Worthless UN???

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Is the UN worthless, like its predecessor the League of Nations?

I think so.

It's powerless militarily, economically, and politically. It failed to stop the Russian-Georgian war, and was unable to stop other wars like the conflicts between Israel and the Arab countries. The only function it has is as a powerless organization that speaks about its opinions on world affaris, which nobody listens to anyway. It can only condemn and strut, but it has no force to back up its words.

What do you think?

 

[rathi]

The U.N. came to your countries defense in 1950 and used force to protect it. The U.N. has little power because nobody wants it to have power. No sovereign nation wants to give power over their nation to an international body. The U.N.'s primary purpose is to promote stability, which it has done quite successfully. Wars have been minor and powerful nations have avoided getting into all-out conflicts. The league of nations failed because it lacked key players in the world's balance of power, while the U.N. has a least token representation from everyone of note. Just have a forum for everyone to blow off steam in has its benefits.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It is a criminal enterprise that should be given an eviction notice.

 

[Gardener]

I think the U.N. accomplishes quite a bit, myself. I can think of no other organization that has had such an effect on spreading hatred for the Jewish state throughout the world.

Remember -- if the U.N. says it, it must be so.

 

[NolaMan]

The U.N. came to your countries defense in 1950 and used force to protect it.

Let us however admit that the the US was only to push such a resolution authorizing this through the UNSC because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council at the time.

 

[NolaMan]

Is the UN worthless, like its predecessor the League of Nations?

I think so.

It's powerless militarily, economically, and politically. It failed to stop the Russian-Georgian war, and was unable to stop other wars like the conflicts between Israel and the Arab countries. The only function it has is as a powerless organization that speaks about its opinions on world affaris, which nobody listens to anyway. It can only condemn and strut, but it has no force to back up its words.

What do you think?

I think if you view the sole role of the UN as "conflict prevention and resolution" then perhaps it has been a failure. That is not however the sole purpose of the UN.

 

[rathi]

Let us however admit that the the US was only to push such a resolution authorizing this through the UNSC because the Soviet Union was boycotting the council at the time.

No arguments on that. I just thought it ironic a South Korean all of people would whine about how useless the U.N. is.

 

[Apocalypse]

The UN is far from being generally useless.
It has achieved many goals for anti-Western entities.

 

[NolaMan]

The UN is far from being generally useless.
It has achieved many goals for anti-Western entities.

The UN has been effective in other areas, such as disease eradication and prevention however. That is not something that can be outright ignored when determining the "value" of the United Nations.

 

[digsbe]

the UN is worthless and only serves the purpose of being a really really expensive insult to America, the West, and Israel. I think the UN should be abolished and forced to pay back the money each nation has funded into it.

 

[rathi]

the UN is worthless and only serves the purpose of being a really really expensive insult to America, the West, and Israel. I think the UN should be abolished and forced to pay back the money each nation has funded into it.

So you think that foreign policy should be decided because of some hurt feelings from thin-skinned whiners? The U.N. promotes the status-quo in a world we are the top dog and gives the U.S. veto power when it matters. In return, we give our foes the ability to pass meaningless resolutions that are nothing more than words. On top of that, we control the U.N. headquarters, giving us the home turf advantage. Any pragmatic cost benefit analysis shows the U.N. delivers quite a lot at a low cost.

 

[RightinNYC]

It depends on what you believe its purpose is.

The UN facilitates the enactment of treaties for relatively uncontroversial issues, helps coordinate humanitarian aid, and serves as a slight check on unauthorized uses of force. It's quite good at those things.

It's much less useful when it comes to resolving contentious disputes, protecting human rights, and preventing unauthorized uses of force by powerful nations or nations that are allied with powerful nations.

I'm not a proponent of the "eliminate the UN" approach, but I do think it has a fairly good chance of being supplanted by NATO or some future Concert of Democracies.

 

[Orion]

The UN is not worthless. The amount of research it does and humanitarian aid it provides to the world through the money of its contributors has done a lot of good.

The arena where it's toothless is in the security council but that has more to do with how the UN charter was created than the UN itself. Most of the western powers, including the U.S., would not cooperate with the new UN security council unless they had veto power. It's the veto that is destroying its effectiveness, nothing more.

Added to that, the UN was never designed to handle the kinds of conflicts we are seeing in today's world. Its function was to maintain a stable western bloc and construction efforts in post-WW2 Europe. It was never designed to be a direct policing body on the internal affairs of sovereign nations, but international conflicts. It's the reason why it had little effectiveness in Bosnia, on the issue of Iraq, and now Israel/Palestine. It can only enforce what its participants want to enforce.

You can't blame the UN itself for being ineffective. The governments who created it and are now using it for their own aims are the reason why it is failing the modern world. And yes, the U.S. is part of that, so is Russia, China, and Britain. I wish they would bring a non-nuclear power onto the security council, like Japan. The security council is a joke.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Okay then...
Yes, it seems that the UN does have some function such as research on today's society and giving aid to poor countries. Yes, I forgot that and how stupid of me.

However, shouldn't there be an organization that actually had military, economic, political power to stop possible future conflicts? Of course, with the invention of the atomic bomb, conflicts have considerably lessened, but still..... It would be best if there is such an organization so that it can threaten evil and dangerous nations

Also, yes during the 1950s the UN was powerful, but it's only a shadow of itself. Also, it's just a puppet of the US. Or could you reverse it and make the US a puppet of the UN? I think the UN is the puppet.

Anyway, my point is that the UN failed to meet its goal as an international organizations that prevents conflicts. Although it did defend my country and I am grateful for that, it's useless as a conflict-stopping organization today. Look at Gaza, the mess between Georgia and Russia. All the UN did was condemn, which is effective as trying to reinforce a law with only a water pistol.

 

[NolaMan]

Okay then...
Yes, it seems that the UN does have some function such as research on today's society and giving aid to poor countries. Yes, I forgot that and how stupid of me.

However, shouldn't there be an organization that actually had military, economic, political power to stop possible future conflicts? Of course, with the invention of the atomic bomb, conflicts have considerably lessened, but still..... It would be best if there is such an organization so that it can threaten evil and dangerous nations

What would this organization look like in your mind? And how would we go about creating it?

Also, yes during the 1950s the UN was powerful, but it's only a shadow of itself. Also, it's just a puppet of the US. Or could you reverse it and make the US a puppet of the UN? I think the UN is the puppet.

The UN was not "powerful" in the 1950s... what are you basing that on? And the idea that the UN is a "puppet" to the US is simply laughable. Perhaps it is a "puppet" to the five veto members, but lately the US has struggled to get condenmation of NK, any real Iranian sanctions etc..some puppet.

Anyway, my point is that the UN failed to meet its goal as an international organizations that prevents conflicts. Although it did defend my country and I am grateful for that, it's useless as a conflict-stopping organization today. Look at Gaza, the mess between Georgia and Russia. All the UN did was condemn, which is effective as trying to reinforce a law with only a water pistol.

Russia being a veto member ensured that nothing would be done in terms of Georgia. All they could do was condemn. If you want enforcement, then you are going to need a group like NATO acting outside its operational theater, but it would not be able to include everyone, and therefore would upset plenty of people.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

I mean that it managed to help in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, among other during most of the 1900s until about 1990s

 

[Infinite Chaos]

It is a criminal enterprise that should be given an eviction notice.

I've read in "forbes magazine" that the UN headquarters is moving temporarily to Singapore anyway by 2015. There will be lots of calls by US citizens not to allow the UN back onto US soil and Dubai has offered to host it after the temporary move.

Let's see how the whinging and whining about "anti-Semitism" changes when the US and Israeli posters realise the US may lose the "home turf" advantage over the UN.

Lovely indicative quote here in Forbes which helps explain why so many Israeli and US posters think the way you do Rev -

Let's spell out the logic. The United Nations is a pain in the butt. It pays no taxes and annoys hard-working New Yorkers with its sloth, pretensions and cavalier disregard for traffic laws. The place is a sinkhole dominated by anti-American, anti-Semitic and authoritarian fantasies. It is far from the elegant crown jewel that celebrated the U.S.'s global ascendancy after the Second World War.

i.e. the UN didn't become the whore to US policy that some had always hoped.

 

[Apocalypse]

I've read in "forbes magazine" that the UN headquarters is moving temporarily to Singapore anyway by 2015. There will be lots of calls by US citizens not to allow the UN back onto US soil and Dubai has offered to host it after the temporary move.

Let's see how the whinging and whining about "anti-Semitism" changes when the US and Israeli posters realise the US may lose the "home turf" advantage over the UN.

Lovely indicative quote here in Forbes which helps explain why so many Israeli and US posters think the way you do Rev -



i.e. the UN didn't become the whore to US policy that some had always hoped.

I think people are more concerned with the anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes, really.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I think people are more concerned with the anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes, really.

Only American and Israeli posters - here and on other forums.

Besides, the US has had plenty of chances around the world to show itself in a good light and so any anti-American feeling around the world isn't just the locals despising the US out of sheer hate. The US is often complicit in forming the opinions the world has of it.

 

[Apocalypse]

Only American and Israeli posters - here and on other forums.

Besides, the US has had plenty of chances around the world to show itself in a good light and so any anti-American feeling around the world isn't just the locals despising the US out of sheer hate. The US is often complicit in forming the opinions the world has of it.

The hatred towards the US is by no means merely the result of its actions, but its standing as a superpower on the international ground.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

The hatred towards the US is by no means merely the result of its actions, but its standing as a superpower on the international ground.

True but in its position of superpower and self chosen title of "World Policeman" - it has proven distinctly one sided in its dealings with the world. Every country has the right to put its own self interest first and that's what it has done - but claiming the mantle of "world policeman" put the US into a position of hypocrisy in its dealings.

 

[Tashah]

True but in its position of superpower and self chosen title of "World Policeman" - it has proven distinctly one sided in its dealings with the world. Every country has the right to put its own self interest first and that's what it has done - but claiming the mantle of "world policeman" put the US into a position of hypocrisy in its dealings.

I can't recall either Obama or the US Congress ever using the term "world policeman" to describe US foreign policy. Can you cite?

 

[Apocalypse]

True but in its position of superpower and self chosen title of "World Policeman" - it has proven distinctly one sided in its dealings with the world. Every country has the right to put its own self interest first and that's what it has done - but claiming the mantle of "world policeman" put the US into a position of hypocrisy in its dealings.

Which brings us back to the UN, which claims to be a "world policeman" (Unlike the US) and promotes a one-sided vision.

 

[RightinNYC]

Only American and Israeli posters - here and on other forums.

So only Israelis and Americans are concerned about criticism of American and Israeli actions? Why is that surprising? Why would any country care about criticism of someone else?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

So only Israelis and Americans are concerned about criticism of American and Israeli actions? Why is that surprising? Why would any country care about criticism of someone else?

Exactly.

Which brings us back to the UN, which claims to be a "world policeman" (Unlike the US) and promotes a one-sided vision.

I'll ask you for a link to that UN claim.

I can't recall either Obama or the US Congress ever using the term "world policeman" to describe US foreign policy. Can you cite?

Hello Tashah, it wasn't Obama and I didn't say he said it. I was actually waiting for GySgt / MSgt on this particular topic as I have cited links to this effect for him before. I'll check back and get back to you.