Is UN worthless?

[Soulforged]

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.



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?

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



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.



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.

That the citizens don't support it....and so....
Oh that's what i expected to read. If you're american an are blaming China and Soviet Union, then this is an amazing coincidence. And, you can see all that one does in public, but you will see the real effect (in matters that concern US) in the facts (and not in the deliberations). You see much deliberation on the UN about if it would be right to engage war in Irak or not, some yes some not, as always. What happens, just the result looked by USA (at least for the government), there was war, there was invasion in others soberanity. Does the UN does something more than talking to stop this, no, and US takes the oil again, now with full domination and attempting to put a "democratic" government, always surpasing their field of action and soberanity, just like in Vietnam or in the Gulf War. Imposing the capitalism and the democracy may seem right but the UN was created so no country will never surpase the soberanity of another, even less with hostile purposes. And in fact you're right, and i'm sorry US only is not the one puppeting the UN, it's being taked by every powerful nation (well this is just normal) but US is still the one with more veto power and i will correct myself, in matters that concern them (like war against terreorism, an absurd if you excuse me) they always get throught.
And what society known until today is communist, as you say.... read the manifesto, and you will notice that not of them are/were communist. They're capitalists (even China) just see the movements that they take. And why i tell you this, yes it seems to have no sense, but think. Capitalism, though it was not created by USA just improved by it, is based on acumulation of treasure by anyone who can do it (capitalists of course, a worker could not) and in the fetichism of the mercancy and the plusvalue (as Marx discovered), but more importantly it permits competion beetween anyone. I'm not saying that it's a plot by the USA, it's just the capitalism that it's wrong, but this has permited to nations such as this one expand they economy world wide, with their culture ("globalization"). The point is that this gives the country who uses it best to take control over the others, especially the weak ones, from a moral point of view is wrong, but lets be objectives. The problem is that USA takes principal roll on the UN, they say all big words, like pursuing criminals, end of the wars, imprescribility of the crimes of war, bla, bla, bla... what is the result, they don't have any power to impose almost all of this over other countries, and in cases like the wars, well they make some "exceptions".... that's what it may seem worthless but far from it, if one nation has the power to corrupt it and manage it them it will be an perfect instrument to create illusions. As you see i'm not blaming one nation (it's naive) but i believe that is only one nation that always get's the results that they want, does the UN says something against or not, but it just say it does nothing. Why have an army if you don't use it? An a far more interesting irony... Why have one is you want to stop war?
Anyway this is not the matter (hatred towards USA) because it's of public knowledge. The fact's that it's not worthless at all, but it seems perfect to reproduce everyday's lies, like filantropy is a right thing, or wars are bad... the average people will see it that way so...
Finally is not a perspective, and we are fearful of the USA, we saw what an military potence can do. Why would you say that USA would want to enter here unchecked? To do researsh on species of the third world... No i will say you why, it's because they search for something, a resource perhaps (the observations here talk about the greatest reserve of water, after the poles and Island). And you say that USA cannot take all over South America for example, militarily. Man you're blind, they have the most advanced army and the most populated one (with the exception of China perhaps), they could just do it the old way:1- Make treaties and alliances with other powerful nations 2- Create an excuse 3- Invade 4- Put a new "better" government. You don't even have to worry from then on. An economic, well that truly is false, if you don't know it USA has the most vast international debt, and that means that they can afford it, then they must have the most vast treasure, that's for sure, is just do some mats. Now if you take that- Most vast reserve + Control of almost all companies all over Latin America and Brazil + Almost absolute control over the regulations on economic politics in this region + most valuable divise (the dolar)= they already have control over the rest. The NAFTA would just make it more public and visible. There're not a single real benefit that a powerless nation could achieve by uniting (and in sometime opening frontiers totally) with a powerful one, they will simply be absorbed. And as you see viewing the hole panorama here you would will doubt if this is just a "perspective", and when you try to set a plot you don't go around saying "hey give immunity, we're military, we will enter with weapons...", anybody with 3 pounds of brain will notice that that is insane, so i never said that is a conspiracy, in fact they don't need it, they can be open if they have us by the throat.

[Papewaio]

WTF?

Man the one thing about the UN is you can always get a translator...

[Soulforged]

WTF?

Man the one thing about the UN is you can always get a translator...

Well man i will give you the reason on that... but it's really that difficult to understand...come on

[Soulforged]

But everybody still is blinded by the "good things" that the UN does. Man i will go as far (to demosntrate my point) to go back to the Cold War. As everybody in America probably saw it, it was cold, but here.... Man it was hot like hell. First of all the Vietnam propaganda-war-for-democracy thing i don't think that everybody has eated that, but i don't know about your minds, and that was a perfect excuse to justify the army and still make countries like France or USA being seen as "good people". The same goes for the Soviet Union on those days. Anyway in that ambient of technologycal advancement and the 13 days, in wich the president of USA had in his hands the desteny of all the world, in the rest of America military uprisings were pumping up like it was one hell of a coincidence (we must remember that the UN already existed). In some places like in Vietnam, there goes the Soviet Union they convince some party to go to the "communist" side (not at all communist by the way) and then the Americans come trying to impose good democracy and freedom of speech, but by making war, does this concerns them, directly of course not, but again they must justify the army, and they sell weapons both sides, making big profit of it (both SU and USA), does everybody cares about the lifes that will be lost for sure, why if the profit is so great?. The same goes to the Gulf War (throwing down Sadam Hussein, please...) but that is another period. While that was happening on Asia, here uprisings supported by the american government and supplied by it had taked the government. The case of Noriega was a perfect example. Noriega was supported by Jorge Bush father, and when he was performing the tiran roll, Bush said, it's enough, it's not convinient to support him anymore (it's ok you can change your mind, if this is really the case), but does him considers other ways to stop and take him out besides just sending some little army and invade the countrie causing havoc there (besides the havoc that already existed). No!! Why would he do that?. Something similar happened with Hussein and Bin-Laden. Now, why does these countries have so unlimited power? Because the UN does nothing to stop them, because they are it's enforcers, and they are the only voice there. Now take Soviet Union out of the picture because it has lost it's power. Take France out too, because they are in an eternal debt with USA, and also Britain because of the alliance, the actions taked by the first minister (Blair) are absolute proof. What is the direction of the dessitions that the UN will take? Unilateral is the response...by the way discussion is out of the picture too...
In any case some people out there think that filantropy is a good thing, or yes very beautiful, does it has any real effects on education, work, independence or lasting effects on hunger and health, of course not, the contrary. Does the UN come here and put an stop to the atrocities that happen here, not, they just come before the Falklands War is over, for good yes, but the government was abdicating anyway.
I don't think that i can make myself more clear in short space, but if you want to see real effects, real actions, results, you have to see to the material not the ideal, and the material is economics, and the economics will always rule the ways work, from the distribution of job to the reciprocal agreements, and from the relation beetween people to the ones beetween nations. The UN is just another LIVE 8, it's bullshit, but as i said before it's constant bullshit pretending to globalizate the world and end the difference beetween nations, when some debate cannot do that, and the actions are always influenced by the powerful. But i'll still say that it's an instrument, it doesn't act like a global government, but like a global fachade...
And if you say that is a place for discussion then there must be more options abailavable than democracy and capitalism, the democracy is not at all that, it's just formal without any real thing inside it, and capitalism, well i think everybody knows how wrong is this one...Anyway the democracy thing has taken its toll because of the demagogy of leaders, ignorants and capitalists and communism seems to have no place in future plans for anyone country, so i will not say that this is only exclusively of the UN, but it reflects exactly on the same spot where everything is supposed to be open, and where escatological things like this cannot be out of the picture.

[Adrian II]

Now, why does these countries have so unlimited power? Because the UN does nothing to stop them, because they are it's enforcers, and they are the only voice there.

Quite.

Do you have an alternative? Or is the only point you are trying to get across that the UN is useless because it doesn't prevent the world from being chaotic, society from being unjust and life from being short and all too often brutal? In other words, that the UN is useless because it isn't God? If so, I don't think many .org patrons need to be convinced.

[Es Arkajae]

The UN is powerless except when powerful nations looking after their own interests decide to use it.


Thats the way it should be.

Which twits in here actually want the UN to have real power?, wake up to yourselves.

I live in a democracy, I elect my leaders, I'm sure as hell not going to have any part of my life dictated by a body such as the UN most of whoms membership is impoverished corrupt bananna republics.

The UN couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery they're so inept, the thought of them actually forming some kind of 'world government' is a one that should terrify anyone with any sense.

And to answer another point raised in here the only thing that has stopped WWIII from happening so far is nuclear weapons, something which if the UN had it way would probably be outlawed.

The UN is useful for stuff like globally organised health initiatives and such, it is also useful for keeping whining leftist weenies and postage stamp sized countries occupied so that they don't distract the actual rulers of the world too much.

[Roark]

So, you either don't know about (or are conveniently ignoring), the Earth Summit, Agenda 21, their role in the dismantling of Apartheid, close to 200 peace settlements, land mine initiatives, women's rights initiatives... Their environmental and aid work alone is considerable.

Seriously, some of you guys are just blabbering crap...

[AntiochusIII]

The UN is useful for stuff like globally organised health initiatives and such, it is also useful for keeping whining leftist weenies and postage stamp sized countries occupied so that they don't distract the actual rulers of the world too much.

Distract them from what? Making themselves richer?

And what's that about weenies and whining?

[Es Arkajae]

Distract them from what? Making themselves richer?

Amongst other things yeah, what do you expect me to blush?, I live in a Western country and my country and myself directly benefits from the Western Hegemony. I am completely unashamed and am in fact proud of the fact that my nation has a disproportionate share of the worlds resources and influence.


And Roark get a clue, when the UN does anything it only does it with the approval tacit or not of the major world powers. And even then its efforts are half arsed and incompetent much of the time.

The world is made of states, all jockeying for power and influence, it is the way it has always been. The UN has a role working within the framework of states at the pleasure of states, particularly the powerful ones.

[Redleg]

That the citizens don't support it....and so....
Oh that's what i expected to read. If you're american an are blaming China and Soviet Union, then this is an amazing coincidence.

Try reading again - I am blaming them along with the United States. Just blaming the United States discounts what the other members of the Security Council have done also. Your reading into the post something that is not there. I am beginning to think that you are not as informed as you wish to protray yourself as.

And, you can see all that one does in public, but you will see the real effect (in matters that concern US) in the facts (and not in the deliberations). You see much deliberation on the UN about if it would be right to engage war in Irak or not, some yes some not, as always.

So your opinion is solely based upon the actions of the last 4 years? That is what this statement might mean? You might want to review the actions and deliberations of the USSR in regards to the United Nation.

What happens, just the result looked by USA (at least for the government), there was war, there was invasion in others soberanity. Does the UN does something more than talking to stop this, no, and US takes the oil again, now with full domination and attempting to put a "democratic" government, always surpasing their field of action and soberanity, just like in Vietnam or in the Gulf War.

So explain the failure of the United Nations to enforce 14 resolutions against Iraq before the invasion? Explain the failure of the UN to send peacekeepers to certain places in Africa that the United States actually asked for in session.

Imposing the capitalism and the democracy may seem right but the UN was created so no country will never surpase the soberanity of another, even less with hostile purposes. And in fact you're right, and i'm sorry US only is not the one puppeting the UN, it's being taked by every powerful nation (well this is just normal) but US is still the one with more veto power and i will correct myself, in matters that concern them (like war against terreorism, an absurd if you excuse me) they always get throught.

The United States is one of five nations with Veto power - each of those natons have the exact same power of the veto - and each have used it numerous times. Now in dealing with just the issues concerning Israel - you might be correct since the United States always Veto's any action against Israel.

And what society known until today is communist, as you say.... read the manifesto, and you will notice that not of them are/were communist.

read it many times - you might want to check how Marx wrote the manifesto - it talks aobut doing exactly what many of the communist states did - the problem is that those countries remained socialist dictorships.


Edit:
In fact here is a nice little quote taken from the Mainfesto which talks about the necessity to destroy the capitialist state and forcably bring the society into the socialist model before the people can evolve into communism, bolded text shows the point that I was making above.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Careful of calling the communist countries - non communist when they are indeed following Karl Marx's doctrine - its just that as despots the individuals controlling the government now have fallen for one of the oldest sayings in the world - which over and over again has been shown to be correct.

Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

They're capitalists (even China) just see the movements that they take. And why i tell you this, yes it seems to have no sense, but think. Capitalism, though it was not created by USA just improved by it, is based on acumulation of treasure by anyone who can do it (capitalists of course, a worker could not) and in the fetichism of the mercancy and the plusvalue (as Marx discovered), but more importantly it permits competion beetween anyone. I'm not saying that it's a plot by the USA, it's just the capitalism that it's wrong, but this has permited to nations such as this one expand they economy world wide, with their culture ("globalization").

This is completely unclear to me - it seems to be the standard marxist rant against Capitialism.

The point is that this gives the country who uses it best to take control over the others, especially the weak ones, from a moral point of view is wrong, but lets be objectives.

What in the world are you trying to say?

I would do the rest by paragraph - but it seems to me more of a rant against the United States more then anything else. I know there is a language barrier here but the rest is jumbled to the point that the message is lost in the ranting.