Is the UN a worthless organization?

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.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
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)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord! I doubt anyone ever planned for that to be the idea...

😂

I am undeciding.JM

Originally posted by yerssot
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)

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.

Originally posted by yerssot
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

The next time something happens here in the United States like what happened on 9/11 and I hope that this doesn’t happen to anyone, but if one of your own family members is killed or injured in what ever happens, then talk about who is right and who is wrong. But that is just my own feelings.

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?

Originally posted by ElectricBugaloo
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.

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

Originally posted by yerssot
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

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
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?

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.