Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I believe that the UN is lossing any purpose it was created for. Its now just becoming a time of one world goverment.

Hmmmmmm... loaded question.

Ideally, what do you think would make it worthwhile as opposed to worthless, scarpa? The big problem here is a generally diverging view, in many directions, of what the UN is for.

Uniting Nations?

Good Lord! I doubt anyone ever planned for that to be the idea...

does this even need a thread and a poll? it's for any person with the slightest amount of common sense a known fact that the UN is utter and utter bullshit

why?

demonstrated by the US:
You don't like a decision they like, just ignore them and go ahead with it anyway

No, it has it's uses.

Look at the food programs and things they do for third world countries.

yup and if you don't like it, you ignore them and don't support those programs, what's the point?

there are many other organisations that do the same y'know (about food I mean)

I am undeciding.JM

So because some countries don't support the programs, you believe it is useless?

Just because it isn't what it was supposed to be doesn't mean it is useless.

True, the UN is only as good as the nations that it contains, it seems wrong to condemn it because some nations that will remain nameless are laws unto themselves.... in fact as much evidence shows the US is often antagonistic towards international laws the UN tries to put into play, ones regarding human rights that all UN members have supported except for the US. Odd? But it is wrong to say it is useless. People say UN and instantly think of security council. It was not intended to be a military body, or world police, no, it was intended to be a place nations could talk out their problems, and where unity could be found, were nations could formulate cohesive plans to deal with problems. And there is much more to the UN, it manages huge amounts of aid and humanitarian construction and reconstruction, refugees, the protection of cultures, a protection against human rights abuses where charges can be laid and aired, it is the body that defines International law, and allows nations to agree to that law, it has it law courts and many other things. I think it is short sighted to say "Yes the UN is useless because the US wouldn't obey it"

Wow, It seem like opions are split here.

True, much like the UN security council.... which is the whole point, a place where nations can talk and discuss grievances, an attempt to avoid bullying to force views...

The UN is a good idea, But right now its just not being supported enough, It needs to be powerful enough that being apart of it will be more benificial than beinn out of it.

the point, rwoonacott, is that the states went ahead when the UN rejected/debated the idea.
What is the bloody point of having this organisation then? If they say no or are deceiding, a country still goes ahead with it! That shows how crappy the UN is and calls to get dismantled.
It takes up money, it works too slow, the organisation of it is pure crap (come on, either no one has veto or all have it) and it has absolutely no power over countries, so why keep it then?



no, the UN is useless cause it's demonstrated that if you don't like their decision, you just go ahead anyway

the ONLY thing they do that's good are those programs, but to keep them solely for that is stupid since many other programs do the same thing

hmm

But the UN is an umbrella organisation, yes there may be hundreds of smaller organisations that can do the same, but not without the same efficiency or authority as the UN. And once again, the UN was actually right. The US proposed a war against Iraq due to the "threat of WMD's" now as we know, and the US has admitted, Iraq had none. The UN didn't support the war, and it shouldn't have. I mean, take a parent and a child. The child wishes to go out and drink and take drugs. The parent says no. The child sneaks out and does it anyway and gets bloody sick as a result. Is the parent obsolete just because they didn't have the authority in this case?

with the same authority as the UN? the whole point is that they don't have any authority anymore
what about efficiency? when I want to support animals, I'll gladly donate to the WWF and not to the WSPA. I know much more about the organisation of the WWF than that of what the UN offers. (and yes, WWF works closely with the UN but doesn't fall under it)

it's also not the point if the UN was right or not, anybody could have seen that it was a false war.
It is the point that the US went to war without the "blessing" of the UN, which clearly shows that the UN has no authority and can just get ignored if you don't like the results

Problem there being that the UN thought Iraq had the WMDs as well. So the analogy doesn't fit; the problem is that the UN was paralysed about taking active action.

Do remember that the only reason the US knew it could get away with this is because there were previous UN resolutions which gave the UN nations the right to use force on Iraq- hence the US move being retrospectively approved by the UN afterwards.

Even in the best of circumstances, the UN would not have had the legal authority to stop the US unless that resolution was repealed.

I DON'T THINK SO.

because if it's worthless... we'll have limited communications like this.

Referring to earlier posts, yes the US went against the UN. Or more correctly went against a certain aspect of it, and I still don't see how that is somehow the fault of the UN. It still serves as a valuable body with a multitude of functions. And when it comes to aid and humanitarian issues it still has immense authority that smaller groups can rarely match.

Did the UN believe Iraq had weapons? The whole reason was they weren't sure, and thus advocated more time and so forth, and as such advocated the right course of action. They said "perhaps.... but perhaps is not good enough", the US choose to go it alone, and ultimately reaped its rewards. But once again that is only a facet of the UN.

And I always wonder, what do we propose replace it? Nothing? Go back to the forms of international relations that governed Rome? Middle ages? The Imperial Era? Or that of the time around WWI? The UN has been a valuable body in helping the world for many years, not as a police force, but more as a social conscience, and once again I ask is the parent who can't always keep its kids in line useless, or do they still have something to contribute to those under their guidance?

the entire point is that the US went ahead with it without the support of the UN at that point. That makes it clearly absolete: you do what you want and flip the finger to the UN.
And yes, that's only one facet.

That other, about humanitary help... there are dozens of organisations that are not UN-affiliated but still manage to exist and do big projects. The only UN project that I can think of out of the top of my head that will be seriously missed if it goes away would be UNICEF. The others can easily be replaced by other organisations.

Why do we need to replace it? If you replace it by a copy of it, it won't work. Nor will it work if it has no power! If there is no serious punishment if you break the rules, it's utter crap cause then it's just an empty box

"The entire point is that the US went ahead with it without the support of the UN at that point. That makes it clearly absolete: you do what you want and flip the finger to the UN. "

Not quite. Doing something without the support of the UN is not the same as doing it in defiance of the UN. The UN said they wouldn't do it themselves, but they had no authority to tell the States not to do it.

But that said, the UN HAS been defied, on many occasions.

"The whole reason was they weren't sure."

They seemed pretty sure, if you go back and look what was being said at the time. They out and out said that it made no difference to their position if the US found the WMDs there, because that was not the issue. Of course, they said that (this is Russia and France I am talking about here, to be precise) in anticipation that the US certainly WOULD find them there; if they had know the US wouldn't, they would have used a different tack; as it is, they gave up their moral right to object to the invasion on the grounds that WMDs weren't there.

Point is, simply, the moment Iraq expelled the weapons inspectors, the UN had already given authority to any coalition member to invade it at will. If you want to tell me that the UN should be more careful about what it passes... then sure. But in the end, all this was done by the rules.

The Un has some good ideas but the problem is that Some countries (actually only the US9 can do whatever they want, I mean If it was stronger it would be great if we actually would work together but like that well, its better as if it wasn't there but its not great either.

yup, ... if those that are in it, can't simply leave and the members can't just do whatever they want, THEN the organisation has a use, now it's just throwing money around

Just because the UN was powerless on occasions involving the US, it does not mean that it may be dismissed as an organization on the basis of being ignored. 1 country went against the rules and did it illegally, BUT it was the right thing to do.

The UN has been fighting with threats. Recently, the Security Council has threatened sanctions on Sudan for the civilian attacks in Darfur. This is the second time in seven weeks. It will probably have as much bite as the last one in ending a conflict that's left up to 50,000 dead and more than 1 million refugees in desperate conditions. The World Health Organization estimates that 6,000 to 10,000 people are dying each month as a result of the conflict and mass displacement.

The peace talks, in Nigeria, have stalled.

Instead of bashing US perhaps it's high time people bashed the organization that was made to stop atrocities. It needs to be restructured and it needs to be enforced, otherwise it will be considered impotent.

ohhh and if the U.S. dropping out of the U.N. it would cripple the corrupt organization and save U.S. money, it would make lots of nations angry at us... Which would be find with me ohhh wait they already are mad at us....
LATER

Corruption exists in all political parties, businesses and organisations;
singling out the UN is unfair. while the UN prefers dialogue, its lenghty procedures have left much to be desired.

The United Nations was formed with a view to establishing a collective security system to deal with disputes by peaceful and legal means. , Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is the body charged with responsibility for maintaining global peace and security. The UN Charter provides for a flexible and graduated response to international peace and security issues.

Dissolving it as an organisation, is like removing a country's Legal Procedures. Hence it will cause chaos from border to border allowing everyone to do what they like.

Thinking that the efforts the US puts in its contribution supporting the UN are useless, is absurd. Its not an " Im allright ; **** you Jack" thing. Many third world countries are grateful to the US for its support through the body of the United Nations as well as its behind-the-scenes efforts.

So NO the UN is not worthless. It needs more bite. the same thing we say to our respective Legal Authoroties which themselves are corrupted by greed.

GCG, for once I am not US-bashing, I am UN-bashing.

The entire bloody point is that the US ignored it, justified or not! If you can ignore it and NO sanctions follow, it's clear that the organisation is hollow and should be dismantled because it takes up money.

Meh, that Burke line is quoted by every lazy critic of general administration, and normally never in decent context.

As I say, the war was authorised by the UN's own resolution. That's really not up for denial, I am afraid. The UN tied itself in knots and it could not have done a thing about it all.

actually every lazy person has the 'I dont have enough time syndrome'

How ?

War on Iraq WAS illegal backed by Tony Bliar

Apparently, strangely enough, Germany is the largest contributer of funds and material... And people seem to act like the UN is almost another nation, nation that does nothing. It is a body made up of many nations, with no real head. And as I have said before it was not intended to be a police force. It was always more of a meeting point, where nations could try to avoid conflict, and where, if a nation was "being bad" people could formulate a strategy to deal with it, like putting in place sanctions, but the thing is that it isn't the UN's job to enforce these, as they don't have the right, nor is it their purpose to, it is the nations that make up the UN who have to stop trading, or whatever. And about bodies like the Human Rights commission, other then the Security Council the other bodies to do have permanent members - they have to change at intervals, so every nation might have the opportunity to do something, thats once again the whole point, the UN is about bringing nations together, not saying "Syria is bad, the US is good, ergo he US can stay and Syria can't". Also, many nations have a tendency to be dubious about the US commitment to human rights....

Why?

As on a remarkable number of occasions they have refused to ratify international legislation that protects human rights, such as pieces that outlaw death penalty's, protect children's rights, protect minority rights, protect the environment and the list goes on. Syria has signed a number of them, ones the US didn't. In some cases the US refusal to sign such things left it alone with the rogue nations and Saudi Arabia (and some other small nations)

And I am not saying "get rid of it and replace it with...." as it is natural that even if nothing new takes its place, the emptiness will still be similar to previous forms of international relations. We can look at history, seriously, and you can see two distinct periods, those without UN like bodies (basically everything before the end of WW1) and those with UN bodies, now ultimately ask yourself which is better?

as long, IS, that the UN has no enforcing power, it's an empty box. The idea of it being merely a meeting place is false since they have the security council that votes on propositions and those results are binding to the members of the UN. Those that are in the "general" council are not binding though.
What's the entire point of having this thing if when you ignore it, nothing happens?

and IS, if you want to set history up in two "distinct" periods, the UN like bodies don't make this place a heaven on earth. If you look at i.e. ancient crete: they didn't had it and they had relative peace in their time... sounds better than here where one nation can bully others and get away with it unharmed.

GCG; how do you calculate these things? I'm sure the US pays a lot, but then again, they have more working people then i.e. Swaziland, so per person it's only fair that big countries pay more, no? especially if they have the money to spend on it

No, the propositions aren't binding on members. As I have been saying, the UN was not intended to be a body that create strategy and then enforced it, it is the nations that make up the body, the security council, that are responsible. A resolution in the security council is a plan of action to deal with something, however nations have to agree on it, and if nations choose not to obey, that is their choice, the thing is then for the nations that do support it to try to enforce it.

And I never said that UN bodies make the world a perfect place, but they can distinctly improve it. Ancient Crete lived a blessed and relatively forgotten life, and later on they experience much heart ache and suffering. The fact they existed in times when there were no extensively imperialistic nations does not mean that the world was a better place, just they were lucky. And throughout history people and nations have been bossed around by large nations - Rome, England, Germany to name but three, however the difference is that they had a free reign, the UN however can serve as a uniting point against such nations.

in my course of Law at the university, the professor clearly stated that for members of the UN, the resolutions of the security-council are binding.
If you want to take this any further, please support your statement then.

we're apperently missing eachother the entire time IS, cause the way I see it if the UN can't enforce anything (as it is proven it can't) then I see no use why we should keep it in the first place...

I fail to see why the UN would improve the world... the Democratic Republic of Congo just declaired war on Ruwanda, Iraq is in war, the middle east never got solved, we still have Darfoer... tension between India & Pakistan, South & North Korea, Taiwan & China, US and North-Korea/Syria/Iran/...
is that a safe world then? or an improvement?

the answer to your question, is i dont know but wish things could improve. there is hardly any confidence following the recent bust-up.


to make matters worse there is also the oil-for-food scandal which transpired from the battle of interests between U.S. vs France, Germany, China and Russia. General Secratary's Job Kofi Annan is on the verge of being brought down and i think his son is involved in this scam as well.

Ah yes here is a recent article

there was never a reason to go and have confidence, humans are made to kill eachother so it seems


heard of that scandal but didn't look much into it

that was based, as i said, on JRat12 ' s post , claiming 25% goes into the UN yearly budget.

there is a difference between:
25% of the UN budget comes from the States
and
25% of the budget of the States goes to the UN

If it's the first one, it's pretty normal... big country, lots of active working people, good economy,... they can AFFORD the support. Countries like Swaziland and Lesotho simply can't give that much

the second one is of course bullshit cause no one will give that much

I could be wrong here but doesn't the US still owe the UN a great deal of money