The UN was created right after WWII for the purpose of keeping the world at peace... And how badly it failed, eh!?!? :bugeye: Why are we even spending money on the UN? It's complete useless garbage! Why? Because it has absolutely no power!!! First of all, lats carefully analize the five sources of power. 1.Legitimacy: the power of authority While the UN is composed of leaders throughout the planet, it does not have final authority. In fact, a few powerful countries have special authority to veto on issues that are widely agreeable, which renders the whole democratic process completely useless! Furthermore, the UN works through the painful concept of Robert's Rules of Order, which in the case of such a massive organization with so many perspectives, different issues and different conflicts simply doesn't work due to the large complexities of the organization. In other words- nobody can agree. In a nutshell, UN has little to no legitimacy. 2.Reward: the power to give or remove something valuable The UN tries to have reward power through sanctions. However, as said before, some countries have the power to veto. And those same countries have enough power to simply completely ignore the UN (which also applies above). Yes, I'm talking about the US. History shows that sanctions usually don't work very well. And psychology teaches us why- negative reinforcement is not very effective. As far as positive reinforcement goes, I've never seen the UN using it- nor does it seem they have enough power and capital to do that. 3. Coersion: the power to punish and use force Coersion is directly opposed to peace. Ironically, it seems it is UN's greatest power. While UN has "peacekeeping" troops, there are not enough to do much. Besides, what's the point of using guns when you are trying to achieve peace anyways? Btw, coersion is the least effective kind of power. 4. Expert: the power of knowledge and skill While expert power is one of the most effective kinds of power, UN has barely any. And even if they had, they would probably not know how to use it. Does anyone know of any expert power the UN has? 5. Referent: the power of knowing and influencing people Once again, this is a very effective power. Once again, the UN has little to none of it. Besides those powers, the UN also doesn't have any of the contigencies of power such as possession of information and centrality. Now, let's compare the UN with Wal-Mart! Wal-mart has legitimacy in the minds of customers. That is, customers trust Wal-mart. It has reward power, obviously. Lots of it. It has some coersion when it comes to its suppliers. It has lots of expert knowledge in its field- think of its supply-chain management system. And, of course, it has referent power. It also has lots of information, centrality and its very visible. As you can see, mankind is great at creating powerful monsters and not-so-great at creating powerful heroes... :shrug:
The UN is a Cold War by-product and it's effectiveness is very very questionable outside of trying to eliminate poverty and eliminating WMDs... BUT... The world needs a forum to have discussion, more so than ever before. We can't have nations running around on their own, doing what they please. Nor can have regions doing what they please. Sad to say, the UN is the only international forum that is capable of doing this. The UN will be as powerful as the member nations allow it to be. The problem with member nations, especially the members of the permanent Security Council (US, China, Russia, France, and Britain), want to use the UN for their own self-interests, as opposed to world interests. That is what the US, China, Russia, France, and Britain don't understand.
The UN sucks giant donkey dick! The UN is an expensive place for diplomats to have lavish, expensive parties and get-togethers to talk to each other ...nothing more. Baron Max
You can't usually fix the complex with a sledgehammer. The UN helps (and has helped) keep the peace, only when members agree on alternatives to warfare. If you're looking for a military overlord in the UN, you are displaying an astounding level of ignorance. Spend just a little time learning the mission of the UN, and how the peacekeeping mission (only one of many missions vital to both the life and quality-of-life for millions of human beings) is served every day by more than 80,000 highly-dedicated people who have accepted considerable personal risks and sacrifice in that cause. Then come back and post something worthwhile.
Peacekeeping missions???? Hype, you're woefully ignorant! Nowhere on Earth has the UN done anything in the way of "peacekeeping" ....at best what they've done is prolong the conflict, but without any resolution at all. Standing between two warring factions is nothing more than prolonging the conflict ...the minute the UN pulls out, the parties go back to fighting again, because nothing has been resolved. 80,000 dedicated people? How many of 'em were involved in things like the oil-for-food program? How many of 'em have raped women in other nations? How many of 'em do virtually nothing, but draw huge paychecks? The UN sucks giant donkey dicks ....and don't even do that well!!! Baron Max
The whole point of the thread is to talk about how powerless the UN is. I'm not discussing its merits or criticizing its vision. I'm talking about power here. Can we agree that most corporations and countries are more powerful then the UN? What was the opinion of the UN when the US wanted to go to war on Iraq?
terryoh Why not? the most is accomplished by the individual be it nations or people, why because they don't have to wait for consensus, and they act faster than a organization like the U.N. ever can, and a lot of little problems taken care of early don't become major fuck ups later. You forget to mention every little tin pot dictator who blithely ignore any sanctions that the U.N. imposes, to make a Franc, Pound, Rupee, or what ever their currency is to put in their pocket, that is why the U.N. will always be impotent, when any country can ignore sanctions as they please, and they all do.
some of my views i think the u.n is quite bad atm cuase f the american influence i dont mean i h8 american i mean like george bush anyway i dont n tht much abut the un and that is just my opinion eg iraq... i think that iraq is a excuse for american i heard that iraq had switched its curency to the euro and the u.s is geting free trade people hord up all the cheks for the dollar to get oil and these cheks never reach the bank so t speak s the u.s doesnt ever realy spend any money on oil and if other oil prducing countries switched t the euro it wuld be realy bad fr the american's as i heard wich may not be true they are in huge debt as it is p.s i know i cant spell Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, had the UN actually been a real force for "the people", then Sadman would have been removed from power ten seconds after starting to kill people that he didn't like or who didn't like what he did. And then the US would never have had to do anything in Iraq. Baron Max
u no wat i think we need in the u.n lee evans what ya think Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm sure these kind of discussions go on at the UN... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course they did ....that was when he was a nice guy. Like most of us, he changed ....he just changed for the worse, not the better. Baron Max
Are you stupid? When was he a nice guy, when he was 10??? He was brutal from day one as a President! LOL
TruthSeeker Actually you are wrong, Saddam was a foot solder in the bathist party, 1959 Botched assassination plot; Saddam forced into exile Saddam Hussein in Cairo Saddam is selected by the Ba'ath Party to be part of seven-man hit squad to assassinate Iraqi leader Gen. Abdel Karim Kassem. The plot fails. Although Saddam later portrays himself as the leader of the team, in reality he has a small role. He is slightly wounded in the incident and escapes the next morning in a daring swim across the Tigris River. Saddam flees to Cairo and becomes caught up in Egypt's own revolution under the charismatic Gamel Abdel Nasser, whose pan-Arabism Saddam finds appealing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another Ba'ath Party coup; Saddam gains influence Early 1970s, Saddam negotiates with Kurdish Democratic Party leader, Mulla Mustafa Barzani Again, the Ba'ath Party seizes power in Iraq, this time under Ahmad Hassan Al Bakr, Saddam's cousin. Bakr entrusts his 31-year-old relative with the most important job of all: running the state security apparatus to extinguish dissent both inside and outside the party. Within a year and a half, Saddam emerges as Bakr's right hand man. As Saddam's power and influence grows in the 1970s, it is clear that he has designs on the presidency himself. But he also knows that Bakr has powerful support from the army. Saddam begins to plot against the military establishment and to systematically remove Bakr's closest colleagues. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 1979 Saddam Hussein seizes presidency Saddam stages a palace coup and President Bakr resigns for health reasons. Among Saddam's first actions after assuming the presidency is purging the Ba'ath Party of any potential enemies. Several weeks into his presidency, Saddam calls a meeting of the Ba'ath Party leadership and insists it be videotaped. He announces there are traitors in their midst and reads out their names. One by one, the individuals are led out, never to be seen again. Tapes of the meeting are sent throughout the country, allowing Saddam to send a message to the Iraqi elite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No Saddam was a self made man, he fought his way up through the ranks of the Bathist party by himself.
