Is UN worthless?

[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.