Is the UN still relivant?

[god-of-course]

A quick de-briefing on United Nation's security council members:

China: The first ever civilized country, it is said that trhe first dynasty sent out one explorer in every direction of the globe or something like this. Of course they never actually found anything, except for a few nomads and barbarians, their culture does literally have everything, the food, music, films, people etc. For this reason China has alwasy been quite inward looking they consider themselves to be the center of the world, what could they possibly want from elsewhere? China never wants involvment in anything, you can always expect it to vote no to war regardless of the circumstances.

Russia: Still crippled by long periods of cummunism they are unable to take any direct action against the discisions of the council since they rely heavily on cheap imports from the rest of teh world especially America, although Putin's opposition to a U.S.-led war reflects a measure of post-superpower resentment as does all its descisions, hence; also dissagreement.

Britain and France: These two countries are the only powers in Europe worth anything. For example they are the biggest military spenders in Europe, they are the only nuclear powers, they have the sorts of armies that can go places and this is the main thig. Russia for example has maybe 1 million men but maybe only half that many boots and maybe 100th of that again in terms of sea transport, and another 100th of that in air transport. What littel they do own are mainly relics from the cold war. The same principles of transport apply to germany who are still under ww2 sanctions, and lets face it why would they need a military force? they are cushioned by every other nation in the EU. So the UK and France can really throw some weight around but it is where these two agree that progress is made, this has been proven in the balkans and to some extent in the middle east.

America: Can't make up my mind on this one, most peopel assume America (or its leaders) are somehow evil. Must post my thoughts on America another time cos haven't thought enough.

[sweet Pentax]

military strenght = importance ?

of course ,god-of-course , some military potential is needed to enforce resolutions ,but not a superpower like you would like to see !
i mean ,you are talking about nukes......

[god-of-course]

Can't really understand what you are trying to tell me? do you know? My poll is just an opinion survey and my post is to give a veryt basic insight into the dispositions of these 5 countries who are principly the victorious powers of wordl war 2 and are all militarilly, economically and influentially important. I was rather hoping someone would fill the gaps for me for example i am not clear on the relations of America with the rest of the members?

[sweet Pentax]

Originally posted by god-of-course
my post is to give a veryt basic insight into the dispositions of these 5 countries

no ,it is just a reflection of your subjective opinion
i gave a comment to that , that´s all !
best would be you spare the breath and ignore me

[justiceusa]

Apparently the UN is no longer relevant to the Bush administration.

[nico]

My thread on this is much better if you would care to read.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....light=Security

Of course the UN SC is still relevant, even moreso. The media exposure of it has thrusted it on to the lime light. Not only outside the US the popularity of the UN SC gone up but so has a new found respect for it and France, Germany, and Russia. States that were proven right to abide by the no-invasion line. The question is really.. is the US' word still relevant?

[hypewaders]

Meanwhile, on the remainder of planet Earth (&@ the UN), consensus is reaching its conclusion regarding the more salient question:


Is the United States still relevant?

[Clockwood]

Is the UN still relevant? Yes but less so. They have little real authority and nobody really ever changes their mind about doing somthing just because they say so. NOBODY. They do make you look better when they support you and that counts for more than you would think... at least in democratic countries. Just too much beaurocracy and love of the status quo. The feeling that no decision is a good decision.

Is America still relevant? Obviously so. Everyone sure seems to pay a lot of attention to us and some even seem to fear us. When we can have a week or two on Sciforums without anyone going into a rant about Bush or the US and its ungodly powers THEN we can wonder if it is still relevant.

[nico]

America is losing relevance with GWB, no one would believe a word that comes out his mouth again. And if Americans are that stupid to fall for it again.... America is relevant yes, but not with this liar in power.

[Mr. G]

Is the UN still relavant[sic]?

Committees are the most lethal associations in Nature.

[Clockwood]

Example of UN's loss of relevance: The UN tossed one ultimatum after another at Saddam's Iraq and he slapped them in the face each time. When they managed to get inspectors in they always were given minders, were restricted from certain locations, and were always kicked out after a month or two with no particular reason. And they did nothing.

You can't be all that relevant if you just sit there with your thumb up your tush. All they do is discuss, scold people, and place ultimatums.

Could some of you guys state the reasons why you think the UN is still relevant?

[spookz]

yah
considering the un in some form or another will be the voice of earth. i'd say it has relevance

[Clockwood]

No. It would be the voice of the governments of the earth. Unless those were all democratic it will not be the voice of the people. Even then people are not the whole of the earth. You going to give lichen a seat in the UN?

[justiceusa]

Originally posted by Clockwood
Example of UN's loss of relevance: The UN tossed one ultimatum after another at Saddam's Iraq and he slapped them in the face each time. When they managed to get inspectors in they always were given minders, were restricted from certain locations, and were always kicked out after a month or two with no particular reason. And they did nothing.

They must have done something as there were no WMD found in Iraq.

Saddam's tauntings did something else , they managed to get the USA to jump head first into an empty swimming pool, something the UN did not fall for.

When the cost of the war grows high enough GW will be sucking up to the United nations like a piglet sucking its mothers tit.

[Mr. G]

Justusay:

They must have done something as there were no WMD found in Iraq.

Yeah. They did something. They failed to find where the WMD are buried or were exported to neighboring states. Or where the WMDs were destroyed and disposed of within Iraq.

The very same track record the UN is attempting to use to impeach the US for it's own political purposes.

Say it loud enough, enough times, and some people will buy into it as if it were fact.

Hope you got change back on your ideological purchase.

Saddam's tauntings did something else , they managed to get the USA to jump head first into an empty swimming pool, something the UN did not fall for.

Saddam's "tauntings" lost himself his unchallenged control of Iraq -- something the UN was completely incapable of bringing about.

When the cost of the war grows high enough GW will be sucking up to the United nations like a piglet sucking its mothers tit.

Your cost analysis is flawed and pointlessly biased.

The US, pre-9/11, was playing the Nice Guy to Islamo-terrorists -- leaving them alone to plot and plan while in our midst -- as if not confronting them would persuade them we're too nice to terrorize.

Some much for your cherished theories of Nice Guys are invulnerable.

When the cost to the terrorists grows high enough, they'll be sucking up to us to save their sorry asses, and you'll still be clueless.

And free to speak whatever comes into your mind.

[Tiassa]

Committees are the most lethal associations in Nature.

As true of the UN as it is of any nation.

But is the UN relevant?

Yes, I think so, at least until people either get peaceful and make it unnecessary or stop kidding themselves about desiring peace.

I, of course, would prefer the former, though the reality I see among my friends and neighbors is that we ought to just stop regarding peace as virtuous since it's so damn inconvenient to them.

On that note, a brief soapbox comment: I just don't get it. Peace isn't that hard. In fact, what's so hard about not fighting? Fighting is harder. We just have to face the fact that most people don't actually think of peace as virtuous or desirable. I do find this a sad testament to humanity.

[hypewaders]

Clockwood:"Could some of you guys state the reasons why you think the UN is still relevant?" I'll be happy to assist you.

To me, a person's stance on this issue clarifies whether they truly support the evolution of civilization beyond conquest and exploitation or not. The United Nations is an institution that, inclusive of all its many faults, was conceived and operates with the intent of advancing history through consensus and not intimidation and violence.

Opinions regarding the UN point to something deeper than twisted superficial labels like "pacifism", "hawkishness", "globalism" "nationalism" etc. etc. This issue illuminates where you stand in terms of "the cutting edge of societal evolution" (without apology to Limbaugh).

If you sincerely believe that disputes are best settled with violence, then the UN is irrelevant to you. If you sincerely believe that a fortress mentality is economically efficient for a modern country, then the UN is irrelevant to you. If you believe that conquest is the most effective means of advancing national interests, then the UN is irrelevant to you. If you believe that your own nation's interests outweigh those of all others, then the UN is irrelevant. If you have sincere nostalgia for the age of empires, and its myths of chivalry and valour, then it's irrelevant. If you have not read "Mein Kampf", and would not recognise its sickness if provided a copy with all historical and ethnic references aligned to match your own, then the UN is irrelevant to you.

If you understand that all people share the same needs in this life, then the UN is relevant to you. If you understand that your race, place and familial status at birth have had profound effect on the comfort and potential of your life, then the UN has relevance for you. If you are aware of rapid permeation and interconnection underway in cultures and geoeconomics, then the UN has relevance for you. If you understand that modern wars produce more blowback than positive effect, then the UN has relevance. If you see that human potential for self-destruction can advance faster than national maturity and informed public opinion, there is relevance. If you understand that there are means other than classic war for humbling any nation including a superpower, there's relevance. If you see that the world is unhappy with, and increasingly aware of, the present power structure, there's relevance. If you understand that there are many cases in recent history of revolutionary change without violence, there's relevance. If you understand that millions of lives have been saved by the UN, there's relevance. If you understand that "doing the right thing" has personal and national benefits, then there's relevance. If you understand the inefficiency of killing any number of strangers to get what you want for your country, as opposed to the enduring benefits of acts of understanding, work, commitment, and compromise, then the UN is relevant to you.

Blessed are the peacemakers: They needn't be perfect in organization to be deserving of our respect and gratitude.

I salute the imperfect but vital UN.

[dsdsds]

The US is making the UN Irrelevant.

Bush's address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002:
"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. … All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"


Hype, I keep wondering how (and why) you keep loving your country as much as you claim.

[justiceusa]

Originally posted by Mr. G
Justusay:

Yeah. They did something. They failed to find where the WMD are buried or were exported to neighboring states. Or where the WMDs were destroyed and disposed of within Iraq.


Say it loud enough, enough times, and some people will buy into it as if it were fact.

Whoa there little man you seem to forget that the American occupation forces, accompanied by a large number of CIA agents, have also failed to come up with an explantion for the missing WMD.

"Say it loud enough" Yes indeed, that is exacly what the Bush henchmen did to get us into this quagmire.

OK so sling some more insults it seems to your only ability.

[hypewaders]

"Hype, I keep wondering how (and why) you keep loving your country as much as you claim."

That's fit for another thread, but 4WIW 1. It's the journey that matters. 2. Personal political responsibility seems to me primarily local and within one's own country, and 3. Although spoiled and often misled, Americans are a nebulous and wonderful people who have wound up with an intensely beautiful land as varied as we are. I realize this sounds smarmy but it's true.

However, I often entertain cowardly thoughts like voting with my feet. Unfortunately, my appearance and Americanisms are likely to become even more dangerous in some of my favorite places, should the US continue down the present path. In the end, I speak out, enjoy myself, hope for the best, and only regret that I have but one life to lose for my[self].