NationStates Jolt Archive

If this thread has already been done, please feel free to point me to it. :)

I'm interested to see what people think the biggest problem with the UN is, because I think most of us agree that, regardless of whether or not such an international organization is needed (I think it is, personally), the UN has failed in many regards and fallen down on the job many times in the past. So what's the biggest failure?

FWIW, I would say the biggest fundamental problem with the UN is the fact that any country was ever given veto power in the Security Council. International cooperation is moot if you allow anyone to reject an idea for whatever reason they wish.

The Rwandan Genocide

2 things need to change in the UN for it to work. Remove Veto power. Only allow democracies to join. then combine UN with NATO.

Well, those that know me will expect me to take to the stage so...

First of all, it's unclear what kind of failure we're supposed to be debating. Are we talking about failures in the actual structure of the UN, that must be fixed, or are we talking about mission failures, and how they could have been avoided?

Its biggest failure is probably the fact that the good stuff it does is not very interesting.

Their failure to prevent Global Thermonuclear War.

...oops.

2 things need to change in the UN for it to work. Remove Veto power. Only allow democracies to join. then combine UN with NATO.
Nah, not with NATO. And I think only allowing some in wouldn't be the best idea, as its supposed to present an alternative to war. I think countries like Russia, the USA and the UK really need to stop ignoring or using it only when it benefits them. That's what's been weakening the UN, more than anything.

Anyways, I think that this idea of democracies being the be-all-and-end-all is probably one of the biggest fallacies in the modern age. I'm not saying I don't like living one, definately not, but attempting to enforce it on others who haven't had their own time to develop their own method is bloody stupid.

Rwanda hands down. They fucked that up good and proper.

They did their job right in Korea, but except for that, the UN has been a military disaster.

I don't Veto was such a bad idea. I doubt the UN would still exist were it not for the Veto powers given to the opposing sides in the Cold War.

Its biggest problem is probably that it tries to assume too much responsibility when it neither has the power nor decisiveness required. Which leads to catastrophes like Rwanda.

2 things need to change in the UN for it to work. Remove Veto power. Only allow democracies to join. then combine UN with NATO.

Moving the UN to NATO?

I don't think so, if your going do that you might as well get rid of the UN. Some countries don't want anything to do with NATO...

Moving the UN to NATO?

I don't think so, if your going do that you might as well get rid of the UN. Some countries don't want anything to do with NATO...

I think he meant the other way around. Put NATO under the umbrella of the UN. NATO has the military structure that the UN only dreams about.

The Rwandan Genocide
That and, currently, Darfur.

But the UN is only as strong as its members allow it to be.

2 things need to change in the UN for it to work. Remove Veto power. Only allow democracies to join. then combine UN with NATO.

Sometimes, I have trouble counting to three too.

The people that are so determined to prove that the UN doesn't work that they almost go out of their way to make it not work.

That, and the veto.

Moving the UN to NATO?

I don't think so, if your going do that you might as well get rid of the UN. Some countries don't want anything to do with NATO...
Why the hell does NATO still exist, anyways?

Well, those that know me will expect me to take to the stage so...

First of all, it's unclear what kind of failure we're supposed to be debating. Are we talking about failures in the actual structure of the UN, that must be fixed, or are we talking about mission failures, and how they could have been avoided?

You're right, I was a bit ambiguous in the original wording.

My thoughts were that there are substantial fundamental failures or oversights in the basic structure of the UN that have led to several mission failures and inadequacies in international cooperation. Case in point: several people mentioned the Rwandan Genocide as a specific mission failure, and I couldn't agree more. The Rwandan Genocide, in my opinion, may be the single greatest mission failure in the history of the United Nations. But why did the UN fail to halt the genocide, which - given their superior training and equipment - should have been simple to avert, let alone let the killing go on for 100 days? Was it the failure of Kofi Annan and the Peacekeeping Office to recognize the potential for large-scale genocide, even after being warned by the leader of its own peacekeeping mission in Rwanda? Was it the reluctance of the powers in the UN to consign their own troops to a country that had little innate value to them, despite the idea of "never again"? Was it the fact that after Belgian peacekeepers were murdered, Belgium was able to put pressure on the UN to withdraw support for the peacekeeping mission (which, brilliantly enough, was exactly the reason the peacekeepers were killed in the first place)? Was it the fact that a resolution supporting increased military action/troops/equipment could be tangled in bureaucracy for so long or simply tossed aside by a UNSC member with veto power?

I accept the fact that an organization of sovereign states will have problems exerting authority - it's a bit like a group of children trying to agree to rules for a game: if Jimmy doesn't like this rule, he sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "I'M NOT LISTENING!!!!" But assuming the international community could assert sufficient authority to keep member states in line on the majority of issues, why hasn't this organization done more, or done a better job?

Not just the Rwandan Genocide, but pretty much EVERY genocide, invasion, 'police action' and so on from its formation onwards.
The UN fails every time something like that happens. Which means the UN has failed an awful lot. Somalia, Iraq, the Balkans, Chechnya, all of those are UN failures.

Its a rather long list, and, quite frankly, I think determining the 'biggest' failure is sort of like figuring out which 'dirty job' from that Dirty Jobs show is the worst.

The 'human rights council' (or whatever its called now) ranks pretty high up there as well.

The biggest failure of the UN, in the opinion of previous posters, seem to be that it has respected national sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of member states during times of internal conflict and strife.

I would disagree with that notion, since it lies outside the scope of what the UN originally was set up to do.

Can't there be just a restart button for the whole thing? And I say Rwandan genocide, Darfur, adn Iraq invasion. But the past is the past, they have to start doing things right, now. Darfur counts as now obviously.

the problem is a lot of what they do is pass resolutions, which is basically stating their opinion on something and resolving not to do anything useful about it ;)

the problem is a lot of what they do is pass resolutions, which is basically stating their opinion on something and resolving not to do anything useful about it ;)

Like a national parliament?

All they do is talk...

If you're discussing the terms of achieving any of its stated objectives, then yes the UN is a failure.

However, if you're talking about the true purpose of the UN, which is a giant strawman that every superpower with a dick-waving urge can abuse and denigrate at their leisure because it's not given any real power to enforce their resolutions, then the UN has been a flawless success from its inception.

it needs better PR men :wink:

If you're discussing the terms of achieving any of its stated objectives, then yes the UN is a failure.
World wars that "twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind" have not been prevented?

Human rights all over the world have been weakened during the last 60 years?

Conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained has not been established?

Social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom has not been promoted?

Nah, not with NATO. And I think only allowing some in wouldn't be the best idea, as its supposed to present an alternative to war. I think countries like Russia, the USA and the UK really need to stop ignoring or using it only when it benefits them. That's what's been weakening the UN, more than anything.

Anyways, I think that this idea of democracies being the be-all-and-end-all is probably one of the biggest fallacies in the modern age. I'm not saying I don't like living one, definately not, but attempting to enforce it on others who haven't had their own time to develop their own method is bloody stupid.
The issue with the UN is its lack of ability to enforce its rulings on its member states, or anyone for that matter.

a domestic democracy should be a requirement to participate in an international democracy. I wouldn't mind being out voted by the UK, Germany or even the French and forced to abide by mutual rulings from such countries.

However I can not see it as a good thing for countries like Cuba, China, or Sudan to be given the ability to enforce their will on us. Stable democracies that do not have day to day mass murder of its citizens are the only countries that should be allowed to participate in an organization able to force its will on others.

The biggest failure of the UN?

Existing.

The biggest failure of the UN?

Existing.

Why? Care to explain?

I don't really hold the UN responsible for the Rwandan genocide. That was the Rwanda's fault.

No, I think that the UN has fucked up Africa by pressuring them into bad policies. For one, The UN made African countries stop using mercenaries to suppress rebel factions, which was actually restoring peace to several places. Another major fuck up was when the UN told African countries that they couldn't use DDT to fight Malaria. That probably killed thousands of people. I only have a problem when they use their political and monetary clout to disrupt the sovereignty of weak African countries who know how to take care of themselves better than the UN does.

The Veto power makes the UN effectively a joke, as China and Russia don't give a damn about human rights, and the US rigorously defends Israel in almost all situations and acts unilaterally in the Middle East. As human rights and Middle East issues are some of the most pressing today, the UN is institutionally and procedurally intrinsically made of fail.

Structually here are some failings of the UN
1 Veto Why should any one country be able to override a process? Especially the small France and Germany
2 The African block No African country has ever been condemned because they all vote together to protect one anothers asses
3 A countries changing status in the world is not recognized. Again with the German and France veto. Shouldnt it be replaces prehaps with Brazil or some other rising power? Or even on numbers of people or UN contributions
4 Hijackings of bodies. For example Israel has been the only country ever criticized for its behaviour on woman’s rights. Lets not mention female genital mutation. Lets just pick on a country where women are actually allowed to vote. Many still dont permit that. Other examples include the disarmament body
5 Failings to enforce agreements. Nations should be contributing more to the poor if they plan to follow the UN resolutions. But thats not going to happen

The only good thing i can say for the UN is that it allows people from different places to gather together and discuss. But even then there are many other forums which are far more successful.

I thing the UN should have its own standing army funded and trained by its member nations. Secondly it should be made up of elected representatives from multiple countries with NO veto powers given that might actually make it effective.

Structually here are some failings of the UN
1 Veto Why should any one country be able to override a process? Especially the small France and Germany
2 The African block No African country has ever been condemned because they all vote together to protect one anothers asses
3 A countries changing status in the world is not recognized. Again with the German and France veto. Shouldnt it be replaces prehaps with Brazil or some other rising power? Or even on numbers of people or UN contributions
4 Hijackings of bodies. For example Israel has been the only country ever criticized for its behaviour on woman’s rights. Lets not mention female genital mutation. Lets just pick on a country where women are actually allowed to vote. Many still dont permit that. Other examples include the disarmament body
5 Failings to enforce agreements. Nations should be contributing more to the poor if they plan to follow the UN resolutions. But thats not going to happen

The only good thing i can say for the UN is that it allows people from different places to gather together and discuss. But even then there are many other forums which are far more successful.

All you've done is show that you know little about the UN.

Good work.

And you support veto, the african voting block, non changing structure and workings of such bodies as the womans rights for what reasons?

And you support veto, the african voting block, non changing structure and workings of such bodies as the womans rights for what reasons?

And you support the compulsory eating of oranges for what reasons?


See, I can come up with completely pointless strawman arguments as well.

I think i uttered something about the compulsory eating of oranges a long time ago as an example of enforcment of will upon others.
But do you actually have a reason for supporting the current UN structure. What can it do that other international forums cant?

By the way, you suggest that France and Germany shouldn't have a veto (not that Germany has one, anyway) because it should go to countries that, for example, have larger contributions.

Germany is the third largest contributor to the UN. Who, exactly, else deserves a veto under your criteria if they don't?

I think i uttered something about the compulsory eating of oranges a long time ago as an example of enforcment of will upon others.

Well, I'm sure you didn't, as I just plucked that idea out of thin air.

But do you actually have a reason for supporting the current UN structure. What can it do that other international forums cant?

Where have I pledged support for the current UN structure?

Good luck with that, by the way. It's going to be tricky to find.

How about I save us all the trouble and put it like this:

Pointing out that you're wrong about several things concerning the UN =/= support for the current UN system.

Or is that too complicated to grasp?

I'm interested to see what people think the biggest problem with the UN is,

Failure:
Rawanda
Somalia
Iraq
Iran
Korea
Liberia
shall I continue?

Why the hell does NATO still exist, anyways?
Because it's convenient to have the major players in the world using the same bullets and training together a bit, basically.

The biggest problem with the UN is that its not on fire.

...I'm kidding, calm thyselves.

The biggest problem with the UN is that its not on fire.

...I'm kidding, calm thyselves.

Awww....:(

The Veto power makes the UN effectively a joke, as China and Russia don't give a damn about human rights, and the US rigorously defends Israel in almost all situations and acts unilaterally in the Middle East. As human rights and Middle East issues are some of the most pressing today, the UN is institutionally and procedurally intrinsically made of fail.
Not really. Certain areas of the UN are very flawed, but the disaster relief, medical and peacekeeping efforts (when those have been undertaken) have been extremely useful in making the world a better place.
Structually here are some failings of the UN
Actually, it appears you're listing problems relating to the actions of member states...
1 Veto Why should any one country be able to override a process?
Because they think that the world would be worse if if the decision went through. Or are protecting themselves.
Especially the small France and Germany
Germany doesn't have veto power yet.

As to why France gets it - because it's a G8 state with a large standing army and nuclear weapons. Basically.
2 The African block No African country has ever been condemned because they all vote together to protect one anothers asses
Not actually true.
3 A countries changing status in the world is not recognized.
Bullshit. Amongst other things, the Chinese got veto power precisely because of their changing status in the world.
Again with the German and France veto.
Germany doesn't have veto power yet, it's looking to get it in the future, and France is still a key world player.
Shouldnt it be replaces prehaps with Brazil or some other rising power?
The Brazilians are also looking for a permanent UNSC seat, as are the Indians (fair enough) and the Japanese (no idea why, seeing as they have US bases on their soil and a completely pish military).
Or even on numbers of people
That is basically what it goes on at the moment anyway...
or UN contributions
You'd have the same top few members as you do at the moment...
4 Hijackings of bodies. For example Israel has been the only country ever criticized for its behaviour on woman’s rights. Lets not mention female genital mutation. Lets just pick on a country where women are actually allowed to vote. Many still dont permit that. Other examples include the disarmament body
This is a member states issue, not a structural issue.
5 Failings to enforce agreements. Nations should be contributing more to the poor if they plan to follow the UN resolutions. But thats not going to happen
As you yourself just pointed out, this is a member states issue.
The only good thing i can say for the UN is that it allows people from different places to gather together and discuss.
Also its excellent successes in countering diseases such as smallpox, in the education of children around the world and other such vital and life-saving efforts...
But even then there are many other forums which are far more successful.
Such as?

The U.N. has been deliberately engineered to be a useless and impotent Wicker Man (much bigger than straw) that all the big nations can use as a blank check and a punching bag for their egos. God Forbid anyone should actually respect the U.N.'s decisions and give them REAL power and materiels to back them up.

The biggest failure of the UN?

Existing.

You beat me to it. Though, I was going to be cleverer and say "The UN."

The UN can talk, but it has no real power except the power allowed it by the member countries. Any member country can, at any time, do as it damn well pleases with no threat of expulsion. Really, unless all the member nations can agree, any errant member will get no more than than a slap on the wrist.

It's a Wicker Man. If nobody wanted a useless institution around, it would have gone the way of the League of Nations long ago.

People want a Wicker Man they can set on fire and dance around while pretending it's not their fault.

Failure:
Rawanda
Somalia
Iraq
Iran
Korea
Liberia
shall I continue?
I would suggest that you start. Just throwing out names of countries offers up nothing.

You beat me to it. Though, I was going to be cleverer and say "The UN."
And your post would be just as worthless as his, albeit slightly more amusing.

This thread needs bumping (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552922)

And your post would be just as worthless as his, albeit slightly more amusing.

That is a matter of opinion. Personally, I find amusement to be of at least some value, albeit the value of amusement is certainly up for debate. But either way, I think "low in value" would be more accurate than "worthless." Of course, as I said, that would also be debatable as some find amusement more valuable than others. I suppose the most accurate thing to say would be "In which case your post would be, in my opinion, of greater value than his, although still of less worth than many other posts." And while we're at it, it's arguable that the inaccuracy of your post lowers its perceived value, especially to me. Therefore, I declare your post - in my opinion - to be of lesser value than many other post. But only in my opinion. It's actual value is, of course, subjective and therefore subject to debate.

As to why France gets it - because it's a G8 state with a large standing army and nuclear weapons. Basically.


Bullshit. Amongst other things, the Chinese got veto power precisely because of their changing status in the world.


Not quite. The UN Security Council was formed in 1946. The five permenant members were the major nations of the victorious Allies. This predates the formation of the G8 (1975), the French acquisition of nuclear weapons (1960), and China's emergence as a economic and military power. In fact the original UNSC included the Republic of China government (now known as Taiwan), the PRC didn't acquire this seat until 1971.

Not quite. The UN Security Council was formed in 1946. The five permenant members were the major nations of the victorious Allies. This predates the formation of the G8 (1975), the French acquisition of nuclear weapons (1960), and China's emergence as a economic and military power. In fact the original UNSC included the Republic of China government (now known as Taiwan), the PRC didn't acquire this seat until 1971.

Well everyone(including Stalin) thought that the ROC was going to win the civil war. As opposed to being chased to that island.

To be fair, the UN has had some successes. Those, in general, occured shortly after the founding of the UN. Among those successes - the trials of Nazi war criminals and the recognition of Israel.

That is a matter of opinion.
Not really. You don't offer any reasoning as to why the biggest failure of the UN is it's very existence. As such, your post is devoid of any value whatsoever and can safely be ignored as utterly and totally worthless.

To be fair, the UN has had some successes. Those, in general, occured shortly after the founding of the UN. Among those successes - the trials of Nazi war criminals and the recognition of Israel.
The UN has had many successes, and continues to this day to be a successful undertaking.

It's very hard to imagine what the world would have looked like without it.

Not really. You don't offer any reasoning as to why the biggest failure of the UN is it's very existence. As such, your post is devoid of any value whatsoever and can safely be ignored as utterly and totally worthless.

Your standards for defining value and my standards are clearly different. I find value in my post for reasons that you do not. But, neither of us are the owner of the internet, this site, or even the OP for this thread. Where, then, is your authority to declare your opinion of my post to be more valid than mine? Certainly you can say it, but you have no more right to make it true than I can. Even if you were the owner of the internet, you still would not have the authority to say that your opinion is more valid than mine, since our standards would still be different, and no one has the authority to change my opinion or standards. You certainly have the authority to say that my post is less valuable given a specific set of standards, anything beyond that is beyond either of us.

Making Max Barry Deat the NSUN

Your standards for defining value and my standards are clearly different. I find value in my post for reasons that you do not. But, neither of us are the owner of the internet, this site, or even the OP for this thread. Where, then, is your authority to declare your opinion of my post to be more valid than mine? Certainly you can say it, but you have no more right to make it true than I can. Even if you were the owner of the internet, you still would not have the authority to say that your opinion is more valid than mine, since our standards would still be different, and no one has the authority to change my opinion or standards. You certainly have the authority to say that my post is less valuable given a specific set of standards, anything beyond that is beyond either of us.

In any serious debate, all arguments have different value. You offered no substantial argument, rendering your post worthless in the context of this debate.

When you offer a substantial argument for why the UN existing is the biggest failure of the UN, your posts will have some value. Until then your posts remain pointless, worthless spam.

You don't have to "own the internet" or anything to say so, you just have to be a participant of this thread.

In any serious debate, all arguments have different value. You offered no substantial argument, rendering your post worthless in the context of this debate.

When you offer a substantial argument for why the UN existing is the biggest failure of the UN, your posts will have some value. Until then your posts remain pointless, worthless spam.

You don't have to "own the internet" or anything to say so, you just have to be a participant of this thread.

You're still speaking within the specific context of the post's value within a serious debate. I am not speaking within that context. My context includes amusement beyond its role in a serious debate. Therefore, our contexts are different. You still do not have the authority to declare my post to be of lesser value in any context other than the context of your opinion.

You're still speaking within the specific context of the post's value within a serious debate. I am not speaking within that context. My context includes amusement beyond its role in a serious debate. Therefore, our contexts are different. You still do not have the authority to declare my post to be of lesser value in any context other than the context of your opinion.
I could repeat myself, but I won't. Except to say - once more - that your post contributed nothing to this debate, fails as criticism of the UN, and remains worthless. And that goes beyond just my opinion, because you objectively speaking made a pointless post.

That you try to place your post outside the context of this thread is your problem and doesn't give it any extra value.

I could repeat myself, but I won't. Except to say - once more - that your post contributed nothing to this debate, fails as criticism of the UN, and remains worthless. And that goes beyond just my opinion, because you objectively speaking made a pointless post.

That you try to place your post outside the context of this thread is your problem and doesn't give it any extra value.

I didn't say it gives it extra value. But the value of a post, like the value of anything, is subjective according to its context.

I didn't say it gives it extra value. But the value of a post, like the value of anything, is subjective according to its context.

...and in the context of this thread, the value remains 0.

...and in the context of this thread, the value remains 0.

No, in the context of a serious debate within this thread, its value remains slightly above zero (as the statement, while unfounded, was still pertinent to the discussion). You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "subjective".

The biggest problem with the UN is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They are empowered to be tin pots. The feel they are better than every other person on the planet because they belong to it. In reality it is nothing more than a utopian feel good assembly that in the end has no balls to finish anything.

Biggest failure: Iraq. They never had the balls to enforce their own edicts and the US ended up doing it for them. They proved they were useless 11 times prior to Gulf War I.

Biggest act of stupidity: Oil for food. Clinton's proposal turned out to be a corrupt boondoggle.

Worst Gen Sec: Kofi Annan. Allowing Kojo to use him to profit from the system. The Security Council not only was aware but also expoited the system.

The UN must be abolished, never to be reformed. It is a total waste of time, effort and above all money.

the UN should be given command of the worlds militaries. And I should be supreme commander of the UN. this would solve the worlds problems.

the UN should be given command of the worlds militaries. And I should be supreme commander of the UN. this would solve the worlds problems.

I have your reservation for one for tomorrow at the "Fletcher Memorial Home". Will that be cash or credit?

The biggest problem with the UN is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They are empowered to be tin pots. The feel they are better than every other person on the planet because they belong to it. In reality it is nothing more than a utopian feel good assembly that in the end has no balls to finish anything.

Biggest failure: Iraq. They never had the balls to enforce their own edicts and the US ended up doing it for them. They proved they were useless 11 times prior to Gulf War I.

Biggest act of stupidity: Oil for food. Clinton's proposal turned out to be a corrupt boondoggle.

Worst Gen Sec: Kofi Annan. Allowing Kojo to use him to profit from the system. The Security Council not only was aware but also expoited the system.

The UN must be abolished, never to be reformed. It is a total waste of time, effort and above all money.

UN eradicated smallpox. How much money per life do think is too much before it's being wasted?

UN eradicated smallpox. How much money per life do think is too much before it's being wasted?

There have been diseases eradicated without UN assistance so that makes this point rather moot.

Lets see, if we put a dollar amount on the minimal contributions of the UN in it's lifetime spread over the total number of lives between it's creation and now.... rather pointless exercise.

The bad far outweighs the good. I am sure Milosevic had moments of humanitarian thought before he killed a bunch of people.

There have been diseases eradicated without UN assistance so that makes this point rather moot..

Really? I'm seriously interested. Which ones?

Really? I'm seriously interested. Which ones?

Well Polio for one. Yes I know that the UN has claimed credit for it but lets look at the facts.

Yes it is true a vaccine was developed but it really was unneeded. Polio was very prevalent in the late 1800's and indeed in the early 1900's. By the time the vaccine was developed it was almost completely gone from the planet.

From 1850-1940, many diseases had declined over 90% and were at an all time low by the time the vaccine was even ready for testing. The UN, WHO, AMA and the CDC among others have taken credit for eradicating diseases.

According to the World Health Statistics Annual of 1973-1976, there was a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of vaccines administered. Sanitation, improved water supplies, personal hygiene and improved nutrition are the leading factors.

Small pox vaccine had very very little to do with it's eradication. Maybe 10% of the world's population ever received it. Even post 9/11 there was a meeting in Atlanta, GA in which the government debated bringing it back. The Advisory Committe on Immunizations Practice said, "Small pox would have died out on its own due to improved sanitation, improved water supply and improved nutrition." In other words, the UN claims to have done something experts have showed eradicated itself!

Well Polio for one. Yes I know that the UN has claimed credit for it but lets look at the facts.

Yes it is true a vaccine was developed but it really was unneeded. Polio was very prevalent in the late 1800's and indeed in the early 1900's. By the time the vaccine was developed it was almost completely gone from the planet.

From 1850-1940, many diseases had declined over 90% and were at an all time low by the time the vaccine was even ready for testing. The UN, WHO, AMA and the CDC among others have taken credit for eradicating diseases.

According to the World Health Statistics Annual of 1973-1976, there was a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of vaccines administered. Sanitation, improved water supplies, personal hygiene and improved nutrition are the leading factors.

Small pox vaccine had very very little to do with it's eradication. Maybe 10% of the world's population ever received it. Even post 9/11 there was a meeting in Atlanta, GA in which the government debated bringing it back. The Advisory Committe on Immunizations Practice said, "Small pox would have died out on its own due to improved sanitation, improved water supply and improved nutrition." In other words, the UN claims to have done something experts have showed eradicated itself!

Polio hasn't been eradicated, it's still endemic in India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I asked what diseases, other than smallpox, had been eradicated?

Polio hasn't been eradicated, it's still endemic in India, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I asked what diseases, other than smallpox, had been eradicated?

In that case by your logic, no diseases have been eradicated. Even the re-introduction of small pox was noted in 2003. Granted it is through artificial means.

Therefore, since you chose not to engage, I will assume the thread has died.

In that case by your logic, no diseases have been eradicated. Even the re-introduction of small pox was noted in 2003. Granted it is through artificial means.

Therefore, since you chose not to engage, I will assume the thread has died.

No don't do that.

Let's assume that polio has ben eradicated. Which organisations spearheaded the efforts to eradicate it?

No, in the context of a serious debate within this thread, its value remains slightly above zero (as the statement, while unfounded, was still pertinent to the discussion). You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "subjective".

*Yawn*

You are truly a boring spammer.

The biggest problem with the UN is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They are empowered to be tin pots. The feel they are better than every other person on the planet because they belong to it. In reality it is nothing more than a utopian feel good assembly that in the end has no balls to finish anything.
Oh? What about, say, the International Court of Justice? Is that unfinished or a flop too?

Biggest failure: Iraq. They never had the balls to enforce their own edicts and the US ended up doing it for them. They proved they were useless 11 times prior to Gulf War I.
Prior to Gulf War I? What are you talking about?

And the US went alone in GW2, it didn't enforce anything for the UN that the UN didn't ask them to (See the invasion of Iraq during GW1, where the UN sanctioned the use of force, and how Iraq had no WMD.)


Worst Gen Sec: Kofi Annan. Allowing Kojo to use him to profit from the system. The Security Council not only was aware but also expoited the system.
Can you back up your claim?


The UN must be abolished, never to be reformed. It is a total waste of time, effort and above all money.
Why? Isn't a global forum needed? What about the multitude of humanitarian projects and organizations under the UN umbrella? Are they all a waste? Even the WHO?

The biggest Failure of the UN would be not getting me a special satellite that can scratch my ass with a laser beam from space.

*Yawn*

You are truly a boring spammer.

Maybe.










But only in your opinion.

Why the hell does NATO still exist, anyways?For kicks and giggles.

Caving to pressure and changing its name to the World Assembly...



Oh, you mean the RL UN.

Then it's gotta be situations like Rwanda, Darfur (you might throw in any part of the long Balkan history of ethnic killings, too) when compassion from the world for other human beigns was not acted upon. Perhaps it was "in the interest of national sovereignty". I mean, yes, protecting individuals peoples' right to self-determination (i.e. protecting national sovereignty) and not being "world domestic police" is absolutely what the UN needs so as not to become an enormous global dictatorship.

But protecting national sovereignty on domestic issues is not the same as protecting nations' right to genocide...

Just about everything. The UN is worthless.

God, this thread is makin me hit the bottle.



Seriously.

God, this thread is makin me hit the bottle.

Seriously.

The people who think the UN is worthless and should be abolished are just as naive and optimistic as the people who think the UN as is can accomplish anything it was set out to do.

Just like Vladimir Lenin and Terri Schiavo, it's a carcass put on display so that certain people or nations can grandstand and make a public spectacle for self-aggrandizement.

Just about everything. The UN is worthless.
Your post more so.

The people who think the UN is worthless and should be abolished are just as naive and optimistic as the people who think the UN as is can accomplish anything it was set out to do.

Well... There hasn't been a World War in a while, has there...

Then it's gotta be situations like Rwanda, Darfur (you might throw in any part of the long Balkan history of ethnic killings, too) when compassion from the world for other human beigns was not acted upon. Perhaps it was "in the interest of national sovereignty". I mean, yes, protecting individuals peoples' right to self-determination (i.e. protecting national sovereignty) and not being "world domestic police" is absolutely what the UN needs so as not to become an enormous global dictatorship.

But protecting national sovereignty on domestic issues is not the same as protecting nations' right to genocide...
:fluffle:

But where should we draw the line?

Well... There hasn't been a World War in a while, has there...

Not as long as Mutually Assured Destruction was on the table, no.

Not as long as Mutually Assured Destruction was on the table, no.

Can you completely discount the existence of the UN though?

Waiting until 500,000 people were dead before saying there might be genocide going on in Rwanda.

The UN is a farce.

I pray for the day when we get a president that tells the UN to go pound sand, kicks them out of New York, and turns the UN building into a giant homeless shelter.

The UN is a farce.
How/why?

I pray for the day when we get a president that tells the UN to go pound sand...
You mean, like when a president starts an illegal war despite the protests from the UN, and invades a foreign country on a flimsy pretext only to be stuck there for many years?

That day has come and gone. It didn't end well.

Can you completely discount the existence of the UN though?

The UN is an admirable ambition, is but the reality is that the Permanent Security Council members don't want it to work as well as it could. They prefer an impotent straw man they can use as a blank check or a scapegoat as their whim sees fit.

The people who say the UN need to be abolished ignore the fact that the UN is needed as a blank check and a scapegoat. If there was no ulterior motive for keeping the UN around, it would have been deader than the League of Nations ages ago.

The UN is an admirable ambition, is but the reality is that the Permanent Security Council members don't want it to work as well as it could. They prefer an impotent straw man they can use as a blank check or a scapegoat as their whim sees fit.

The people who say the UN need to be abolished ignore the fact that the UN is needed as a blank check and a scapegoat. If there was no ulterior motive for keeping the UN around, it would have been deader than the League of Nations ages ago.

While I mostly agree with your post, I still maintain my point - which is that the UN has been instrumental in keeping the world from sliding down the dark path to a third world war.

Your post more so.

Pft, all Europeans think the UN is worth a fucking shit, when it so obviously isn't.

Have they ever actually blocked genocide? Cambodia, Rwanda, West Africa, various human rights violations that occur in shity countries? Fuck, if the UN was worth a shit, it should have blocked us US Americans from fucking over Iraq. They let Saddam get away with all his shit (like using nerv gas) but put sanctions on Rhodesia for being white and racist? Pft, I'll take being oppressed over being gassed or shot.

Because an international army that isn't allowed to engage targets and wear sky blue helmets (great camo, right?) is really going to get shit done when fighting battle hardened assholes who have been killing since they were 7 years old.

You've got to read up on that whole mess in West Africa with regards to the UN preventing Executive Outcomes from killing all the mean, nasty warlords very efficiently and cheaply and then spending millions of dollars on deploying useless troops that let the warlords come back to power and fuck everything all over again.

Fuck the UN.

Pft, all Europeans think the UN is worth a fucking shit, when it so obviously isn't.

Have they ever actually blocked genocide? Cambodia, Rwanda, West Africa, various human rights violations that occur in shity countries? Fuck, if the UN was worth a shit, it should have blocked us US Americans from fucking over Iraq. They let Saddam get away with all his shit (like using nerv gas) but put sanctions on Rhodesia for being white and racist? Pft, I'll take being oppressed over being gassed or shot.

Because an international army that isn't allowed to engage targets and wear sky blue helmets (great camo, right?) is really going to get shit done when fighting battle hardened assholes who have been killing since they were 7 years old.

You've got to read up on that whole mess in West Africa with regards to the UN preventing Executive Outcomes from killing all the mean, nasty warlords very efficiently and cheaply and then spending millions of dollars on deploying useless troops that let the warlords come back to power and fuck everything all over again.

Fuck the UN.

Thank you! :fluffle: It's so much better than a worthless "The UN should be disbanded - period!" post. Because you're touching upon several real issues. I might not agree with you on everything here, but thanks again for actually bothering to make an argument - unlike far too many others.

Thank you! :fluffle: It's so much better than a worthless "The UN should be disbanded - period!" post. Because you're touching upon several real issues. I might not agree with you on everything here, but thanks again for actually bothering to make an argument - unlike far too many others.

Unless your a European country that the UN cares a rat's ass about (unlike Georgia) you aren't going to get so much as a penny of actual aid.

And that West African country was Sierra Leone. EO fought against the UNITA and handed the guerillas asses to them, but were shut down the UN because of some, "We don't approve of mercenaries shit."

Coincidentally, they don't try to stop Blackwater or various other "private contractors" that make billions and billions of dollars a year.

Once again, fucking worthless.

Pft, all Europeans think the UN is worth a fucking shit, when it so obviously isn't.

The actual value is to the Permanent Security Council Members as a convenient blank check and scapegoat for their own ambitions.

Have they ever actually blocked genocide?

When the Permanent Security Council or a block of countries don't form up, yes. Like in the Ivory Coast for one.

Cambodia,

Cambodia - Pol Pot put in power with American help.The U.S. is a Permanent Security Council Member. Can you say 'veto'?

Rwanda,

The General Council is a bureaucracy of shit. Security Council did nothing about it.

West Africa,

Seems to be working rather well there, see Ivory Coast.

various human rights violations that occur in shity countries?

Can you name actual countries here?

Fuck, if the UN was worth a shit, it should have blocked us US Americans from fucking over Iraq. They let Saddam get away with all his shit (like using nerv gas) but put sanctions on Rhodesia for being white and racist? Pft, I'll take being oppressed over being gassed or shot.

And this is where myopia proves itself to be a serious visual as well as observational impairment.

United States. Permanent Security Council Member. Veto Power.

Saddam was an ally of the United States in the 80s. Saddam got many of those nerves gasses from the United States. Rhodesia was not.

Do I need to raise Fred Rogers as a zombie so you can say those words with me?

Because an international army that isn't allowed to engage targets and wear sky blue helmets (great camo, right?) is really going to get shit done when fighting battle hardened assholes who have been killing since they were 7 years old.

You've got to read up on that whole mess in West Africa with regards to the UN preventing Executive Outcomes from killing all the mean, nasty warlords very efficiently and cheaply and then spending millions of dollars on deploying useless troops that let the warlords come back to power and fuck everything all over again.

You do realize the U.N. Peacekeepers are an all-volunteer force first and foremost, and they are not intended to stage offensive maneuvers without explicit Security Council orders? And the Security Council at the moment doesn't give a shit about West Africa.

Fuck the UN.

The UN works just the way the Permanent Security Council members like it and they couldn't give a shit what you think. If you want to fuck someone, fuck the Permanent Security Council Members. Which includes the United States.

Snip.

I forgot about the permanent security members, which include us US Americans, and I'm pretty sure we've committed the most disgusting and imperialist acts more than any other nature on the planet.

I've read all about the toppling of governments by the CIA in Middle America, Africa, Iran, Iraq, but I honestly had no idea we were responsible for fucking over Cambodia too (will check to confirm that later.)

So you're saying that basically, if the US and possibly the other permanent members of the security council don't want something to happen, then it won't happen?

That makes a lot of sense to me.

I forgot about the permanent security members, which include us US Americans, and I'm pretty sure we've committed the most disgusting and imperialist acts more than any other nature on the planet.

I've read all about the toppling of governments by the CIA in Middle America, Africa, Iran, Iraq, but I honestly had no idea we were responsible for fucking over Cambodia too (will check to confirm that later.)

So you're saying that basically, if the US and possibly the other permanent members of the security council don't want something to happen, then it won't happen?

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Exactly. Why do you think nothing's being done about Sudan and the Janjaweed killing spree?

China and Russia (Permanent Security Council Members) say: Cockblock for 1000, Alex.

Once again, fucking worthless.

Now, explain how the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization, the United Nations High Council for Refugees, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Development Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund are worthless as well and we might be getting somewhere.

Biggest failure? Denying Max the right us its name in the game. Bastards.

Biggest failure? Denying Max the right us its name in the game. Bastards.

If you'd have convinced the United States that letting NationStates keep the name would have been politically useful, the Security Council would have vetoed that C&D order to Hell.

Now, explain how the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization, the United Nations High Council for Refugees, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Development Programme and the United Nations Children's Fund are worthless as well and we might be getting somewhere.

Too late, dude.

My opinion has already been swayed to understand that the UN is doing the best it can, and that naturally and expectidly, the US and the other powerful European nations just don't really give a rat's ass about poor African Countries unless we can benefit from it somehow.

The US and the permanent security members need to have a back seat.

The reason for creating the AU suddenly seems a lot more logical. I mean, I wouldn't trust the racist, white assholes that came in and butchered everything, so why would I trust the UN?

I no longer believe that the UN is worthless.

It just backs up the fact that the US is the most disgusting and imperialist nation on the planet when it comes to foreign policy.

*Moves to Canada*

I've read all about the toppling of governments by the CIA in Middle America, Africa, Iran, Iraq, but I honestly had no idea we were responsible for fucking over Cambodia too (will check to confirm that later.)
Well, the US did oppose the Vietnamese intervention and toppling of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979. But that was more due to the animosity towards Vietnam.

And in from Wiki:
In his 1996 study of Pol Pot's rise to power, Kiernan argued that "Pol Pot's revolution would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilisation of Cambodia" and that the U.S. carpet bombing "was probably the most significant factor in Pol Pot's rise."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

Too late, dude.

My opinion has already been swayed to understand that the UN is doing the best it can, and that naturally and expectidly, the US and the other powerful European nations just don't really give a rat's ass about poor African Countries unless we can benefit from it somehow.

The US and the permanent security members need to have a back seat.

The reason for creating the AU suddenly seems a lot more logical. I mean, I wouldn't trust the racist, white assholes that came in and butchered everything, so why would I trust the UN?

I no longer believe that the UN is worthless.

It just backs up the fact that the US is the most disgusting and imperialist nation on the planet when it comes to foreign policy.

*Moves to Canada*

Well, let's be fair: It's not like any of the permanent members of the UNSC are acting purely out of humanitarian concerns. Russia and China is on the same level as the US, for example.

No, the idealists actually working at the UN: Many of them are good people who actually make a difference in a positive way.

Well, let's be fair: It's not like any of the permanent members of the UNSC are acting purely out of humanitarian concerns. Russia and China is on the same level as the US, for example.

No, the idealists actually working at the UN: Many of them are good people who actually make a difference in a positive way.

Except the lawyers. Set those bastards on fire and make them hold marshmallows.

I'll tell you this is a joke in case people don't know Gravlen is a lawyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

Well that's OK.

The whole point of the Vietnam war was to prop up and inept and incompetant government that was voted out of power anyway with few people who actually believed that Democracy was the right thing anyway.

I've read all about the toppling of governments by the CIA in Middle America, Africa, Iran, Iraq, but I honestly had no idea we were responsible for fucking over Cambodia too (will check to confirm that later.)
Oh yes. And the genocide in Cambodia was defended by the US because it included the Vietnamese.

The UN fails from time to time because it is composed of people. people being human make mistakes. the solution is give the UN ultimate power and replace the people in its system with a giant super computer.

Why in the world would anyone want the UN to be more powerful than it is? To be able to actually enforce its decisions over powerful countries? (well, unless you live in an unimportant country, maybe...) Then the UN would simply grow into an annoying headache, or maybe a migraine, if not worse.