Tashah said:Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.
In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.
Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling... Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?
Pacridge said:If you did do away with it then what? Would you have anther org. created to take it's place?
In its initial inception it was indeed the United Nations (nations united against the regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).WiseRufus said:It's called the United Nations.
Tashah said:Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.
In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.
Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling... Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?
Gandhi>Bush said:So let's say a genocide is occuring in... ohh, I don't know... the Sudan. If the UN doesn't do anything about it, we should ignore it(THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING ANYWAY)?
Should we just go with it?
galenrox said:Yeah dude, you're pretending like these are a whole bunch of countries that love America, and are just waiting for us to come in and clean house, when instead it's a whole bunch of countries that hate America, and will only develop a worse opinion of us if we send an asshole as an ambassador. At a time when we're supposedly trying to fix the broken relationships from Bush's first term, sending some dickhead who looks like he hangs out in porno houses and molests children who's gonna go in there and start yelling about how they have to do whatever America wants or America's gonna leave and withdraw its funding, how much good is that gonna do? I think it would be on the level with every single one of us taking a hammer, and then simultaniously hitting ourselves in the forehead.
As far as the UN goes, it's really important. It provides a forum where people of the world can discuss issues, and potentially avoid wars through diplomacy. Since our current administration seems to like war and hate diplomacy, I can see why he wants to ruin the UN, but I think that we need it now more than ever.
I have my own opinions of the U.N. but this one we will have to disagree on, I think the U.N. is currently trying to gain too much power over other nations sovreignity and that is probably the scariest abuse of it's charter and intended purpose. If we must keep the U.N., it really needs to stay on course.matay_brit said:The UN needs to expand to take on policys of trade, assume some of the roles of the world bank and force reform on to groups like the EU. It most definetly needs to encourage free trade amongst the deveoped countries and less so towards the LDC's.
The team players to date haven't done their job, so why would you want another person in there who would say "Corruption where?" :yawn: Team players tend to go along to get along.This is a global oragnization, not an american one. We need the top five to work together for this one. I wouldn't call Bolton a team player would you?
I disagree, the U.N. is trying currently to assume some political power over U.S. policy, I don't care who the hell they think they are, but we have existed for much longer then they have as a sovereign nation, if they don't like the fact that we think independently, then #$%^ 'em.matay_brit said:bollocks, absolute bollocks! the UN does not have enough power at all. The American Government THAT has too much power!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?