Is UN worthless?

[bmolsson]

Of course there are some things. All nations in the world have laws against Thievery. Murder. The usual suspects.

But the UN would go mcuh further than that. Here in the US, even, every state has it's own views on the way things should be run. An Oregonian will not always--in fact they will rarely ever--agree with someone from Texas in regards to the law.

Now, when you take that same principle and consider such nations as Iran and the UK.. I don't see much getting along there. Or Iran and the US, for that matter.

And of course, it's never Iran making those laws. Us powerful nations wouldn't stand for that. The ideals are totally different. But, now you know how they feel, eh?

The bottom line is that every nation should be left alone in most of the respects that the UN tries to put it's nose in. It should be disbanded completely. It's only good uses are as a focal point for world charity, and as a forum for open talk. Fine. We can do those without the rest of the garbage. And we can certainly do charities with private money, not my taxes, thankee very much.

Anti terrorism.... ???

I think that you overestimate the difference between nations in the world. International problems are getting more and larger than the domestic. Every country is today dependent on international trade and exchange. Everyone have everything to win on a global organisation.....

[Kagemusha]

And I think you underestimate the differences. World Trade will go on with, or without, the UN.

So because you were attacked.US can do what ever they want on its own.That kind of politics will leave you guys alone in this world in the long run.

[Soulforged]

So you read the manifesto, that's good. But you didn't interpret it very well then. Look by the times of Marx capitalism was a new thing, the industrial revolution was a recent event. Communism has improved from there. Marx alone will give practically an blank document with instructions to set a socialist state, but the very idea of communism is the equality of all (not just before the law, real equality, material equality). And revise it again, the proletariate is the one who should take power, not a single man, like Stalin who was just a tiran, named by himself. The theory of communism proposes to first have an educated proletariate who can take the power. I never saw this happening, except for the Commune of Paris (wich i don't actually saw, of course). The bolsheviks for example were just reactionaries, the great majority didn't knew nothing of politics. Now that's why you can't take the power just like that, because if your sage leader dies then all is for nothing. And you're right it was despotism, but it wasn't of the proletariate nor for the proletariate, in theory that's not communism nor even socialism. I think that you love capitalism so much that you don't want to see the superiority of communism. But don't believe that this happens just with communism, fachism is another theory clearly banned, but the original theory (real fachism) is superior to capitalism in all ways, as it's anarquism. And i'm not talking about just equality, i'm talking about production. Anyway that's another dicussion.
I think that any true jugdement on the basis on actions are pretty inacurate (you're right over there), but actions are still the only important thing, so let's see if they achieve the objectives for 2015.
Still i will not give up with the States, for one fact remains true, and that's that USA does not respect the International Court, all things involving americans and in american territory are judged by USA laws, and they have power to do that, and that's exactly what they pretended here... And that USA is one of the countries with nuclear power, but ironicaly they try to end this in other nations (fair?) and nothing to reduce their own. Also what was the event who "opened the eyes" of the UN, millions of people dying of hunger, killings in Africa, not... the World Trade Center and 9/11? Why? Is it just arbitrary? Well i will not judge it, but perhaps the loss of americans is worst that the loss of "third world" people. don't you think that? Or even better, and giving me the reason, it's because the World Trade Center was the most important building for the economy of USA?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I have to agree completely with Cube here except for one minor thing - the UN ain't useless.

They're useful - useful idiots. Having the UN placates the World Government people, and as long as nationalist politicans have some courage (or if nationalist lobbiest hold sway) we won't have to worry.

[Redleg]

So you read the manifesto, that's good. But you didn't interpret it very well then. Look by the times of Marx capitalism was a new thing, the industrial revolution was a recent event.

The Manifesto was written 40+ years after the Industrial revolution had begun. And Capitalism was not a new thing in Marx's time. I would counter that you did not interpret the Manifesto very well yourself.

Communism has improved from there. Marx alone will give practically an blank document with instructions to set a socialist state, but the very idea of communism is the equality of all (not just before the law, real equality, material equality).

Marx in his doctrine stated that despotism was needed to force society to the pure communist state. Which is exactly the course of action every communist despot took. (And you claim I didn't interpret the Manifesto correctly. LOL)

And revise it again, the proletariate is the one who should take power, not a single man, like Stalin who was just a tiran, named by himself.

What do you think the term despot means?

The theory of communism proposes to first have an educated proletariate who can take the power. I never saw this happening, except for the Commune of Paris (wich i don't actually saw, of course). The bolsheviks for example were just reactionaries, the great majority didn't knew nothing of politics. Now that's why you can't take the power just like that, because if your sage leader dies then all is for nothing. And you're right it was despotism, but it wasn't of the proletariate nor for the proletariate, in theory that's not communism nor even socialism.

Again what do you think despotism means?

I think that you love capitalism so much that you don't want to see the superiority of communism.

LOL - now that is funny - I think you want to discount all the historical evidence concerning Communism based upon your theory of communism.

But don't believe that this happens just with communism, fachism is another theory clearly banned, but the original theory (real fachism) is superior to capitalism in all ways, as it's anarquism. And i'm not talking about just equality, i'm talking about production. Anyway that's another dicussion.
I think that any true jugdement on the basis on actions are pretty inacurate (you're right over there), but actions are still the only important thing, so let's see if they achieve the objectives for 2015.

The United Nations must reform or go by the wayside. As it stands now it is just short of being totally useless and worthless.

[Kagemusha]

That's really not a problem. The rest of the world can't and won't stop trading with us. And aside from that, we don't really need you guys. What else can you possible provide? European Socialism? Chinese Communism? African.. whatever they do over there? International Courts? Intrusive policy?

Really, we don't need the UN. And neither does the world.

You are talking like you are the world.News flash for you my friend EU is bigger market then USA.Maybe you should resign from UN?I would like to see the Impact.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

True. It has practical uses like that. But I'm an idealogical person, and oppose it on Idealogical reasons. The UN is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

I wouldn't say boo if the US left, mind you - I don't like the UN either. But better the devil you know...

You are talking like you are the world.News flash for you my friend EU is bigger market then USA.Maybe you should resign from UN?I would like to see the Impact.

Impact: One side of the US political spectrum throws hissy fit. Other side applauds (mostly). Nothing else.

[Kagemusha]

Impact: One side of the US political spectrum throws hissy fit. Other side applauds (mostly). Nothing else.

I wasnt talking about impact on domestic politics in US.If US foreign politics turn to that if some country doesnt agree with you.Its evil and you dont listen to anyone else anymoore.I wouldnt be suprised that you start loose your strategig allies and they start to make deals against you.

[Kagemusha]

The EU is also a much more unstable market than the US. The US is a continuous and stabel source of a trade. And one that is so large there will always be buyers. It doesn't take a Doctorate in Economy to realize that as long as there is a US, there will be people who trade with it.

Besides, what do you think would happen if we resigned? Others would resign. The US could destroy the UN just by resigning. Wouldn't that be nice?

I think US has already destroyed UN.If the most powerfull country in the world doesnt want to co-operate anymore.Maybe other countries have to start to think other options.

[Kagemusha]

You know full well there are no other options. No country in the world holds the hammer like we do.

You are talking world hegemony.No no other single country has.But thats what coalitions are for.If you really think you are rulling the whole world.I cant say anything else but it sounds pretty scary and not so "good".

[Kagemusha]

I am against world hegomony. I'm against the power the US government wields within it's own borders.

But you're deluding yourself if you think a coalition of any sort can realistically challenge the US. I have no doubts that any president would happily launch the nukes if we were losing some kind of invasion. Nor do I doubt any president would happily threaten (and quite seriously do so) to use nukes, if large-scale economic sanctions were put in place.

You are deluding yourself if you think you could beat up the rest of the together world in conventional warfare.
You could attack destroy much,but you cant occupie you dont have enough manpower.
Thats exactly what im talking about.You still understand that others can Nuke all US to desert also.If you are saying that you dont need other countries.You are saying that you feel superior to us others.

[Kagemusha]

Gelatinious Cube.I wasnt talking about invasion on USA.I dont think anyone wouldnt even dream about invasion to USA.What im trying to say here that US actions are starting to get other Nations afraid of you.And when States start to scare some Superpower they have a habbit to start finding allies.What i meant that countries might start to do defensive pacts against you.And if you are talking about Nuclear arsenal.You still have one nation that can Nuke US back to stone age.Its called Russia.

[Soulforged]

Man have you read "The Capital" by Marx, then you will notice that he was the first in finding the true mecanism of capitalism, what does this mean? Well that from then things started to seem clear, before that it was like space travel. And Marx loved capitalism as a theory. When he wrote the manifesto +40 industrial revolution the theories surged from the Capital were still in childhood. Even so the plan is realistic, and despotic, does not means "one person", Aristotle himself talked about despotism of masses (like a corrupt way of democracy). Sure there will exist the traditional representative system, but the revolution was never over, and when one member of the party was getting out of the way, was the job of the proletariates to take him out (by killing him if that is necessary). You may think i'm a sort of communist, not, i like it, but i'm more anarquist.

"Marx in his doctrine stated that despotism was needed to force society to the pure communist state. Which is exactly the course of action every communist despot took. (And you claim I didn't interpret the Manifesto correctly. LOL)"

That's true, but again, not even Marx knew how the society will get to real communism (that's more clear in "German Ideology" a critic of Marx specially to Hegel) and you're mistaking despotism.

"LOL - now that is funny - I think you want to discount all the historical evidence concerning Communism based upon your theory of communism."

What historical evidence? I clearly said to you that the only true communism took place on Paris with the "Commune of Paris", but they were exterminated when the central government forced them to submit again. Not a single nation has followed the instructions of the manifesto, wich even prevents abuse of power from the state by keeping the proletariate as vigilant. In the communist Soviet Union not all people actually worked: their were lawyers, actors, writers... The comunism states that everybody has to work, and i don't know from where does this word comes in your laguage but in my language "trabajo" comes from slavo (slave), now that means phisical job, but not like in capitalism, if all people works then the hours/work for everyone will be reduced, that's pretty fair way to achive community. Now if you found any evidence that the "communists" states actually implemented actions in this sense then you will shut me up. And as a theory the communism don't pretends to solve all the problems of humanity, first is just a realistic and crude aspect of what has to be done, then the true communism is the reconciliation with society. And capitalism is not immune to that sentence ("Power corrupts,..."), it's worst because as the power remains in economy there would be many company members who will have tremendous power, like Bill Gates, Rockefeller, do you think that just because they were not "in power" they were powerless?

[Soulforged]

Well this is getting like a real debate on the UN... . Not but i'm China and i've more people wich means more army, so surrend US and hand over all nuclear arsenal, bla, bla, bla... If i remember correctly USA and Russia agreed to end with the armamentist career right after the Cold War, of course it was just a fantasy, demagogy of powerful countries that still keep the sentence "If you want peace, prepare for war"... I don't even know if a member of the UN has ever believed that they will actually give up.
I think i remember the words of Truman after Hiroshima: "...we should be the guardians of this technology (or something like that)." Man that's arrogant...

[Kagemusha]

I assure you, the US can make better offers to Russia than the UN could, without the US.

As i sayed before.You guys have allready wrecked UN.There are only parts of UN that have any significance.What im saying is that if you dont need your allies anymore as you allready stated.You may find out that your former allies like Germany and France will find new ones to stabilize your power.

[Redleg]

Man have you read "The Capital" by Marx, then you will notice that he was the first in finding the true mecanism of capitalism, what does this mean?

I must confess its been about 20 years since I read that particlur pamplet of his.

Well that from then things started to seem clear, before that it was like space travel. And Marx loved capitalism as a theory. When he wrote the manifesto +40 industrial revolution the theories surged from the Capital were still in childhood.

However that is not what you stated initially.

Even so the plan is realistic, and despotic, does not means "one person", Aristotle himself talked about despotism of masses (like a corrupt way of democracy). Sure there will exist the traditional representative system, but the revolution was never over, and when one member of the party was getting out of the way, was the job of the proletariates to take him out (by killing him if that is necessary). You may think i'm a sort of communist, not, i like it, but i'm more anarquist.

You are going to have to define that term since I don't know what anarquist is.

"Marx in his doctrine stated that despotism was needed to force society to the pure communist state. Which is exactly the course of action every communist despot took. (And you claim I didn't interpret the Manifesto correctly. LOL)"

That's true, but again, not even Marx knew how the society will get to real communism (that's more clear in "German Ideology" a critic of Marx specially to Hegel) and you're mistaking despotism.

Actually I am not - despotism is exactly what form of government took place in Russia, North Korea and others.

Despotism is defined as any of the following

is government by a singular authority, either a single person or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute power. The word implies tyrannical rule; it suggests a form of government which exercises exacting and near-absolute control over all of its citizens.

Which is the exact way in which I used the term.

"LOL - now that is funny - I think you want to discount all the historical evidence concerning Communism based upon your theory of communism."

What historical evidence? I clearly said to you that the only true communism took place on Paris with the "Commune of Paris", but they were exterminated when the central government forced them to submit again. Not a single nation has followed the instructions of the manifesto, wich even prevents abuse of power from the state by keeping the proletariate as vigilant.

Like I said - you are attempting to discount all the historical evidence around the communist movement. Its really rather simple - look at how you defend only the Paris Commune but discount all others as not true communism. The Revolution in Russia - the second one - was a communist revolution where Lenin wanted to take Russia to a communist state following his verision of the Marxist Doctrine.

In the communist Soviet Union not all people actually worked: their were lawyers, actors, writers... The comunism states that everybody has to work, and i don't know from where does this word comes in your laguage but in my language "trabajo" comes from slavo (slave), now that means phisical job, but not like in capitalism, if all people works then the hours/work for everyone will be reduced, that's pretty fair way to achive community. Now if you found any evidence that the "communists" states actually implemented actions in this sense then you will shut me up. And as a theory the communism don't pretends to solve all the problems of humanity, first is just a realistic and crude aspect of what has to be done, then the true communism is the reconciliation with society. And capitalism is not immune to that sentence ("Power corrupts,..."), it's worst because as the power remains in economy there would be many company members who will have tremendous power, like Bill Gates, Rockefeller, do you think that just because they were not "in power" they were powerless?

Its one thing to say that Russia was never reached a true communism- its something else however to discount it as not being a communist state.

For instance German and Italy never entered a truely facist state either - because both were lead by Despots. However we are going off topic of why the UN is useless.

You still seem to only want to blame the United States for something that at least 4 other nations are equally guilty of. Now if you will admit that its not just the United States fault that the UN has become useless - I will admit that the United States is has its fair share in the blame (which is something I have already stated not just once but several times in this discussion.)

[Soulforged]

Well i'll end the dicussion on communism here. But i didn't blame just USA in tha lastest posts. In fact i never blame USA of nothing towards the UN, i blame the UN for being a pet of powerful nations, especially USA. I don't know if they haven't the power to disarm USA for example or if they don't do it because it's an enforcer, and i really don't care, those things are more important that useless philantropy, ok disarm Irak, but do the same with USA and with any other that has it. I've being reading a declaration by the secretary, in wich he stated that "this nations" wich continue to conserve their nuclear arsenal have no intentions of hand it over. Now with Irak if i remember well, the politic was: "ok if they have weapons of mass destruction, then we will have to investigate them and disarm them" like a real political action, an executive action. Now my question is: Why does the UN hesitates so much with the powerful? Especially when one of the objectives that they have planned (being one of the first the gradual nuclear disarm) is equality, in it's great spectrum, i assume before the law of course.

[Redleg]

Well i'll end the dicussion on communism here. But i didn't blame just USA in tha lastest posts. In fact i never blame USA of nothing towards the UN, i blame the UN for being a pet of powerful nations, especially USA.

Once again lets not forget Russia, and China - they do the exact same thing as the United States in regards to the United Nations.

I don't know if they haven't the power to disarm USA for example or if they don't do it because it's an enforcer, and i really don't care, those things are more important that useless philantropy,

Try looking into the facts a little more - the United States has a lot of problems with the United Nations.

ok disarm Irak, but do the same with USA and with any other that has it.

The thing that you seem to be ommitting is that Iraq signed a cease fire agreement where it committed as a condition of an end of hostilities to destroy all its WMD and to provide proof to the United Nations that it has done so. Iraq failed in its committment to both the ceasefire agreement and to honor the resolutions agaisnt them, Iraq, by the United Nations.

I've being reading a declaration by the secretary, in wich he stated that "this nations" wich continue to conserve their nuclear arsenal have no intentions of hand it over.

And which nation was he refering to?

Now with Irak if i remember well, the politic was: "ok if they have weapons of mass destruction, then we will have to investigate them and disarm them" like a real political action, an executive action. Now my question is: Why does the UN hesitates so much with the powerful? Especially when one of the objectives that they have planned (being one of the first the gradual nuclear disarm) is equality, in it's great spectrum, i assume before the law of course.

Because as a political body the United Nations can not enforce its own resoultions - so the posturing within the UN is all about politics not any committment to take action.

[BDC]

It's useful. Not as useful as if it had its own armed forces and could actually do what it should - but no one would ever allow that or supply the men and equipment for this.

[bmolsson]

The EU is also a much more unstable market than the US. The US is a continuous and stabel source of a trade. And one that is so large there will always be buyers. It doesn't take a Doctorate in Economy to realize that as long as there is a US, there will be people who trade with it.

I recall that US have a 8% international trade on the total GDP, compare to EU with a country like Sweden with 30%. The US trade deficit is also more or less the trade difference with China, the largest "opponent" to US.
Further more, US trade is going towards intellectual property, requiring legal protection at the foreign markets.
I would say that if anyone need a UN, then it's US. Communication with the international community is something US need help with.
If you are an isolationist, then of course you are right. Just close the borders....

Besides, what do you think would happen if we resigned? Others would resign. The US could destroy the UN just by resigning. Wouldn't that be nice?

I think that US not resigning is the most important sign that US really need UN. If anyone can reform UN, then it's US. I don't understand at all why US doesn't try to do that, instead playing cowboy all the time......

[bmolsson]

Because we can play the UN like our own personal guitar. We get all the benefits and none of the restrictions. I don't oppose the UN purely because I think the US would benefit from it--indeed, we would lose out on a few things. I oppose the UN because it's nothing more than a front for international corruption.

So for you it's a domestic issue. Eradicate US corruption by disolving UN ??

[bmolsson]

The US is hardly the only nation using it for corruption. Oil for Food involved alot more than the US.

I didn't say that, did I ?

[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.

[ah_dut]

It's useful. Not as useful as if it had its own armed forces and could actually do what it should - but no one would ever allow that or supply the men and equipment for this.

what he said. Yes, it's an adminstrative hellhole, yes it's probably quite corrupt.

but no, there hasn't been WWIII so it's worked no?