingness of it's member states, and it's most powerful member states is the US. Any inefficiency therefore reflects worst on the US.

So does that mean the US gets to claim the bulk of the credit when the UN does something right?

Yeah, I didn't think so...

...typical of you and many other anti-Americans, these double standards that you hold to be truths.

The U.N. helped me start a coin collection. :) Found some cool stuff while digging around for those pennies. :p

Fact is that the UN has many departments which do good work in places where it's unlikely that anyone else would. I mean, who but the WFP would have been on the ground in Kenya giving food to the refugees that quickly and without strings attached?

It's framework for establishing peacekeeping missions is also an extremely important diplomatic tool. In fact, its function as a global forum is incredibly important for modern diplomacy and even international law.

Which doesn't excuse the fact that it's a big, messy bureaucracy that needs serious reform, and that the whole UNSC idea is sooo 1945.

Lol, the willingness and power of the UN depends upon the willingness of it's member states, and it's most powerful member states is the US. Any inefficiency therefore reflects worst on the US.

Wrong. Inefficiency in Rwanda, for example, reflects worst on Rwanda.

This is because the UN cannot, by its own rules, go into Rwanda and fix things. There's nothing stopping anyone else from taking matters into their own hands, but Rwanda has to ask for help, as Kuwait did, for example.

Well let's see.

The UN's chief role, to provide a forum to allow all nations of the world to communicate diplomatically that prevents international conflict, has worked wonderfully. Nations are no longer isolated by one another, and diplomacy isn't restricted to telegrams between heads of state, or adhoc conferences, like in the days of old. Every nation, from the democratic to despotic, has a voice.

Demand for UN Peacekeeping missions has increased exponentially over the last decade. Lesson's learned from Rwanda and Bosnia have revolutionised UN Peacekeeping doctrine, creating safe environments for peacebuilding efforts throughout war-torn nations. The total impartiality of UN forces guarantees that neither side in a conflict can be favoured, and so effective buffers between opponents can be created, and other peace-building exercises can go ahead without prejudice.

UN organisations such as the UNHCR, UNESCO and UNICEF provide vital services to the people of the world, co-ordinating refugee resettlement, providing international education/preserving world heritage and working to uphold the basic rights and needs of children, respectively.

As mentioned before, the best quality of these UN organisations are thier total impartiality, no-strings-attached doctrine. Medical and food aid can be administered to those in the world that require it, who otherwise may have to rely on shady private firms or charities, for example.

The UN isn't perfect, but it does indeed do a lot of good in the world, and is certainly worthy of support from it's constituent nations.

So does that mean the US gets to claim the bulk of the credit when the UN does something right?

Yeah, I didn't think so...

...typical of you and many other anti-Americans, these double standards that you hold to be truths.
Way to put words into my mouth.

Way to put words into my mouth.

OK...so you would agree then that the US does deserve the bulk of the credit when the UN does something right?

The UN needs to be given some balls and never will, as the US will not countenance even the chance of the UN interfering where the US are interfering.

Until they are given a real mandate, most peacekeeping jobs will become massacre watching jobs. I pity all the soldiers put in the impossible position that the UN is put in.

Some good things about the UN...

The aid programs are pretty nice. It has no teeth, is viewed as a joke, makes great comedic moves, such as calling for a ban on the death penalty across the globe! Ha!

The UN should just phase out all its diplomatic stuff and be a relief and aid program.

The forum it provides for discussion.
The unique legitimacy that it carries in the eyes of many people around the world.
The positive relief and peacekeeping efforts it undertakes.
The stability and cooperation the organization fosters, merely by existing.

The UN needs to be given some balls and never will, as the US will not countenance even the chance of the UN interfering where the US are interfering.


Same goes for Russia, China, France and the UK.

Fact is that the UN has many departments which do good work in places where it's unlikely that anyone else would. I mean, who but the WFP would have been on the ground in Kenya giving food to the refugees that quickly and without strings attached?

It's framework for establishing peacekeeping missions is also an extremely important diplomatic tool. In fact, its function as a global forum is incredibly important for modern diplomacy and even international law.

Which doesn't excuse the fact that it's a big, messy bureaucracy that needs serious reform, and that the whole UNSC idea is sooo 1945.Indeed. It's only when things go spectacularly wrong that things get noticed. The fact that you can go to a different country and not get quarantined because the WHO brought out an internationally recognized booklet for your shots is easy to miss. Especially if you never leave the country in the first place.

The forum it provides for discussion.
The unique legitimacy that it carries in the eyes of many people around the world.
The positive relief and peacekeeping efforts it undertakes.
The stability and cooperation the organization fosters, merely by existing.

Where, pray tell, is the UN viewed favorably?

Where, pray tell, is the UN viewed favorably?The real world, silly :)

I always hear the right-wingers

There's nothing right or left-winged about hatred.

say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth.

When the UN supports the US, such people say we have a nice Coalition Of The Willing. When it doesn't, it becomes an evil bunch of socialists out to destroy democracy and sell the nation to Al Qaeda. This says much more about such people than the UN.

Fact is that the UN has many departments which do good work in places where it's unlikely that anyone else would. I mean, who but the WFP would have been on the ground in Kenya giving food to the refugees that quickly and without strings attached?

It's framework for establishing peacekeeping missions is also an extremely important diplomatic tool. In fact, its function as a global forum is incredibly important for modern diplomacy and even international law.

Which doesn't excuse the fact that it's a big, messy bureaucracy that needs serious reform, and that the whole UNSC idea is sooo 1945.

I support this statement.

I always feel that those who argue that the US should withdraw from the UN is either wilfully ignorant, seriously ill-informed, or... well, what can you call those survivalists who live in the mountains and fear that the UN is going to invade the US?

Yeah.

There are a lot of UN projects we take for granted today, and we simply don't see the good work that's done.

well the world isn't a radioactive wasteland so I say its a rather dandy idea

*waits for someone to ask me to prove that* :D

Same goes for Russia, China, France and the UK.

Egypt could never run the Suez canal!

The best thing about the UN is not it's departments or it's programs or it's law or it's treaties or any of that. The best thing about the UN is what it is: A meeting ground, where nations from all around the world can come and speak freely, having their voice heard by other nations, regardless of what history they may have with the other nations in attendance. It is a place where governments can reach the ears of many different worlds at once and find real solutions to real international problems. For that alone, the US should keep and stay in the UN.

I always hear the right-wingers say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth. Usually this is on a thread about something else, so the subject is moved past as the discussion continues. This makes me curious, as I don't often see people extol the UN's accomplishments.

Anyway, what are some GOOD things about the UN?

At one point it didn't exist. That is, for me, the best part of the UN... Ah, those were the days.

As a comic sidenote, I created the facebook group "Dissolve the U.N." :D

(It has like 9 whole members :()

That is nice about your facebook membership. I would join it, but I support the U.N because of its food aid programs, its peacekeeping missions, a large majority having been successful and for the humanitarians who have acted because of the U.N that might not have acted in the ways they did if the U.N did not exist. So I can't join your facebook group sorry.

Also socialists do no run the U.N, people who believe in Humanity and all its good, or humanitarians, run the U.N. If that in right-wing circles translate to being a socialist organization then so be it. I hear Nato isn't doing much better.

At one point it didn't exist. That is, for me, the best part of the UN... Ah, those were the days.

As a comic sidenote, I created the facebook group "Dissolve the U.N." :D

(It has like 9 whole members :()

10 now. :)

Warmest Welcomes!

Thanks. I just invited 11 others to join, too.

10 now. :)

Warmest Welcomes!

*World Food Programme delivering food to poor countries (which subsequently get stolen after the UN transfers control of the shipments).

*WHO curing smallpox and in-process of curing polio.

*Saving South South Korea.
*Saving Kuwait.
*Saving (kind of) Kosovo.
*Aiding East Timor and Montenegro establishing democratic governments.

*Election observance.
*Peacekeeping.
*Prosecution of Rwandan and Serbian war criminals.
*UNICEF

The list goes on and on. The problem is that western countries don't get much of the benefits of the UN because we aren't broke-ass poor.

I always hear the right-wingers say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth. Usually this is on a thread about something else, so the subject is moved past as the discussion continues. This makes me curious, as I don't often see people extol the UN's accomplishments.

Anyway, what are some GOOD things about the UN?

(*thinks for a minute*)

Nope, sorry, can't think of anything, except, despite their best efforts to do so, they haven't managed to destroy Israel.

It's UN American.

OK, what is this supposed to mean? :confused:

Ya, because they did such a great job in Rwanda and have since continued their honorable tradtion of sitting on their hands while people get butchered.

The UN has hosted more wars since its inception than occured in any century before it existed. It is accomplishing exactly the opposite of what it was supposedly founded for (i.e. "to bring peace to the world").

The U.N. helped me start a coin collection. :) Found some cool stuff while digging around for those pennies. :p

That sounds like something Lunatic Goofballs would say.

The biggest reason I support the U.N. is because of the WHO, which
CURED THE DISEASE THAT KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER DISEASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Small pox, that is.

I think that more than makes up any political shortcomings they have.

That real estate the UN complex is on is pure gold. In a city like NYC where it cost half your check to live in a shitty apartment, it's a damn outrage.

For the record, I'm not really interested in the right-winger "The UN should be evicted from New York" posts. I've heard them all a billion times.

So only right-wingers have enough common knowledge to observe that the UN is corrupt, ineffective and hypocritical?

It's not exactly like you are making a great case for the left then.

So only right-wingers have enough common knowledge to observe that the UN is corrupt, ineffective and hypocritical?

It's not exactly like you are making a great case for the left then.


Prove that the U.N is corrupt. And then show that America isn't as corrupt. "Iraq scandal worth billion, Mercenaries in Iraq (Blackwater), and scandals throughout U.S history".

So if U.N. is corrupt, so is U.S and it needs to be dissolved as well as some of it is prime real estate.

The UN hasn't brought world peace so it must be abolished.

Also there has been mismanagement and corruption and any organization that has had these things should dissolve.

You want me to what list about 1,000 articles then?

Please, you want me to post evidence that Tuesday follows Monday or the sky is dark at night too?

Spending my time doing research on the obvious for the LCD is not exactly my thing. You should try doing some actual research on the UN if you want to find out about the corruption.

You want me to what list about 1,000 articles then?

Please, you want me to post evidence that Tuesday follows Monday or the sky is dark at night too?

Spending my time doing research on the obvious for the LCD is not exactly my thing. You should try doing some actual research on the UN if you want to find out about the corruption.

You're asserting something, so you should provide proof. So post proof, or stop expecting people to bother with you.

Once again, saying the UN is corrupt is like saying that there are 24 hours in a day. It's basic knowledge, not something you need to spend time citing. Anyone that doesn't know the UN has been involved in numerous scandals is certainly not worth the effort. But for the record, you are claiming the UN is not corrupt right?

The real world, silly :)

The US is in the real world, and no one I know likes it. Most think its a joke. So please, where is the UN viewed favorably?

It's only existed for about 60 years (< WOW already 60! *cries*) or so. That's about it.




EDIT: Damn you Der Teutoniker for taking my ideas before I thought of them! :P

Once again, saying the UN is corrupt is like saying that there are 24 hours in a day. It's basic knowledge, not something you need to spend time citing. Anyone that doesn't know the UN has been involved in numerous scandals is certainly not worth the effort. But for the record, you are claiming the UN is not corrupt right?

Tell me, what governance structure is not corrupt? There is corruption in the US government, yet I don't see you advocating that we eliminate it. You must prove that the UN is corrupt to a degree to which it would be good to rid ourselves of it.

The UN hasn't brought world peace so it must be abolished.

Also there has been mismanagement and corruption and any organization that has had these things should dissolve.

Yes, so every governmental body in the world. Right down to city councils.

It's only existed for about 60 years (< WOW already 60! *cries*) or so. That's about it.




EDIT: Damn you Der Teutoniker for taking my ideas before I thought of them! :P

I am pretty much teh good.

What ideas exactly?

The biggest reason I support the U.N. is because of the WHO, which
CURED THE DISEASE THAT KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER DISEASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

Small pox, that is.

I think that more than makes up any political shortcomings they have.

A ship doesn't sail by yesterday's wind. Why should the UN continue to exist.

(Thank you Louis L'amour!)

That would work if apples were oranges.

You see, a government may be corrupt, but you have to look at the benefits as well.

What are the benefits of the UN exactly? What purpose has served except to take money, give equal voices to despots and basically do nothing but bitch about violations?

That would work if apples were oranges.

You see, a government may be corrupt, but you have to look at the benefits as well.

What are the benefits of the UN exactly? What purpose has served except to take money, give equal voices to despots and basically do nothing but bitch about violations?

The UN is supposed to do anything else? Who knew?

That would work if apples were oranges.

You see, a government may be corrupt, but you have to look at the benefits as well.

What are the benefits of the UN exactly? What purpose has served except to take money, give equal voices to despots and basically do nothing but bitch about violations?

Try reading the first two pages of the thread, where you'll find many benefits of the UN being espoused.

A ship doesn't sail by yesterday's wind. Why should the UN continue to exist.

(Thank you Louis L'amour!)
Its polio and malaria campaigns, its disaster relief efforts and UNICEF?

Prove that the U.N is corrupt. And then show that America isn't as corrupt. "Iraq scandal worth billion, Mercenaries in Iraq (Blackwater), and scandals throughout U.S history".

So if U.N. is corrupt, so is U.S and it needs to be dissolved as well as some of it is prime real estate.

careful now everyone else has managed to keep quite on the troll lets learn our lesson from the tribbles

Its polio and malaria campaigns, its disaster relief efforts and UNICEF?

Right, and no efforts towards either aim could be better administrated outside of the UN?

In that case, German National-socialism must be ok, because everyone knows that NSDAP supported, and constructed excellent infrastructure, and technology, so the things they did wrong should be overlooked.... Umm, no.

Right, and no efforts towards either aim could be better administrated outside of the UN?
Aye, because the WHO stops anyone else acting on such matters?
In that case, German National-socialism must be ok, because everyone knows that NSDAP supported, and constructed excellent infrastructure, and technology, so the things they did wrong should be overlooked.... Umm, no.
Yes, because the UN has set out to exterminate any racial groups, right? And create a racial hierachy for how the world should be run? And has launched and supported extremely bloody wars? And has a secret police service with powers of summary execution? Et al?

Way to utterly kill your own argument there.

I wasn't saying that the two were total parallels, merely that your argument was faulty, they contain some similarities, some non-similarities... I never said the UN was genocidal...
Comparing the UN to the Nazis was ludicrous, let's be honest.
though I notice how much they care about Darfur....
Enough to stump up the cash to hire Blackwater as part of a peacekeeping force that's soon to be deployed with AU troops is how much they care. They sure as hell don't come cheap.

Aye, because the WHO stops anyone else acting on such matters?

Yes, because the UN has set out to exterminate any racial groups, right? And create a racial hierachy for how the world should be run? And has launched and supported extremely bloody wars? And has a secret police service with powers of summary execution? Et al?

Way to utterly kill your own argument there.

I wasn't saying that the two were total parallels, merely that your argument was faulty, they contain some similarities, some non-similarities... I never said the UN was genocidal... though I notice how much they care about Darfur....

Here is what I'll say about the UN, since I've been to model UN.

Is the UN weak... definetely... (UN army sucks)

Is it corrupt... arguably... (I mean its Western dominated not a single country in the South on the security council)

But you know what? The UN wasn't meant to be an global army. It was meant to be a forum for negotiations and in that matter its worked decently. Sure they can't agree on anything but you don't see anyone pulling off a stunt like Japan did. Essentially invading a country and then refusing to talk. The UN is flawed but its a start in the direction of global negotiations...a pretty crappy one but we all have to start somewhere.

:mp5:

The UN is flawed but its a start in the direction of global negotiations...a pretty crappy one but we all have to start somewhere.

I pretty much agree with this statement.

Comparing the UN to the Nazis was ludicrous, let's be honest.

I wasn't making a complete comparison, merely illustrating a similar point as you to show that though some facet of the UN maight be trying to do some good, that does not make the entirety of the UN good.

Enough to stump up the cash to hire Blackwater as part of a peacekeeping force that's soon to be deployed with AU troops is how much they care. They sure as hell don't come cheap.

It's only been... how many years?

It's only been... how many years?
Look, the question is what "the UN" is supposed to do about it. Decisions like how to structure and when to send a peacekeeping force are made by the member governments, not by the organisation itself.

As you may know, the US has been pushing for more drastic action for a long time, as have some other governments. But many other countries are for some reason opposed (many for "national sovereignty" reasons, which you may understand quite well). Since the UN General Assembly is to some extent democratic, that's where the problem lies. Do you honestly think that Kofi Annan or Ban Ki Moon wouldn't want those people to get help?

There is very little good about the UN

It is UNuseful.

Yes, I am extremely childish.

Look, the question is what "the UN" is supposed to do about it. Decisions like how to structure and when to send a peacekeeping force are made by the member governments, not by the organisation itself.

As you may know, the US has been pushing for more drastic action for a long time, as have some other governments. But many other countries are for some reason opposed (many for "national sovereignty" reasons, which you may understand quite well). Since the UN General Assembly is to some extent democratic, that's where the problem lies. Do you honestly think that Kofi Annan or Ban Ki Moon wouldn't want those people to get help?

So, it's foundation is problematic... dissolve it.

So, it's foundation is problematic... dissolve it.
And replace it with what?

And replace it with what?

Nothing sounds good.

And replace it with what?

The US State Department.

That would work if apples were oranges.

You see, a government may be corrupt, but you have to look at the benefits as well.

What are the benefits of the UN exactly? What purpose has served except to take money, give equal voices to despots and basically do nothing but bitch about violations?

And what defines a 'despot', let me guess... It's any country which rejects the 'Washington Consensus'? Hypocrisy.

Nothing sounds good.
:rolleyes:

You wanna replace this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_System) with nothing? Even though the world is more and more closely interconnected? Even though the number of truly global issues is growing a lot faster the longer this goes on? Even though the world is turning multipolar and much more complex?

That's just not a good idea.

:rolleyes:

You wanna replace this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_System) with nothing? Even though the world is more and more closely interconnected? Even though the number of truly global issues is growing a lot faster the longer this goes on? Even though the world is turning multipolar and much more complex?

That's just not a good idea.

Pretty much, yeah. To hell with the UN. The only reason the US is still in the UN is to make sure the UN doesn't fuck with us (veto power is awesome).

lol, the irony is that all these stereotypical gung-ho americans posting in here are going to need the UN once the US isn't the world's sole superpower. Which is fairly inevitable, and just a question of when in the next few decades it happens.

But you know, 40 years down the line when the likes of china and india have far surpassed anyone else on economic and military power, I'm sure the whole "we'll do what we want, when we want" attitude will fade pretty quickly from American politics.

lol, the irony is that all these stereotypical gung-ho americans posting in here are going to need the UN once the US isn't the world's sole superpower. Which is fairly inevitable, and just a question of when in the next few decades it happens.

But you know, 40 years down the line when the likes of china and india have far surpassed anyone else on economic and military power, I'm sure the whole "we'll do what we want, when we want" attitude will fade pretty quickly from American politics.

Our power will be challenged, yes, and maybe even surpassed, but we'll always have the capability of turning China into glass if they start shit. We don't need, nor want the UN meddling in our affairs.

I'm more of 'do what we want, when we want, but think about it real hard first' mindset when it comes to foreign policy.

lol, the irony is that all these stereotypical gung-ho americans posting in here are going to need the UN once the US isn't the world's sole superpower. Which is fairly inevitable, and just a question of when in the next few decades it happens.

But you know, 40 years down the line when the likes of china and india have far surpassed anyone else on economic and military power, I'm sure the whole "we'll do what we want, when we want" attitude will fade pretty quickly from American politics.

Doubtful... I disagree with what the UN is, not only that it is politically restricting.

I seriously have to LOL at the US 'whateva I'll do what I want' warmongers and anti-UN nuts, I mean seriously guys we don't want to hear about 'flattening the world with nukes' or 'plate glass', please just go back to playing America's Army already...:rolleyes:

I seriously have to LOL at the US 'whateva I'll do what I want' warmongers and anti-UN nuts, I mean seriously guys we don't want to hear about 'flattening the world with nukes' or 'plate glass', please just go back to playing America's Army already...:rolleyes:

I'm not saying we should go to war, if you read my post you would know that. I merely stated we *could* turn whoever started shit with us into glass, if we so desired, and that we don't need or want the UN's help. I never called for war.

A ship doesn't sail by yesterday's wind. Why should the UN continue to exist.
Most of the arguments against the UN are because they did something bad in the past. Why should we discontinue the UN when it did something bad in the past, considering that all that matters is the present and the future.

I'm being sarcastic, by the way. I don't think we should just forget the past and focus on the present.


I guess you didn't get my point. The UN is still working on curing diseases and improving the standard of living across the world with the WHO and Unicef and whatnot. I provide past instances to show that it has worked (curing diseases, improving standard of living etc, etc,), and since it has worked in the past it is more likely to work in the future and present since they have experience, and they have shown themselves capable of fulfilling gigantic goals, and following through with them. After all, curing a major disease is one thing, totally eradicating it from nature is entirely another. Do you fully understand the enormity of that project? In my opinion, it is one of the biggest accomplishments of the 20th century, and you cannot discount the organization that did it because it's in the past.

If I were a funder of research, I wouldn't cut funding from the group who cured cancer simply because they did it in the past and that we must do everything based on what is in the present and future.

Same as I think we should take our lessons from the past. If I wanted to get in a fist fight with an elephant, but a man with half his face missing from when he also got into a fist fight with an elephant but almost died tries to stop me, I would not say "Oh, what happened to your face is in the past. What reason do you have to give that I should fight the elephant now with my bare hands? The past is gone and dead, it no longer applies since I can only take examples from the present."

That is a ridiculous example, of course, but I love the idea of getting into a fist fight with an elephant. It'd be even cooler if the elephant has a flamethrower on its ears.

But I digress.

No, the past is a perfectly good example of the amazing work the UN has done in the past, and a good reason that the UN will continue to do amazing work.

This is not to suggest that they are good at everything. I have a distrust in anything that forces things from people that they do not wish to give and then forces things upon them that they do not wish to have. Sometimes it's just the former. I think that the good the UN has done more than outweighs their screw ups by a fair margin on the scales, and shows what the UN can do.

I seriously have to LOL at the US 'whateva I'll do what I want' warmongers and anti-UN nuts, I mean seriously guys we don't want to hear about 'flattening the world with nukes' or 'plate glass', please just go back to playing America's Army already...:rolleyes:

Speaking of :rolleyes: ...you never answered my question.

A ship doesn't sail by yesterday's wind. Why should the UN continue to exist.

What an exceptionally vapid argument. I guess anything began "yesterday" doesn't deserve to "continue to exist," because hey it's the past. Let's abolish the US Constitution and all modern laws. Ships don't sail by yesterday's winds! For that matter, let's kill anyone born on or before right now.

The best thing about the UN is that it doesn't have any real power.

I always hear the right-wingers say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth. Usually this is on a thread about something else, so the subject is moved past as the discussion continues. This makes me curious, as I don't often see people extol the UN's accomplishments.

Anyway, what are some GOOD things about the UN?

Now that's a damn good question!

A ship doesn't sail by yesterday's wind. Why should the UN continue to exist.

(Thank you Louis L'amour!)

Not unless the ship happens to be the S.S. Israel and the wind keeps sounding like "Holocaust."

-----

The "right" bitching about the UN's apparent uselessness and impotence are basically trying to have their cake and eat it as well. It serves their country's purpose to have the UN be unable to flex formidable muscles on its own, not to mention regarding one instance of corruption the Food for Oil plans were presented before the U.S. but approved neverthessl. Yet despite that knowledge they continue to wank off to the "UN is irrelevant and corrupt" porn.

Speaking of :rolleyes: ...you never answered my question.

I am sorry, I have forgotten what it was.

It'd be even cooler if the elephant has a flamethrower on its ears.

To stay on the UN topic... would a flamethrower (no matter how apparently natural) still count as fist-fighting?

they continue to wank off to the "UN is irrelevant and corrupt" porn.

:D my favourite kind.

(Umm, what kind of porn is that exaclty?)

What an exceptionally vapid argument. I guess anything began "yesterday" doesn't deserve to "continue to exist," because hey it's the past. Let's abolish the US Constitution and all modern laws. Ships don't sail by yesterday's winds! For that matter, let's kill anyone born on or before right now.

Wow, I guess everyone exaggerated my point. My comment was in response to an alarming number of people who claimed that prior cured diseases is why the UN should be kept... my point was to say that there needs to be more. I think that the UN is currently pretty useless, disagree if you must... I am not saying that anything prior to this second exactly... or this one... or this one... crap can't type fast enough! Sorry, back on track; that anythigng prior to this second is useless. Not at all, quite the contrary, however, I feel that the UN is an archaic idea that needs to be put to rest. All it has become is a place where little people with big egos can go, and strut their stuff, and a place where international corruption can be easily seeded.

OK...so you would agree then that the US does deserve the bulk of the credit when the UN does something right?

When the UN does something right, the UN deserves the bulk of the credit. When the United States, France, China, Russia, or United Kingdom screw something up, the United States, France, China, Russia or United Kingdom deserve the bulk of the blame.

The best thing about the UN is that it doesn't have any real power.

By design.

:D my favourite kind.

(Umm, what kind of porn is that exaclty?)

It's usually accompanied by worshiping pictures of John Bolton and excessive masturbation to Ghouliani videos.

I am sorry, I have forgotten what it was.

Why you can't check the first page of the thread yourself, I cannot imagine, but here you go...

Lol, the willingness and power of the UN depends upon the willingness of it's member states, and it's most powerful member states is the US. Any inefficiency therefore reflects worst on the US.

So does that mean the US gets to claim the bulk of the credit when the UN does something right?

Yeah, I didn't think so...

...typical of you and many other anti-Americans, these double standards that you hold to be truths.

Way to put words into my mouth.

OK...so you would agree then that the US does deserve the bulk of the credit when the UN does something right?

So I'll ask again...since you claim the US gets the most blame for UN inefficiencies, then the US should subsequently get the most credit for UN successes, correct?

When the UN does something right, the UN deserves the bulk of the credit. When the United States, France, China, Russia, or United Kingdom screw something up, the United States, France, China, Russia or United Kingdom deserve the bulk of the blame.

I'm aware of that...tell it to EA.

By design.

Thank god.

If you can show me anything 'good' done by the UN on the initiative of the US, sure.

I see an impressive amount of willful ignorance in this thread. Not a single good thing? Wowza. Talk about dishonesty.

If you can show me anything 'good' done by the UN on the initiative of the US, sure.
Err the Korean War stopped Kim-Il-Sung and now Kim-Jong-Il from ruling the whole of Korea in their weird and unpleasant way?

I always hear the right-wingers say things like "We should leave the UN and then evict them from New York," and then they bitch about how it's ineffective and a waste of money and time and so on and so forth. Usually this is on a thread about something else, so the subject is moved past as the discussion continues. This makes me curious, as I don't often see people extol the UN's accomplishments.

Anyway, what are some GOOD things about the UN?

Darn. I thought you were talking about the NS UN, which in my view signed its death warrant by passing the Anti-Slavery Act. It is a body composed of less than 1/3 of the NS world's nations, almost none of which have any military standing compared to the rest, and sought to impose its will upon the other 2/3 by trying to force them to obey this act. Smart policy, but then like most of the rest of these resolutions, have good intentions but poorly worded and even more poorly instituted.

The real UN at least allows the smaller nations a forum in which to express their views and with each nation in the Security Council having veto power helps ensure when action is taken it is truly more of a consensus than most nations have. It is more good than bad in my view.

Prove that the U.N is corrupt. And then show that America isn't as corrupt. "Iraq scandal worth billion, Mercenaries in Iraq (Blackwater), and scandals throughout U.S history".

So if U.N. is corrupt, so is U.S and it needs to be dissolved as well as some of it is prime real estate.

I laughed when I read this. Prove that the UN is corrupt? Ever heard of the Oil for Food scandle where people at the UN were actually getting rich from it due to kickbacks from Saddam Hussein and the fact that Saddam was being allowed to get things he shouldn't have gotten due to embargoes and the like?

Time to inject some reality:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10438482
The rewards of beavering away

The UN's new secretary-general is neither a dazzler nor a grandstander, but (at last) he has some things to show for his long hours and dogged phone calls

A good little insight into what the UN is all about.

Thank god.

What's puzzling is why so many people so strongly oppose an organization that isn't really capable of doing much of anything troublesome.

I'm aware of that.


Many others are not.

If you can show me anything 'good' done by the UN on the initiative of the US, sure.

Persian Gulf War

I laughed when I read this. Prove that the UN is corrupt? Ever heard of the Oil for Food scandle where people at the UN were actually getting rich from it due to kickbacks from Saddam Hussein and the fact that Saddam was being allowed to get things he shouldn't have gotten due to embargoes and the like?

Actually er... No. No UN staff have ever been proven to have corruptly attained illicit payments from the Oil for Food program. Not that the UN bureacracy had anything to do with the exchange of money and goods within the program anyway. It was almost entirely handled by private companies. Many of them US companies.

lol, the irony is that all these stereotypical gung-ho americans posting in here are going to need the UN once the US isn't the world's sole superpower. Which is fairly inevitable, and just a question of when in the next few decades it happens.

Why would the UN protect America? They didn't protect Darfur until it was too late, and those cooks have far more sympathy for poor black Africans that love them then rich white Americans who have dominated the world for 80 years. If anything, we've made the wise decision by building up our millitary, overseas bases and giving our troops a lot of fire training in Iraq to boot. At least that way we can deal with what comes next.

But you know, 40 years down the line when the likes of china and india have far surpassed anyone else on economic and military power, I'm sure the whole "we'll do what we want, when we want" attitude will fade pretty quickly from American politics.

Far surpassed? Who said far surpassed? Last I read they only said surpassed barely. As America is still growing economically at the pace of a snail with severe seizures, India is dealing with a water shortage that makes Georgia in drought look like the garden of eden, and China has the worlds worse social security problem and none of the first world funds to deal with it.

Err the Korean War stopped Kim-Il-Sung and now Kim-Jong-Il from ruling the whole of Korea in their weird and unpleasant way?
Persian Gulf War
Still waiting...

Still waiting...

So all "negatives" relating to the UN are primarily the US's fault, but we must come up with specific instances in regards to "positives"?

How is it that a blanket generalization is suitable for your side of the argument and not for the other?