What do you think of the UN?
Started by RandomNameIgnoreIt, Jul 20 2006 02:46 PM
19 replies to this topic
#1
RandomNameIgnoreIt
-
-
- 1828 posts
Posted 20 July 2006 - 02:46 PM
#2
Hydrogen
-
-
- 22213 posts
Neocodex Co-Founder
Posted 20 July 2006 - 02:48 PM
See League of Nations.
Its going down that path
Its going down that path
#3
Cory
-
-
- 7487 posts
Dinnerbone'd
Posted 20 July 2006 - 02:49 PM
I think that its a piece of shit that should be disbanded.
#4
Tetiel
-
-
- 11533 posts
Posted 20 July 2006 - 02:52 PM
One word: Useless.
The only thing they seem to be doing nowdays is drawing lines in the sand and yet no one obeys anyways. The UN hardly ever interferes militarily anymore and if they DO they order the troops not to shoot. It's silly and soon they'll start giving carrots to all the bad-intentioned nations and we'll be like Hydro said... LoN again
The only thing they seem to be doing nowdays is drawing lines in the sand and yet no one obeys anyways. The UN hardly ever interferes militarily anymore and if they DO they order the troops not to shoot. It's silly and soon they'll start giving carrots to all the bad-intentioned nations and we'll be like Hydro said... LoN again
#5
Hawk
-
-
- 9688 posts
hawk·ish·ly
Posted 20 July 2006 - 11:14 PM
The UN has no power, thats the problem. Whats the best they can do? Economic sanctions? Maybe deploy troops- except they cant shoot [Hotel Rwanda again ].
].
#6
Hydrogen
-
-
- 22213 posts
Neocodex Co-Founder
Posted 20 July 2006 - 11:21 PM
QUOTE(hawk117 @ Jul 20 2006, 11:14 PM) 
The UN has no power, thats the problem. Whats the best they can do? Economic sanctions? Maybe deploy troops- except they cant shoot [Hotel Rwanda again ].
I think the problem is how it was set up...giving 5 super power countries the ability to veto any bill in the security council? thats so unbalanced... ]. #7
Melchoire
-
-
- 5284 posts
Posted 20 July 2006 - 11:29 PM
Pretty much useless nowadays they haven't done anything at all lately and I don't recall anything else they've done at all 
they haven't done anything at all lately and I don't recall anything else they've done at all
#8
sonic
-
-
- 3452 posts
Posted 21 July 2006 - 12:07 AM
QUOTE(Hydrogen @ Jul 20 2006, 11:21 PM)
I think the problem is how it was set up...giving 5 super power countries the ability to veto any bill in the security council? thats so unbalanced...
Not unbalanced.
Its more natural. The more powerful of a country you are, the more say you should have.
The UN is a load of crap. All yelling loudly and no action.
#9
Grizzly
-
-
- 3964 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 21 July 2006 - 04:51 PM
I honestly don't know. I just don't hear about them much. I just know that they put money into stopping illegal trafficking of weapons on Ghana (I think). So I'm sure they can't be that bad.
#10
Tetiel
-
-
- 11533 posts
Posted 21 July 2006 - 04:55 PM
QUOTE(Freak @ Jul 21 2006, 04:51 PM)
I honestly don't know. I just don't hear about them much. I just know that they put money into stopping illegal trafficking of weapons on Ghana (I think). So I'm sure they can't be that bad.
And they also have workers do the 'sex for food scandal' in Liberia so yes, they CAN be that bad.
Source: http://www.iht.com/a.../news/abuse.php
They're sick bastards... and this is recent!
#11
Grizzly
-
-
- 3964 posts
<img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>
Posted 21 July 2006 - 05:00 PM
QUOTE(Tetiel @ Jul 21 2006, 06:55 PM)
And they also have workers do the 'sex for food scandal' in Liberia so yes, they CAN be that bad.
Source: http://www.iht.com/a.../news/abuse.php
They're sick bastards... and this is recent!
Well those are just 8 corrupted individuals.. It certainly is horrible but I'm not going to base my opinion on just one case.
#12
Tetiel
-
-
- 11533 posts
Posted 21 July 2006 - 05:15 PM
QUOTE(Freak @ Jul 21 2006, 05:00 PM)
Well those are just 8 corrupted individuals.. It certainly is horrible but I'm not going to base my opinion on just one case.
Okaaaaaaaay... how about the whole oil for food scandal?
http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/4131602.stm
And they failed to prevent the Rwanda genocide which killed an estimated 500,000, they failed to intervene effectively in the second Congo war, failed to intervene in the Srebrenica massacre which killed over 8,000, they failed to deliver food in Somalia and instead warlords siezed it.
And for your information that isn't just 8 curropted individuals. This has been happening in at least five countries and during that time UN peacekeepers were deployed in 16 countries. Not a good record to have 5/16 of your projects end up being a haven for pedophile rapists now is it?
#13
Hawk
-
-
- 9688 posts
hawk·ish·ly
Posted 21 July 2006 - 08:06 PM
QUOTE(Tetiel @ Jul 21 2006, 07:15 PM)
And they failed to prevent the Rwanda genocide which killed an estimated 500,000, they failed to intervene effectively in the second Congo war, failed to intervene in the Srebrenica massacre which killed over 8,000, they failed to deliver food in Somalia and instead warlords siezed it.
Wow, a lot of these instances have become movies. The Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi population is shown very well in "Hotel Rwanda", once again, I shall suggest it to everyone who has not seen it. Nobody ever replies saying they have seen it so I do not know how many people actually have or not.
The Somolia incident was the whole plot of Black Hawk Down. Its also because of Somalia that we did not want to get involved in Rwanda
#14
nox
-
-
- 6707 posts
Posted 21 July 2006 - 08:50 PM
the UN talks and talks but the only country that ever does anything is the U.S
history is unfortunately repeating itself, the UN will fall the same fate the leage of nations did.
the league of nations was unable to cease the axis of powers in the 1930s. (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan). the UN replaced them after the second world war.
history is unfortunately repeating itself, the UN will fall the same fate the leage of nations did.
the league of nations was unable to cease the axis of powers in the 1930s. (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan). the UN replaced them after the second world war.
#15
Cory
-
-
- 7487 posts
Dinnerbone'd
Posted 21 July 2006 - 08:55 PM
QUOTE(hawk117 @ Jul 21 2006, 11:06 PM)
Wow, a lot of these instances have become movies.
That is becuase when the UN messes up it isn't just a oops. Sorry bout that. It is a Global screw up.
QUOTE(asudh8sd7as80du @ Jul 21 2006, 11:43 PM)
the UN talks and talks but the only country that ever does anything is the U.S
The UN does attempt to get things done. They are just extremely slow about it and want to give everyone more than enough chances. The us has more of a motto like, "your country did something wrong, in our eyes, and we are going to do something about it. The UN? We can get get their approval later."
What needs to happen is the US should resign from the United Nations. That would do any number of things. Either it will call for a reform so that we can have a new form of the UN *costing billions of dollars and eventually being crap in the end, but being a good cuase at first*, start a global war, or just simply get the UN to crumble. I hate talking about the US's military forces, since it always seems to cuase a debate about how much the US will kill any other country with are advanced technology and balls to the wall marines, but the UN really isn't anything with out the forces of the US. They use our presence to back up their pussy footed words.
#16 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
Posted 21 July 2006 - 09:16 PM
Well, here's the deal. I am totally in favour of nations working together to solve mutual problems that exist within their own countries. I am totally in favour of nations working together to help other nations during a crisis. I am totally in favour of international laws for things done outside the borders of any country (such as on the seas, out in space, etc) - laws that are simple and easily agreed on, and every country enforces in the case they find themselve enforcing laws on international waters/space.
If that was all the UN did, I would be all over them.
However, laws passed that all nations must agree to? No. Working to solve the long-term problems of other countries? No. Nations should solve those problems themselves. Telling a nation that their military or merchants must do this or that? No. Telling a NATION that they can do this or that?
No.
Not in any circumstance.
I am totally in favour of military alliances of ANY nature. But NOT in the capacity of the UN. Military alliances should not be forged through the UN - things done such as blockades or sanctions or invasions. The UN should have nothing to do with any military anywhere. Military alliances should be the sort of thing forged like they have for centuries - privately between countries who have similar goals.
I will say this. I do NOT mind the UN being slow on legislative things - even the most important legislative issues. Do remember that slow bureaucracy is, in most cases, the best bureaucracy.
I am more concerned that the UN has any legislative powers at all, except for those cases dealing with international waters/space.
And yes, that does mean that I am against having "rules for war" so to speak. All's fair in love and war; I vehemently believe that.
Now as for the council being able to have the final say...that is not something that is surprising. It is how things would work without the UN, you know. The five most powerful countries, if they are in agreement with each other, pretty much are able to tell the rest of the world what to do. You don't need the UN for that.
It would be harder for them to do that without the UN.
But they would still do it. I just hate that there is a law for it - there should be no law at all. It should be pure manhandling, like it's always been.
If that was all the UN did, I would be all over them.
However, laws passed that all nations must agree to? No. Working to solve the long-term problems of other countries? No. Nations should solve those problems themselves. Telling a nation that their military or merchants must do this or that? No. Telling a NATION that they can do this or that?
No.
Not in any circumstance.
I am totally in favour of military alliances of ANY nature. But NOT in the capacity of the UN. Military alliances should not be forged through the UN - things done such as blockades or sanctions or invasions. The UN should have nothing to do with any military anywhere. Military alliances should be the sort of thing forged like they have for centuries - privately between countries who have similar goals.
I will say this. I do NOT mind the UN being slow on legislative things - even the most important legislative issues. Do remember that slow bureaucracy is, in most cases, the best bureaucracy.
I am more concerned that the UN has any legislative powers at all, except for those cases dealing with international waters/space.
And yes, that does mean that I am against having "rules for war" so to speak. All's fair in love and war; I vehemently believe that.
Now as for the council being able to have the final say...that is not something that is surprising. It is how things would work without the UN, you know. The five most powerful countries, if they are in agreement with each other, pretty much are able to tell the rest of the world what to do. You don't need the UN for that.
It would be harder for them to do that without the UN.
But they would still do it. I just hate that there is a law for it - there should be no law at all. It should be pure manhandling, like it's always been.
#17
otherworld
-
-
- 1022 posts
Posted 22 July 2006 - 01:45 AM
so basically you just said it was all right to torture innocent civilians in wars
also the UN does not need the US, all the US seem to do is invade countries in the middle east that they dont like and now the UK follow them on everything
also the UN does not need the US, all the US seem to do is invade countries in the middle east that they dont like
and now the UK follow them on everything
#18 Guest_Casilla_*
Guest_Casilla_*
Posted 22 July 2006 - 03:06 AM
QUOTE(otherworld @ Jul 22 2006, 02:45 AM)
so basically you just said it was all right to torture innocent civilians in wars
also the UN does not need the US, all the US seem to do is invade countries in the middle east that they dont like
and now the UK follow them on everythingUm, the UN wouldn't be around without the US. The UN needs the US very much, because it's only because of the US that many of the UN's policies are able to be enforced at all.
And no, I did not say it was all right. Rather, I said that one country should not, under law, punish another country for it nor hold another country accountable for any wrongs under any circumstances. Nations can band together to punish economically another country that is doing such behavior - that's within their rights if they are willing to accept any economical risks on their part, although their merchants may not always appreciate that. I don't think that the UN should be used, however - such agreements between countries should be mutual, NOT forced by simply being a member of the UN.
But until a country is willing to actually invade a misbehaving country and set things to right, there should be no laws, no. And at that point, it's called intimidation, not legislature. While it may protect human rights, it can also be used to infringe human rights - and in some cases, smaller countries have not been able to stand up to larger countries. They should NOT have to answer to larger countries unless those larger countries are actually willing to use force to get their way. It should not be something that is automatically agreed to.
You are forcing diplomacy, you are not making diplomacy, and that's the difference. While it may have been something that would have been agreed upon anyway, BECAUSE you're forcing it upon someone, they do not always take to it nicely.
And of course, if they do not agree with it, it should not be forced upon them by default - someone in the position to manhandle should do the manhandling - and you will find, that many countries simply do not care to manhandle all the smaller ones.
While today, it is often those smaller ones that participate in criminal behavior, given their horrible economies, I still strongly believe in the rights of a country in the long-term. Of any entity, really - from a person to a business to a country. It has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong" - because what's right and wrong today, may not be right and wrong a hundred years from now.
#19
Noitidart
-
-
- 23214 posts
Neocodex Co-Founder
Posted 22 July 2006 - 10:31 PM
israel is in conflict with how many international laws? 5 bajillion? but the un does nothing... cuz stupid face us vetoes when the un tries to do something? the us is a whimp the media sides with israel makin people focus on the fact that israel is being attacked and not on the why and now everyone takes israels side... its like blaming the jews for the hitler situation...
the media sides with israel makin people focus on the fact that israel is being attacked and not on the why and now everyone takes israels side... its like blaming the jews for the hitler situation...
#20
Ives
-
-
- 4320 posts
Posted 23 July 2006 - 03:14 PM
Israel pisses me off. Everything they do pisses me off. Everything involving Israel and Palenstine pisses me off. But, on topic:
Pointless, because it does nothing towards foreign relations but allow a few countries to suck up to the super powers.
Pointless, because it does nothing towards foreign relations but allow a few countries to suck up to the super powers.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
