United Nations (or as I call it United Nothing) has these goals: World peace Human Dignity This organization has failed in reaching either of these goals. & what's with USA paying the most expence on this dipsh-t organization? Why doesn't everyone else pay for the expenses also? The UN has completely failed in making peace. It's just like the League of Nations. The League of Nations failed in preserving world peace. It didn't stop Hitler, Mussolini, or Emperor Hirohito from gaining power. As an example of UN's failing to preserve peace, look at the Darfur Conflict. Sure, they sent soldiers to Darfur, but why won't they send more force?
Because the UN is a joke. It isn't a sovereign nation and it has no military. It is also filled with disagreeing parties that are not punished for going against the UN. It's a pipedream of internationalist nonsense. NATO is an example of an international organization that works, because it is an alliance-based security pact that is mutually beneficial and admits of no nonsense.
If Nations were truly United a kitchen table would serve the same purpose as Turtle Bay. At much less expense.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/achieve.htm In terms of expense, the US makes an extremely small contribution relative to its GNI.
True, true and true. Nevertheless without it obviously there would be less... Just because something don't work according to plan (Iraq comes to my mind) it doesn't mean you have to stop trying... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also you explained the inheritent problem of UN, disagreeing parties. But it is better if they try to solve there problems around the table instead of on the warfields... Please remind the audinece, how NATO failed to stop the animosity between 2 NATO members greece and Turkey. Why? Because the same problem applied... Disaggreeing countries in the same allience...
We created the organization. It is inherently less that totally effective, due to it's very nature as a meeting of diverse interests.
At least it provides a stage where countries can officially state their positions on various issues, for all the world to see.
If the UN was stunningly effective, it would be vilified as a one world government threatening the sovereignty of nations. For sure they would take greater action against the US's latest actions. By the UN's rules, invading Iraq was illegal.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that the US is actually part of the problem in continuing conflicts and tensions around the world. If they'd just butt out, perhaps those nations would work out their own problems.
That is the problem, isn't it. Without a forum to negotiate, nations would just bomb each other. I was suggesting if the UN had greater powers, such as the power of extradition. Could you handle it if they arrested Bush? I suggest the UN is ineffective because the US wants it that way. We are too hypocritical to live up to any high ideals.
No, the UN would have had negotiations between Kuwait, Iraq, and other oil producing nations to address Saddam's grievances.
Negotiations???? When was the last time in history that Sadman did any negotiating with anyone??? You're a hoot, Spider! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
That's because the members of the UN, particularly the US, are hypocrites. They create a UN and only use it to justify their actions and ignore it when it's inconvenient. It can make an effective negotiating body only when it's members let it be so. Saddam knew it was a joke in this respect, but it's our fault, not the fault of the institution. We also negotiated the end of the gulf war.
I was wondering when you'd get around to blaming the US for all the problems of the world. But with this post, you've restored my faith in you, Spider. "It's all the fault of the US!" Baron Max
