Is UN worthless?

**AggonyDuck** · 08-14-2005, 19:19

Well the main organisation has been lately a bit powerless, but it still serves a good purpose. Mainly due to the fact that it's very easy to ignore the UN, due to lack of an enforcer. (but in a way this lack of an enforcer is okay in the current role of the UN)
On the other hand it's suborganisations like UNICEF do a very important job for the world and the suborganisations compensate for the UN.

**Templar Knight** · 08-14-2005, 19:25

take it down and re-build it

**Marshal Murat** · 08-14-2005, 19:27

The UN itself is useless, and powerless (war in Iraq)
Kinda like the League of Nations, without the US, they were powerless.
However, UNICEF, and other aid organizations are doing good work across the globe.

**Duke Malcolm** · 08-14-2005, 19:32

Take it down and let the British Commonwealth of Nations take over its job and let everyone join.

**sharrukin** · 08-14-2005, 19:35

Depends on whether you think it is a place to talk or an organization meant to rule the world!

As a place to talk instead of fight it has its uses.

As the beginnings of a world government it isn't very useful. Thank God!

**Soulforged** · 08-14-2005, 20:07

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Depends on whether you think it is a place to talk or an organization meant to rule the world!

As a place to talk instead of fight it has its uses.

As the beginnings of a world government it isn't very useful. Thank God!

Perhaps the UN (ONU as i've posted elsewhere, sometimes i forget that this is english) is not a place to talk nor to fight, it's as i see it the ultimate weapon of political mass destruction and of domination over the international agreements and other bilateral and unilateral politics beetween their members (and sometimes decides the fate of outsiders!!), controlled by USA, an i mean like a "puppet". It's not worthless, it's a cancer that must be removed from society. Sure they have made some good, but as capitalism permits to give control to just one rich nation, then always their decitions will be influenced by that nation. When they change their minds, they will fall. To give an example i think that the case of the judges in a change of governament is perfect: if the president will like to have the desitions of the judges in the same way as him then he just remove the judges (with excuses, like "political judgement") and put some news allied to his politics. Anyway while one nation controls the resources of the world, expands their culture to sell their products (including the "democracy" and capitalism), and the multinationals stay under it's control making the profit that reproduces the circle again, then the UN will make filantropal things like helping the "third world" (tough we don't seem to be part of it) and the people will stay happy, but remember you are not giving them a way to combat hunger and poberty, you are just calming it for a while so you can give the "gift" again and again.

PS: There's an interesting case of US overpowering. In "El Chaco" here in Argentina, came a group of militaries from USA. They say we want to enter and have absolute inmmunity, our soldiers will be judge by our government (they say this always anyway, at least the International Court is worthless for them), and we want to have full access to the land, for what? i really don't know (there're many theories that don't matter right now). The thing is that you may say "well if the government give them what they ask then they are weak...bla, bla, bla" yes sure, in a balanced and perfect situation, but we're talking of a country that in his hands haves the economic future of practically all America (except for Canada i think) and the thing is that if they wanted they can rise the taxes again and enslave us. And this is just a perfect example, but just one... imagine how many of this situations happens beetween the nations in the UN?

**Gemenii XIII** · 08-14-2005, 20:32

Ill only ask one rhetorical question. WHY DO THE FRENCH HAVE VETO POWER IN THE UN????????

**Redleg** · 08-14-2005, 23:03

Now to respond - since its been moved to the backroom - Much of the discussion around the United Nations and its impact on the world has to do with politics.

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Perhaps the UN (ONU as i've posted elsewhere, sometimes i forget that this is english) is not a place to talk nor to fight, it's as i see it the ultimate weapon of political mass destruction and of domination over the international agreements and other bilateral and unilateral politics beetween their members (and sometimes decides the fate of outsiders!!), controlled by USA, an i mean like a "puppet".

Given that the United Nations is seen as worthless by many citizens of the United States - calling the UN a puppet of the United States is a reach. The failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions does not come from just the United States - but the political manuever and disagreements of all nations. To blame the United States only - discounts the harm that other nations have also done - the old Soviet Union, China, Britian and France all have permanent seats on the UN - do you hold that the United Nations is also a puppet of these nations?

It's not worthless, it's a cancer that must be removed from society. Sure they have made some good, but as capitalism permits to give control to just one rich nation, then always their decitions will be influenced by that nation.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense to me - especially given that two of the nations on the Security Council were/are Communist in nature.

When they change their minds, they will fall. To give an example i think that the case of the judges in a change of governament is perfect: if the president will like to have the desitions of the judges in the same way as him then he just remove the judges (with excuses, like "political judgement") and put some news allied to his politics. Anyway while one nation controls the resources of the world, expands their culture to sell their products (including the "democracy" and capitalism), and the multinationals stay under it's control making the profit that reproduces the circle again, then the UN will make filantropal things like helping the "third world" (tough we don't seem to be part of it) and the people will stay happy, but remember you are not giving them a way to combat hunger and poberty, you are just calming it for a while so you can give the "gift" again and again.

Another arguement hard to follow because of the language and translation of it. However lets address one point - The United States does not control the United Nations - nor more then any of the the other Permanent members of the Security Council. Politicial bickering and infighting between these five nations have made the United Nations irrevelant in todays world. Again just blaming one nation - is short sighted and false.

PS: There's an interesting case of US overpowering. In "El Chaco" here in Argentina, came a group of militaries from USA. They say we want to enter and have absolute inmmunity, our soldiers will be judge by our government (they say this always anyway, at least the International Court is worthless for them), and we want to have full access to the land, for what? i really don't know (there're many theories that don't matter right now). The thing is that you may say "well if the government give them what they ask then they are weak...bla, bla, bla" yes sure, in a balanced and perfect situation, but we're talking of a country that in his hands haves the economic future of practically all America (except for Canada i think) and the thing is that if they wanted they can rise the taxes again and enslave us. And this is just a perfect example, but just one... imagine how many of this situations happens beetween the nations in the UN?

Again an interesting perspective - but its only that - the United States doesn't even maintain a secure border with Mexico - so the aspects of enslaving the rest of the both contients is a little conspricary theory and over propagandization by those in the area that are fearful of the United States. Nor can the United States make it happen in a economic or military sense. There is some movement toward attempting economic controls based upon agreements like NAFTA and other trading agreements - but the aspects of many of those treaties are mutual beneficial to all parties.

**Grey_Fox** · 08-14-2005, 19:26

The UN has done some good work. The peacekeeking missions in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and East Timor are doing a lot of good work.

**King Henry V** · 08-14-2005, 19:33

Let's just make this simple. If the U.S wants to do anything, it can do what it wants. If other nations want to do something unorthodox, then they really have to square it with America if they don't want any sanctions. If the U.S wants to impose sanctions on a country, it can. The power of the U.S is its economic power. The threat of denying a country the American market is enough for them to vote for U.S policy. America is the enforcer of the U.N.