Is the United Nations dead??
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Is the United Nations dead??

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3

    Is the United Nations dead??

    I think so.

    Here's just two, easy to understand reason's.


    1)Libya(a well known human rights violator) sits on the Human rights commission.
    2)Before the war in Iraq, Iraq's turn was coming up to chair conference on disarmament.


    Who with a straight face can honestly tell anyone on this board that this organization has any credibility?

    I hope Baghdad Bob isnt an AO member.


    Can anyone make an honest rebuttal to my claim? I implore you.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    3,747
    I agree with you completely. It seems to me that the U.N has never been a completely strong board. Besides it takes to long for the U.N to do something about a problem.
    =

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    251
    Well if it wasn't, it certainly hasn't been helped by the US's gigantic middle-finger action toward international law. Precedent can make or break a law, setting the precedent that anybody with enough firepower / military strength can do whatever-the-hell they want doesn't exactly leave much room for legal process.
    The tricky part is where the UN started hedging on its response to violations, telling people that they are naughty can not be the only action taken, setting the precedent on how far they can be pushed before acting... But, then isn't that the idea of imminent danger? Isn't that what we set the precedent against?
    The problem is, what do we do without the UN? If one country leads, it can interfere with its "allies's" soveriegnty by power. What is the point of having seperate nations then? To allow for subservient third-world countries to act as cheap labor pools?
    To enslave nations through imperialism, or set them free through international democratic process? That is the question that we are really asking. Do we want to rise above those that we are condemning, or wallow in the same filth just on a bigger scale?
    If the system is flawed, then it needs improvement. Perhaps EVERYONE needs to start playing by the rules..., that would be a nice start...

    Dhej
    The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk. -Hegel

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3
    Precedent can make or break a law, setting the precedent that anybody with enough firepower / military strength can do whatever-the-hell they want doesn't exactly leave much room for legal process.

    I think you single handedly pointed out the problem with the U.N in this this sentence. The U.N has dropped the ball so many times they have allowed themselves to become accustom to it. This is the precedence they have set for themselves, thus its normal for them to not act in a responsible manor.

    1)Libya(a well known human rights violator) sits on the Human rights commission.
    2)Before the war in Iraq, Iraq's turn was coming up to chair conference on disarmament.
    Next time Dhej, try not to avoid the issue. Its these types of reason's that the U.N is dead.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    The UN is no different then it was ten or twenty years ago. It has always been a toothless tiger security wise but will stay around due to its diplomatic importance (it gives a neutral ground for countries to scream at each other), and the usefulness of some of its member organizations (WHO, various relief groups).
    Note that both the USSR and China thumbed there nose at UN rulings long before the US did in Iraq. Also note that China and the US have been on the human rights board for a hell of a long time (its basically a joke and always has been).

    Remember the UN isn't really an autonomous organization no matter what the right wing nuts tell you; they are made up of diplomats that have little to no power in their home country The UN has never been anything more then a debating league, its never been a ruling/legislative organization so claming that is dead as one is a little insane. The UN will stay in this same capacity and this will not change unless it develops a military of its on, and that will never happen.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  6. #6
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Actually the U.N., for the past few years at least, has been a forum to bash Israel in all honesty. Now I don't want to change the subject here because you all bring up very valid points including that the U.N. will stay around even if it doesn't "actively" tackle security issues.

    The U.N. will never have a standing army, never. It's already a street cop on valium, so putting an army directly under it's control would lead the world to ruin. Not to mention how would the soldiers get chosen, etc. etc. THere's too many issues and I'm too sick to type this much anyway.

    Peace
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    94
    I wonder if the state of the U.N. would be different if the HQ was in a different "neutral" country? Der Schweiz (Switzerland) perhaps?
    \"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?\"
    -Juvenal

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    I doubt the UN would be any better if it was housed in a difrent country..at least in the US there is only one countries air space that you need permission to fly through to get here.

    As for a standing UN army, I agree fully with you korp, it owuld be an extreamly bad idea. The UN was never ment to be anything more then a debateing soceity for the superpowers to work out their diffrences with out fighting, it was never ment to be a legislative board and should never get that power.
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    118
    UN has an army. This army is composed with military from all the contries that made the UN. USA is the biggest one. In a post someone has a link to a document where we can see how many military each country "give" to UN but I don't remember it. This is not a "real" army since each gouvernment lend resource. The job of UN is : Peace & security, Economic & Social development, Human Rights, Humanitarian affair and International law (see there web site Here

  10. #10
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    Originally posted here by Ghostdog
    UN has an army. This army is composed with military from all the contries that made the UN. USA is the biggest one. In a post someone has a link to a document where we can see how many military each country "give" to UN but I don't remember it. This is not a "real" army since each gouvernment lend resource. The job of UN is : Peace & security, Economic & Social development, Human Rights, Humanitarian affair and International law (see there web site Here
    The U.N. does NOT have a standing army, it requests troops from cooperative Nations and that's how it polices. I say again, it does NOT have an army somewhere training specifically to enforce U.N. policy.... it just doesn't.

    Thanks for paying attention, GhostDog.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •