Baron, you're a silly man. It's pretty evident that small pox would not have been eliminated without the UN. In fact, without the WHO, small pox would still be a problem. There is one good thing the UN has done– saved hundreds of millions of lives. You said the UN hasn't done anything helpful, when in fact, the UN has. Of course there is bad in the UN, just like anything, there will be good and bad. But the UN isn't all bad. You're just refusing to see the good the UN has done. Silly, silly Baron, we could do this for just about every government in the world! These rapes weren't sanctioned by the UN, just as LAPD doesn't santion polics officers selling confiscated crank. But people will be people, and bad stuff like this happens. Perhaps if the UN used robots.... The UN doesn't work because there are some very powerful people and organizations that don't want it to work. And for just reason, too. When the UN really starts to work, national governments will be in decline. It will be an era of a world government. I think there are very few people who want that to happen. Whether or not the UN works, we in the modern era need it. It's a sign that, despite the colossal waste humanitarianism seems to be, we're willing to help our fellow man.
Smallpox was eradicated in the US in the late 1800's! The UN didn't even exist then. As to the rest of the world, the US gave tons of smallpox vaccines to many nations of the world. So ...I'm not so sure that the UN actually did anything about smallpox? I'd also like to mention the problems in Africa, all over Africa: Millions are starving to death right now, as we debate ...what is the UN doing about it? There are major civil wars and tribal conflicts, causing the deaths of millions, in Africa as well as other areas of the world ...what is the UN doing about them? So we just keep throwing our money away ....as a fuckin' sign that we care????? How fuckin' silly is that??!! I'd direct you to the tsunami disaster ...it was the US that supplied her military to the region and provide tons of food and water using military helicopters and personnel .....long, long before the UN did anything! And even now, $$$$$$$ by the gazillions is NOT being distributed by the UN as promised. Where is that money? UN? No, we don't need the UN, we need an organization that WORKS!! An organization that DOES SOMETHING!! The UN sits around drinking fine wine and eating $$ horses ovaries while millions suffer and die. The UN is a ideal that, like most ideals, sucks in the final analysis and in reality. Yes, the UN sucks! ....it sucks giant donkey dicks! Baron Max
Let's think. Good things for the USA. Great depression was completely overcome using state socialist policies of a war state. Plight of workers was significantly improved (cause of labor shortage). USA was essentially untouched by war. Every other industrial nation of any importance was in ruins (literal and/or economical ones). Thus, USA was the only country with powerful, intact industrial base = lots of foreign orders, lots of jobs, good wages. Every ally belligerent was owing $ to the USA. To pay debt, buy industrial, agricultural products other countries shipped almost all their gold to the USA = USA substituted old Europe as a financial center. This prepared ground for the American dollar to become de facto world currency. Thus, current prosperity of the USA economy is largerly due to allied victory in WWII. Unlike other countries, USA still lives on results of that victory. After WWII, American capital forced colonial Europian powers to give up bulk of their traditional colonies in order to open them for American corporations. The age of neocolonialism began. One may argue that neo colonialism is somewhat better than traditional one. Europian guilt + American Jewish lobby + fundies + Stalin's desire to create socialist Jewish state resulted in a creation of Israel shortly after WWII. It was definitely a good thing for Jewish people. German militarism was broken, and it still remains broken. I think Japanese just faking their luck of militarism though. Lots of small and not so small ethnic groups were saved of German and Japanese genocide. As cruel as it sounds, after WWII ethnic cleansings and border deals created solid foundation for Europian (ethnic) peace in the affected countries under watchful eye of USSR and USA. That are few good things which comes to my mind. However, good thing for one side is frequently a bad thing for the other.
No, the last case in the US was recorded in 1977. Indeed. It took two world wars before the post WW-II nations realised that there should be a global effort to make sure that diplomacy is always an option. Global efforts to combat diseases are coordinated from the World Health Organisation, an UN institution. United Nations Development Programme. United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). What did you expect though, that the UN, after being around for only 60 years, would have solved the world's most daunting problems? Of course, not! But at least, an effort is made. The United Nations was intended for solving conflicts between nations, not between tribes or civil factions. That makes the UN diplomacy infrastructure a bit incompatible. Nevertheless, the UN does try to keep the peace where it can. In Africa, and all over the globe: list of UN peacekeeping operations. Moreover, when the dust settles, the UN often helps to organise decent fair elections. First of all, not only the US provided aid: Who's giving what?. Secondly, the UN is involved. Read up on it here, where the latests news on their efforts is published. This is just silly bigotry. The UN is an ideal, true. It will probably never be a guarantee for peace or the final solution to all of the world's diseases and suffering. Yet, it does provide us with a place where nations can make efforts to resolve their differences peacefully. That, in itself, makes the UN a necessity.
The United nations is the mouth piece of the rich and powerful. The US gets what it wants, basically. To say that disease has been abated, much less eradicated by virtue of the existence of the UN needs supporting proof. The U.N went tow ar against North Korea, remember? How about Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, then and now continuing the war on terror, the war on drugs, the rape and pillage in Africa, the Facist dictatorships in South America? Did someone say the UN is a positive factor in any of this? Geistkiesel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, it doesn't. Don't you remember how the US didn't get the resolution they wanted prior to the invasion of Iraq, with the courtesy of France? See here. For an article explaining where and how the WHO learned from its mistakes in the (nonetheless succesfull) fight against small pox, see here. Well, it was North Korea launching an attack on South Korea. After this deed of agression by the North, the UN paved the way for a coalition of countries to help defend South Korea. You blame the UN for the fact that the world is not an utopia? It's the UN's charter to promote human rights, it can not enforce them. If you want that to happen, the solution is not to abolish the UN, but to transcend its influence to a point where it can eclipse the authority of nation states. Basically, it would need its own significant army. Do you honestly want that?
The break up of British Empire was a direct consequence of WW 2. A sad event for us but a positive one notheless.
Why was it positive? Look at Zimbabwe now, for example. The British Empire was a great thing for a lot of places....we (opinion) took care of the places we controlled. Built schools and institutions and railways and that kind of stuff.
The US was initially outcontributed by almost everyone including Japan and the UK. Only afterwards did it increase its contribution TO SAVE FACE.
there are a lot of things that are the direct result of ww2 1. radar 2. jet aircraft 3. rockets 4. radio controlled tanks 5. forward swept wing aircraft 6. synthetic oil
We would have discovered those in due time, war just accelerates research. Looking at it as a bunch of new discoveries is quite depressing that it had to come at the deaths of millions.
it's a real shame that people must die in order for others to live but it's a fact of life, there's no way around it
You must be confused, you're referring to the animal kingdom. The difference between humans and animals is that we have the ability to use logic before instinct.
we are born, we grow, we die. whats so confusing about that? our society as we know it could not exist if it was any other way
Preferebly on land? Perhaps, if they get lucky, they could even live in cities, they could become city folk?
