• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UN: Completely Worthless & Dysfunctional ????

The U.N. is useless in the same way an adult who doesn't buy the spoiled kid the toy he wants is "useless". Right now the U.N. is serving a very important purpose with regards to Syria. It is sending the message of the collective nations of the world that they disagree with intervening in the conflict. That may bruise insecure ego's who can't handle anyone telling them no, but a real leader needs that information to make an informed decision. Maybe we listen to the U.N. or maybe we don't, but either we its damned important we figure out where everyone else stands before we take the plunge.

No, the collective message they are sending is that they don't give a rats ass that a bloody dictator decides to kill kids with poison gas. They are useless.
 
The UN is also not a government and as such as no jurisdiction over any territory or people.

It has no jurisdiction over anything. And as such, it is a useless anachronism. Ask the people of Srbenica (the ones that are still alive) for their opinion of the UN.
 
What democracy would you say compares in Africa. Let's leave the South Africa argument aside for the moment, do you have another nomination (Ghana?).

In Africa? Nope and never said that I had. That was you.

All else being equal, do you find the US to be more or less credible than: "dictatorship, and one of the worst ones out there.. arresting and jailing anyone who dares speak up against Putin... and that is the lucky ones... the unlucky ones get poisoned with uranium or shot in the streets...".

To be honest.. because of what Bush pulled, both are just as credible.. or lack credibility. That is why I want to see all the evidence before going headlong into a war with Assad when it could just as well have been AL Q elements among the Rebels. That the Russians and I have the same wish, does not mean that I trust the Russians at all... their motives might just be a stalling tactic.. but at least it is a good idea to not jump the gun like we did with Iraq. And that brings us back to the credibility of the US... it is non-existent after what Bush pulled and the only way to convince populations around the world that it is the right thing to do.. is to present all the evidence, which the US has not done yet.

There is no evidence of rebels using chems.

Yes there is.

UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use - Telegraph

Syrian rebels have made use of the deadly nerve agent sarin in their war-torn country's conflict, UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte has said.

Sarin is the chemical that was used in Damascus. The rebels have been accused of using chemical weapons many times and just this week Turkey busted some Syrian rebels trying to smuggle over material used chemical weapons production.

So saying that it is only Assad that has access to chemical weapons is factual wrong and morally even more wrong.

A dictator slaughtering tens of thousands of his own people and losing control of his military (and/or stockpile) to the point of WMDs being employed is a dictator that needs to go.

That may be.. but is it our job to do it.. or even help? Why is it that we are so selective in what dictatorships we want to remove? Does the Saudi dictatorship, or the Jordanian, or the Moroccan, Chinese, Russian or Burmanese one not deserve to be removed as well? Why not attack North Korea then.. they kill millions a year, so why nothing about that? And why is it the wests job to mess in a civil wars just because people are dying? Like it or not we can not send troops into every crappy place on the planet just because someone is being mean to someone else and we dont like it. Our troops lives are worth far far more than that and should never be needlessly wasted.
 
That may be.. but is it our job to do it.. or even help?

Yes.


Why is it that we are so selective in what dictatorships we want to remove?

Priorities, which are pretty obvious to anyone who'd consider such things.
 
What you are missing is the most basic knowledge about how the U.N. works. Only the security council can authorize force and Russia will simply veto everything as Syria's ally. That isn't a flaw, that is how the system was designed. The U.S. does exactly the same thing whenever anyone messes with one of our allies.

I really don't understand why people engage in such childish whining about the U.N. It is toothless because everyone prefers is that way. If you give the U.N. the unilateral power to punish nations for war crimes, we'd have found ourselves on the chopping block for Iraq.

Why would anyone be punished over Iraq?
 
No, the collective message they are sending is that they don't give a rats ass that a bloody dictator decides to kill kids with poison gas. They are useless.

That is just butthurt whining about not getting your way. Blubbering is not a sound basis for foreign policy.
 
Why would anyone be punished over Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq was a unsanctioned war of aggression according to international standards. It means today nothing because the U.N. has no power to do anything about it. If people listened to the whiners in this thread and gave the U.N. real teeth, we would have faced some real consequences for Iraq. People forget that if the U.N. has the ability to go after Assad, they could also come after the U.S.
 
In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?

What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?

Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?

What am I missing?

I've been on record many times saying how embarrassed I am that Canada is still a member in good standing at the UN and one of its largest funding sources. I would like to see Canada and other western democracies leave the UN and create a new body, perhaps similar to but larger than NATO, that has more than just the defense of its members as its goal but also looks at issue that the UN should rightly be focussing on. The UN is an abomination.
 
I've been on record many times saying how embarrassed I am that Canada is still a member in good standing at the UN and one of its largest funding sources. I would like to see Canada and other western democracies leave the UN and create a new body, perhaps similar to but larger than NATO, that has more than just the defense of its members as its goal but also looks at issue that the UN should rightly be focussing on. The UN is an abomination.

Ostrich diplomacy is quite popular in this thread. I am curious, do you really think that pretending dictators don't run half the planet will make them go away?
 
Ostrich diplomacy is quite popular in this thread. I am curious, do you really think that pretending dictators don't run half the planet will make them go away?

Not at all - nor do I think there's value in having dictators and the vilest of characters throughout the world pass moral judgement on my government and my country.
 
The invasion of Iraq was a unsanctioned war of aggression according to international standards. It means today nothing because the U.N. has no power to do anything about it. If people listened to the whiners in this thread and gave the U.N. real teeth, we would have faced some real consequences for Iraq. People forget that if the U.N. has the ability to go after Assad, they could also come after the U.S.

The UN coming after the U.S.:lamo:lamo:lamo

The UN couldn't come after anything. Its a frickin' joke, controlled by third world autocrats who spend most of their time while in session frequenting the prostitutes of New York.
 
Not at all - nor do I think there's value in having dictators and the vilest of characters throughout the world pass moral judgement on my government and my country.

If you don't have a thick enough skin to handle some obnoxious criticism, you don't have any business in deciding foreign policy. Watching a mass murderer pontificate on the human rights council is a mere annoyance, maintaining the delicate balance of power that is needed to keep the world stable is infinitely more important.
 
The UN coming after the U.S.:lamo:lamo:lamo

The UN couldn't come after anything. Its a frickin' joke, controlled by third world autocrats who spend most of their time while in session frequenting the prostitutes of New York.

Exactly my point. The U.N. being powerless isn't a bug, its a feature. If it had real authority it would be a threat.
 
If you don't have a thick enough skin to handle some obnoxious criticism, you don't have any business in deciding foreign policy. Watching a mass murderer pontificate on the human rights council is a mere annoyance, maintaining the delicate balance of power that is needed to keep the world stable is infinitely more important.

Sorry, it's not a matter of having a thick enough skin, it's a matter of not having so thick a skull as to believe there is any foreign policy value, or any value, in the UN.
 
Sorry, it's not a matter of having a thick enough skin, it's a matter of not having so thick a skull as to believe there is any foreign policy value, or any value, in the UN.

Yet you think there is foreign policy value in a groupthink circlejerk where a bunch of like minded democracies sit around patting each other on the back? Diplomacy is about avoiding bloodshed with your enemies, not hanging out with your friends.
 
Yet you think there is foreign policy value in a groupthink circlejerk where a bunch of like minded democracies sit around patting each other on the back? Diplomacy is about avoiding bloodshed with your enemies, not hanging out with your friends.

Ah yes, the UN is responsible for avoiding so much bloodshed in the world, isn't it. I'll wait while you rhyme off all the success stories the UN has accomplished in avoiding bloodshed and saving lives. Go ahead, don't be shy.
 
The U.N. is the most useless, corrupt organization on the planet. U.N. officials line their own pockets with bribes, kickbacks, and god knows what else, in return for a bitchfest sounding board where all countries can sit around calling each other poopy-heads while genocide and massacres swirl unabated around the globe.

It should be disbanded immediately, and relegated as rubbish to the dustbin of historical failures.
 
The invasion of Iraq was a unsanctioned war of aggression according to international standards. It means today nothing because the U.N. has no power to do anything about it. If people listened to the whiners in this thread and gave the U.N. real teeth, we would have faced some real consequences for Iraq. People forget that if the U.N. has the ability to go after Assad, they could also come after the U.S.

You are completely wrong.
 
The U.N. is the most useless, corrupt organization on the planet.
Apart from virtually every national parliament/congress.

U.N. officials line their own pockets with bribes, kickbacks, and god knows what else,

You got any evidence to back up this pretty damning accusation? I have, here's an article from 2005 about a clear case of corruption at the UN. I read it and conclude that it's precisely the kind of corruption case that is everyday news in virtually every nation on Earth. I'd suggest that the UN is no more corrupt, and perhaps considerably less corrupt, than any other international or national politcal organisation. What makes the UN stand out?

It should be disbanded immediately, and relegated as rubbish to the dustbin of historical failures.
I feel the same about NATO, FIFA and the IOC.
 
Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?
It should be started by the US to stop ignoring UN and respect the purpose for which it was created.
 
Apart from virtually every national parliament/congress.



You got any evidence to back up this pretty damning accusation? I have, here's an article from 2005 about a clear case of corruption at the UN. I read it and conclude that it's precisely the kind of corruption case that is everyday news in virtually every nation on Earth. I'd suggest that the UN is no more corrupt, and perhaps considerably less corrupt, than any other international or national politcal organisation. What makes the UN stand out?

I feel the same about NATO, FIFA and the IOC.


:lamo

You are entitled to be as selectively opinionated and transparent as you wish! :2wave:
 
It should be started by the US to stop ignoring UN and respect the purpose for which it was created.

the purpose for which it was created ceased to have any relevance once non-democratic third world despots joined the Soviet Union and China in controlling the cesspool.
 
Apart from virtually every national parliament/congress.



You got any evidence to back up this pretty damning accusation? I have, here's an article from 2005 about a clear case of corruption at the UN. I read it and conclude that it's precisely the kind of corruption case that is everyday news in virtually every nation on Earth. I'd suggest that the UN is no more corrupt, and perhaps considerably less corrupt, than any other international or national politcal organisation. What makes the UN stand out?

I feel the same about NATO, FIFA and the IOC.

Here's a one word answer as to what makes the UN stand out. Srbenica.
 
Here's a one word answer as to what makes the UN stand out. Srbenica.

Oh goodie! We have a new game to play. One word condemnations. My turn.

The USA - Sideshow
The UK - Mau-maus
France - Algeria
Russia - Chechnya
Israel - Sabra-Shatila

Of course the difference between these and Srebrenica is that the UN didn't kill anyone, they just failed to stop the killings. I guess that makes them worse in your book.
 
Let me add to this discussion by including som Dialogue from the 1980's British comedy series 'Yes, Minister' in which they are discussing Britains foreign policy.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe.
In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish,
with the Germans against the French,
with the French and Italians against the Germans,
and with the French against the Germans and Italians.
Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Minister Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the European Economic Community] up, so we had to get inside.
We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work.
Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing:
set the Germans against the French,
the French against the Italians,
the Italians against the Dutch.
The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact;
the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
 
Back
Top Bottom