NationStates Jolt Archive

As it stands today, the United Nations is essentially a toothless lion; it has a great deal of potential power and authority, but lacks real concrete power. So I ask you... should the UN be disbanded or reformed, or should it be left alone the way it is?

I myself would love to see a UN with its own military peacekeeping force not dependant on member-states, as well as the Security Council losing their oh-so-precious veto power. Instead, I'd recommend giving the Council nations a massive influx of extra votes, so they can swing resolutions if they really want to, but not necessarily stop them cold. The UN has the potential to finally bring some form of higher-authority to the ever-warring nations we have today, but as it stands... it can't do more than shout catcalls fro mthe sidelines and hope the other guys get pissed off enough to stop.

Is the United Nations Necessary?

No

No

...and for future reference, please provide more than a flat-out answer. Nothing irks me more than people throwing out declarations/statements without backing them up or explaining themselves...

...and for future reference, please provide more than a flat-out answer. Nothing irks me more than people throwing out declarations/statements without backing them up or explaining themselves...

I disagree. ;)

...and for future reference, please provide more than a flat-out answer. Nothing irks me more than people throwing out declarations/statements without backing them up or explaining themselves...

You're wrong.

You're wrong.

How can I be wrong, considering it's an opinion on something that is inherently rude?

How can I be wrong, considering it's an opinion on something that is inherently rude?

Easily

To show that he is wrong in claiming "Nothing irks me more than people throwing out declarations/statements without backing them up or explaining themselves", all we need do is show an example of something that has irked him more.

...and for future reference, please provide more than a flat-out answer. Nothing irks me more than people throwing out declarations/statements without backing them up or explaining themselves...

Just for future reference, telling folks exactly what irks you is the most effective way to get them to do it more. Especially here.

To steal a coined phrase...think about it for a moment.

Just for future reference, telling folks exactly what irks you is the most effective way to get them to do it more. Especially here.

To steal a coined phrase...think about it for a moment.

We wouldn't do anything resembling that...
we would do exactly that.
:D

On Topic.
I don't like the thought of a UN-only military force... who is controlling it? There is no democratic process behind the UN, and those forces would go mainly unchecked.

If the UN were reformed to allow a more direct democratic input and maybe some checks and balances of some nature, then maybe.
But that'll head further in direction of a World government than most people seem to like.

I think the UN needs to be reformed in a way that will take into consideration the end of the Cold War. For starters, the Security Council should go.

I think the UN needs to be reformed in a way that will take into consideration the end of the Cold War. For starters, the Security Council should go.

Why?

Why?

It just might have something to do with the fact that countries are able to protect their own interests, for better or for worse. Often times the latter.

Having the UN around in some form or another is essential, as it provides an open format for diplomacy and debate on international issues, where the public can keep an eye on them. It could be strengthened a bit, but it is still essential.

Is the United Nations Necessary? Yes.
Is the United Nations more than the Security Council? Hell yes.
Has this topic been done before? Yes! Oh yes!
Is that why I don't bother writing more in this post? YEEEEEEEEEEES!!!

*Orgasms*

Is the United Nations Necessary? Yes.
Is the United Nations more than the Security Council? Hell yes.
Has this topic been done before? Yes! Oh yes!
Is that why I don't bother writing more in this post? YEEEEEEEEEEES!!!

*Orgasms*

*Backs away, avoiding eye contact and gently whistling*

Has this topic been done before? Yes! Oh yes!

Has this topic been done before very recently? Yes

Why?
Permanent members have too much say in it, not least because their veto power effectively blocks any motion that is uncomfortable to any one of them. It's discredited beyond repair.

Permanent members have too much say in it, not least because their veto power effectively blocks any motion that is uncomfortable to any one of them. It's discredited beyond repair.

Fair enough.

Do you think anything should replace it? If so what?

I don't really think the UN should be given more power than it does. The idea of another nation's leadership being able to enforce its own rules upon me and my country does not bring pleasant feelings on the subject.

Do you think anything should replace it?
I think so.
If so what?
Hey, do you expect the firemen to rebuild your house after they had their way with it? ;)
IOW, I gave it not enough thought to come up with anything more than a vague notion of "something more representative to the international community".

God no, the UN isn't necessary. Collective security simply establishes imperialistic hegemony as powerful interests gain the strength to legislate to the world their demands, and as collective security is the notion on which the UN was founded upon I vehemently oppose it.

As it stands today, the United Nations is essentially a toothless lion; it has a great deal of potential power and authority, but lacks real concrete power. So I ask you... should the UN be disbanded or reformed, or should it be left alone the way it is?

I myself would love to see a UN with its own military peacekeeping force not dependant on member-states, as well as the Security Council losing their oh-so-precious veto power. Instead, I'd recommend giving the Council nations a massive influx of extra votes, so they can swing resolutions if they really want to, but not necessarily stop them cold. The UN has the potential to finally bring some form of higher-authority to the ever-warring nations we have today, but as it stands... it can't do more than shout catcalls fro mthe sidelines and hope the other guys get pissed off enough to stop.

The UN is not necessary. Yes, it does provide a forum for nations to talk about issues, but nations can talk to one another without the UN.

Also, I completely disagree with your dream of the UN. A toothless UN is good. I'd never want my country to kow tow to a Strong UN, one world government wanna-be commitee. A toothless UN suits the goals of my country just fine. Thanks you very much.

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/dilbert1.gif

As it stands today, the United Nations is essentially a toothless lion; it has a great deal of potential power and authority, but lacks real concrete power. So I ask you... should the UN be disbanded or reformed, or should it be left alone the way it is?

I myself would love to see a UN with its own military peacekeeping force not dependant on member-states, as well as the Security Council losing their oh-so-precious veto power. Instead, I'd recommend giving the Council nations a massive influx of extra votes, so they can swing resolutions if they really want to, but not necessarily stop them cold. The UN has the potential to finally bring some form of higher-authority to the ever-warring nations we have today, but as it stands... it can't do more than shout catcalls fro mthe sidelines and hope the other guys get pissed off enough to stop.

UN is a joke with countries like Libya in human rights commissions.

It just might have something to do with the fact that countries are able to protect their own interests, for better or for worse. Often times the latter.

So the fuck what? If it benefits the nation x to protects its interests, then nation x should do it. Nation y can go to hell.

Is the United Nations Necessary? Yes.
Is the United Nations more than the Security Council? Hell yes.
Has this topic been done before? Yes! Oh yes!
Is that why I don't bother writing more in this post? YEEEEEEEEEEES!!!

*Orgasms*

*hands you a mop*

So the fuck what? If it benefits the nation x to protects its interests, then nation x should do it. Nation y can go to hell.

Hmm... let's play MadLibs with this broad statement.

So the fuck what? If it benefits [Iran] to protects its interests, then [Iran] should do it. [The United States] can go to hell.

Or let's see this one:

So the fuck what? If it benefits [China] to protects its interests, then [China] should do it. [Tibet] can go to hell.

This is fun!

The UN is not necessary. Yes, it does provide a forum for nations to talk about issues, but nations can talk to one another without the UN.

Also, I completely disagree with your dream of the UN. A toothless UN is good. I'd never want my country to kow tow to a Strong UN, one world government wanna-be commitee. A toothless UN suits the goals of my country just fine. Thanks you very much.

I'd rather not see the human race destroy itself out of ignorance and idiocy for the next thousand years, but if you'd rather we all just go about our business and and continue this lovely pattern we have going, feel free.

So the fuck what? If it benefits the nation x to protects its interests, then nation x should do it. Nation y can go to hell.

Nothing brings about nuclear holocausts faster than this mentality.


Nationalism is not a good thing.

Hmm... let's play MadLibs with this broad statement.



Or let's see this one:



This is fun!

If I was a citizen of China or Iran, I would agree. But, since I live in America, it should read: America can defend its interests and Iran can go to hell.

I'd rather not see the human race destroy itself out of ignorance and idiocy for the next thousand years, but if you'd rather we all just go about our business and and continue this lovely pattern we have going, feel free.

Pfft.

Do you think a one world government will bring peace and love to the entire world?

I think it would bring a boot stomping on our faces until the end of the world.

Nothing brings about nuclear holocausts faster than this mentality.


Nationalism is not a good thing.

Nationalism may not be good, but internationalism is worse.

But, I don't think nationalism is bad. I think it is mainly neutral, with a slight leaning towards good. Nah, fuck it. Nationalism is good.

Internationalism is bad.

If I was a citizen of China or Iran, I would agree. But, since I live in America, it should read: America can defend its interests and Iran can go to hell.

In other words, you only agree with it when it suits your interests.

Nationalism may not be good, but internationalism is worse.

But, I don't think nationalism is bad. I think it is mainly neutral, with a slight leaning towards good. Nah, fuck it. Nationalism is good.

Internationalism is bad.

You think an idea that has started at least two of the bloodiest conflicts in the worlds history are good?


Man youre fucked up. There is nothing good about nationalism. Its people like you in politics that make me expect a mushroom cloud to appear on the horizone any second.

In other words, you only agree with it when it suits your interests.

Not at all. China, Iran, or any other country have the right to defend their interests. However, they must back up their rights with force if other powers dislike their moves. Same for any country. Every country must back up its right with might.

Might makes right in international relations. It always has, and always will.

Pfft.

Do you think a one world government will bring peace and love to the entire world?

I think it would bring a boot stomping on our faces until the end of the world.

At first, of course it wouldn't work very well. But it needs to be done eventually, and not by conquest. The world needs a governing body that people enter into freely and democratically decide laws that affect everyone for the better. I'm not saying we give this gov't the ability to pass things like "All nations must convert to INSERT-RELIGION" or anything as radical as that, just a body that can effectively create a more open world and eliminate the endless cycle of warring nation-states.

Not at all. China, Iran, or any other country have the right to defend their interests. However, they must back up their rights with force if other powers dislike their moves. Same for any country. Every country must back up its right with might.

Might makes right in international relations. It always has, and always will.

If Might Makes Right, then why should the United States continue to support Israel with military goods and monetary contributions according to your logic? After all if Israel can't defend itself without American assistance it's not mighty enough to be right, again going by your logic.

You think an idea that has started at least two of the bloodiest conflicts in the worlds history are good?


Man youre fucked up. There is nothing good about nationalism. Its people like you in politics that make me expect a mushroom cloud to appear on the horizone any second.

Nationalism gives people motivation, the drive to improve their nations, and makes nations strong. Those are good things. It can be taken to excess, however.

I still say nationalism is mainly good, as it improves nations.

Nationalism gives people motivation, the drive to improve their nations, and makes nations strong. Those are good things. It can be taken to excess, however.

I still say nationalism is mainly good, as it improves nations.

But in the long run all it leads to is feelings of superiority... or an entitlement to dominate "lesser" nations.

If Might Makes Right, then why should the United States continue to support Israel with military goods and monetary contributions according to your logic? After all if Israel can't defend itself without American assistance it's not mighty enough to be right, again going by your logic.

Because having a strong ally in the middle east is a good thing? Because we want to?

Nationalism gives people motivation, the drive to improve their nations, and makes nations strong. Those are good things. It can be taken to excess, however.

I still say nationalism is mainly good, as it improves nations.

And costs millions of lives...


If improving the abstract concept of a "nation" outweighs the millions of tangable dead, then hey, thats your opinion.

But in the long run all it leads to is feelings of superiority... or an entitlement to dominate "lesser" nations.

Eh, probably.

I don't really care though.

If something benefits my nation, I don't care if it worsens another. They can rage and rail all they want. And if they try to do something about it they'll be squashed.

All things come to an end, but live up while its good!

And costs millions of lives...


If improving the abstract concept of a "nation" outweighs the millions of tangable dead, then hey, thats your opinion.


Cry me a river and play me the smallest violin and the world, why don't you?

Because having a strong ally in the middle east is a good thing? Because we want to?

But if they need that support, how can it be considered a strong ally? A strong ally would not need all that military and financial welfare in order to thrive.

If Iran supports the insurgents in Iraq and the United States cannot do anything to stop them, then would that make Iran right by might?

Cry me a river and play me the smallest violin and the world, why don't you?

Like I said, its the mentality that bettering ones "nation" and improving its standing in the world is worth millions of lives that makes me expect mushroom clouds to appear on the horizone.


Please never run for office.

But if they need that support, how can it be considered a strong ally? A strong ally would not need all that military and financial welfare in order to thrive.

If Iran supports the insurgents in Iraq and the United States cannot do anything to stop them, then would that make Iran right by might?

They're strong because we made them strong. I don't know, maybe they are doing our dirty work in the ME for us? Maybe we're playing them against other players in the ME? Who knows?

Oh we sure as hell could, except it seems like America is losing its balls. In days of old we'd have invaded and bombed Iran into submission. I'm not privy to high level plans or documents, so I don't know what we're doing about it.

Or maybe we decided that letting Iran hire some irregular militia to fight us is not worth the hassle of invading. (My bet is this is why)

Like I said, its the mentality that bettering ones "nation" and improving its standing in the world is worth millions of lives that makes me expect mushroom clouds to appear on the horizone.


Please never run for office.

I'm not planning to.

But for some reason, people have told me not to before. Others have told me to. :confused:

Nations are a waste of human creativity.
You don't need to compete against people from somewhere.
It's the kings of the old, the Politicians in power and recently the corporations exploiting the Global sale out who tell you to be proud of your nation and do everything to be different than the other nations instead of working with them for a goal we all have in common.

I'm not planning to.

But for some reason, people have told me not to before. Others have told me to. :confused:

Please listen to the first group :D

The only thing the U.N. has proved to enforce is the use over it's logo! Rather than getting off their lazy asses and going into Iraq, (Regardless of right and wrong, and who started it or not etc etc. The point of the organization is to bring about stability etc etc) Sudan, Congo, and so on, they chose to bully a small online game and force them to no longer use the UN name and logo. It's great to know the tax dollars of the people of a 144(?) nations are going to great use. And I was in Model UN for three years.

No

you're wrong.

you're wrong.

No sir, he is right. It is YOU who are wrong.

Nations are a waste of human creativity.
You don't need to compete against people from somewhere.
It's the kings of the old, the Politicians in power and recently the corporations exploiting the Global sale out who tell you to be proud of your nation and do everything to be different than the other nations instead of working with them for a goal we all have in common.

And let's pretend that non-political affiliates like UNICEF, WHO and UNESCO don't exist at all.

No sir, he is right. It is YOU who are wrong.

nuh uh, you're wrong too.

nuh uh, you're wrong too.

*sticks tongue out*

You're wrong!

They're strong because we made them strong. I don't know, maybe they are doing our dirty work in the ME for us? Maybe we're playing them against other players in the ME? Who knows?

Oh we sure as hell could, except it seems like America is losing its balls. In days of old we'd have invaded and bombed Iran into submission. I'm not privy to high level plans or documents, so I don't know what we're doing about it.

Or maybe we decided that letting Iran hire some irregular militia to fight us is not worth the hassle of invading. (My bet is this is why)

And can you think of any Western leader since WW2 who has been elected on a Warlord platform like yours?

*sticks tongue out*

You're wrong!

huh, well at least i don't spam as much as you do!
*blows raspberry*

God no, the UN isn't necessary. Collective security simply establishes imperialistic hegemony as powerful interests gain the strength to legislate to the world their demands, and as collective security is the notion on which the UN was founded upon I vehemently oppose it.

Agreed. The UN's history of imperialism is nauseating, as exemplified in their destruction of Katanga and terrorism against Somalia.

Is it nesisary? No. Does it do more good than harm? That is a more relevant question.

Personally I think it does enough good to justify keeping it around, though I do think the veto power can go to hell(impossible though eliminating it would be).

In 1945, just a couple of months after WW2, founding the UN was very reasonable and necessary, no doubt.

And it still is necessary. There are so many conflicts solved with the UN as intermediary. Just think about countries arguing borders, etnical conflicts, conflicts about distributions of land etc etc. Since WW2, the world has a forum to discuss disputes, which is very valuable because previous to ww2, most conflicts were solved through war in a Macchiavellist way. Of course, the UN isn't perfect ( Rwanda, Israeli-Palestine conflict ) but their aims are good and important and should not be neglected. Perhaps it should be reformed in a way it'd give them a stronger mandate.

They certainly don't seem to be doing too much at the moment.

EDIT: Except keeping up their exemplary record of not stopping genocides.

They certainly don't seem to be doing too much at the moment.

EDIT: Except keeping up their exemplary record of not stopping genocides.

When the UN doesn't have a full-time military force it can deploy where needs be and member nations often stall or attempt to block any attempts to rectify a problem, don't double-dip by then going around and saying the UN is incapable of stopping something it's not even properly equipped to handle.

Problem is, the same people who bitch about the UN's alleged impotence are also the same people who'd bitch even louder if it gained a set of balls in the form of a standing fully-capable non-volunteer military.

yes th UN or WA should be around as it gives the leaders of the Nationstates some sort of governing body(if u will) some onr to look to for help and guidance.
cheers!

When the UN doesn't have a full-time military force it can deploy where needs be and member nations often stall or attempt to block any attempts to rectify a problem, don't double-dip by then going around and saying the UN is incapable of stopping something it's not even properly equipped to handle.

Problem is, the same people who bitch about the UN's alleged impotence are also the same people who'd bitch even louder if it gained a set of balls in the form of a standing fully-capable non-volunteer military.

Yeah, that'd be great if the UN would grow a pair themselves and tell their members that the genocides are occurring, and let the nations which refuse to go stop them look bad, instead of themselves. They have made a concerted effort to not even use the word genocide to describe situations in the past, because it would mean they'd have to take action to stop them (there was a lot of talk about this during and after the Rwanda genocide).

Now, I'm not saying that the UN would be able to get their way in all situations (nor should they), but when they aren't even making the effort to stop situations so obvious and outrageous as genocides (which would seem to be exactly the sort of thing they should be doing) I lose all respect for them. As for a full time volunteer UN-force, sure. Find the volunteers, and the money, and I'd be all for it.

I think so.

Hey, do you expect the firemen to rebuild your house after they had their way with it? ;)
IOW, I gave it not enough thought to come up with anything more than a vague notion of "something more representative to the international community".

I was just curious, and hopeful :)

No. It's worse than useless.

you're wrong.

I'm right

It's a good idea/thing, but not actually necessary

I'm right

It's a good idea/thing, but not actually necessary

Do you all do this "nyah nyah" thing all the time?

Agreed. The UN's history of imperialism is nauseating, as exemplified in their destruction of Katanga and terrorism against Somalia.

Let's not forget the murderous sanctions on Iraq, which killed thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein other than geographic proximity (in fact, his cronies were more likely to survive due to their access to the political means of wealth redistribution than the average Iraqi who had to fend for himself.)

Do you all do this "nyah nyah" thing all the time?
No! We don't! So there!

Do you all do this "nyah nyah" thing all the time?

Not all the time, just when I'm really bored...

The UN is just as useless as American Imperialism is bad.

And we've ruined countries so we can buy cheaper bananas.

The UN is just as useless as American Imperialism is bad.

And we've ruined countries so we can buy cheaper bananas.

I like bananas.

Let's not forget the murderous sanctions on Iraq, which killed thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein other than geographic proximity (in fact, his cronies were more likely to survive due to their access to the political means of wealth redistribution than the average Iraqi who had to fend for himself.)

Of course.

You think an idea that has started at least two of the bloodiest conflicts in the worlds history are good?


Man youre fucked up. There is nothing good about nationalism. Its people like you in politics that make me expect a mushroom cloud to appear on the horizone any second.

world war I was pretty much Russia's failure to industrialize, and great likely hood of falling into chaos. which lead to Germany taking the initiative when Russia mobilized their forces in response to the Austria + Serbia incident(they had planned to take western Russia when and if Russia collapse to secure Germany proper). Nationalism was only the tool used to mobilize the population.

World War II was caused by the break down of the world trade (No great depression no Hitler) and allies refusal to make a deal with Hitler(he was willing to settle for telephone connections/radio broad cast rights between Germany and German majority Poland areas.
And this time nationalism was not only a tool for war but also a means to make sure the country didn't starve to death, not to mention it was used to defend the rest of the world from Germany and Japan.

I like bananas.

I like bananas too. :)