News UN today ?

  • Thread starter drag
  • Start date

Is UN a really usefull and capable organization ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • No

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Total voters
    14

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !

My question is - Do you think that the UN today is
as capable and highly usefull organization as it's supposed
to be ?

My personal opinion is no. My reasons are:
1. The UN is an organization that attempts to
control the world democraticly and this means there are
two great problems:
1.1 Many of the member countries are not democratic and
thus do not really make discisions for their peoples.
1.2 While democratic representatives in a single country,
even if they come from different areas, still work for
and respect the country as whole, the same doesn't happen in
the UN. The UN member countries care very little about the
world as a whole. As a result, this supposedly democratic
organization turns into a corrupt organization which is hardly
capable of making any viable descisions or offering any
real solutions based upon basic constitutional laws accepted
by most democaratic societies and respected often in even
non-democratic ones. Any descision is thus influenced directly
by the primary - local/national intrests of each country
while ignoring completely things like the better good and/or
basicly accepted moral principles.

(Examples of that are middle eastern issues. The oil flowing
from the arab countries greatly influences all UN discisions.
After all, what should a European country, for example, care
about anything or anyone in that region ? The relevant issue
for them is to get their oil as cheap and as much of it as
possible. Because eventually, why should they actually consider
basic laws and human principles outside their borders and make
sacrifices to that effect, it's rediculous.)

2. The UN is an organization that wishes to represent mankind.
And yet, non-democratic countries don't do that. Further more,
by providing equal "weight" to countries with hugely differing
amounts of population (and the occasionaly relevant - territory)
that, again, doesn't happen.

3. The UN allows some countries to veto descisions and be the
supreme countries in the organization thus ignoring its own
supposedly democratic basis as well as preventing its own
ability of being usefull when these countries are in some
type of conflict and could use an arbitrary and basic
principle based descision.

4. The UN is basicly funded by all countries but the funding
and hence influence are not adequatly regulated and distributed,
resulting in yet more corruption and self-intrest based descisions
this time influenced by the organization itself.

Feel free to add more negative points...:wink:
And don't forget the positive ones if and when you find'em.

Live long and prosper.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
The number 1 postive one:

It's better than nothing.

Hence, the UN is really useful and capable, because there isn't actually anything more useful and capable to compare it to.

<Insert model UN here, and I'll tell you why it wouldn't work. Probably.>
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,139
Originally posted by FZ+
The number 1 postive one:

It's better than nothing.

Hence, the UN is really useful and capable, because there isn't actually anything more useful and capable to compare it to.
I answered yes for that reason and one other.

The UN useful and capable as long as you understand why it exists. It is a forum for discussion and little else. It has failed to help the middle-east situation (for example), but thats not a situation it is equipped to really fix.
 
50
9
I put No because i dont think it is! I think that as far as capable and useful goes, how capable and useful is it when the US (and its allies) decides to do what ever it wants? As we saw with the war in Iraq the UN had no power to stop the US from doing what it wanted. so i think that its only useful if the US agree with the other member nations.
 

jb

think of the UN as a teacher, and countries as students. the students come in all shapes and sizes, some are friends, some are enemies, some are bullies, some get picked on. the teacher only has authority when the students all her (or him) to have control. if a fight breaks out, the teacher really has no ability to stop the fight on her (or his) own. sometimes if a bully goes after a weaker student, other kids will stick up for him and help him out. but usually the students see the need for order and allow the teacher to control their behavior.

if a member of UN wants to start a war, nothing really will stop them. most peacekeeping forces are really just troops allied with the victim country. the UN merely assembles these troops in a reasonable fashion.

as for democracy, all the UN provides is a democratic vote from leaders. the hope is that the leaders/representatives will represent their people, but that isn't guaranteed.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
The number 1 postive one:

It's better than nothing.

Hence, the UN is really useful and capable, because there isn't actually anything more useful and capable to compare it to.
No, it's not.
Any problem can be nagotiated by the intrested parties
in an internationally agreed manner of adequate laws.
It is simply foolish to impose somekind of a worldwide
control through such a corrupt discion making proccess as
the one that takes place in the UN. No country half way
around the world should tell another country what it should
or should not do as part of its internal politics and
relations with nearby countries, based on its own intrests
rather than anything else.

Live long and prosper.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
internationally agreed manner of adequate laws.
And that's precisely where the UN comes in. You cannot have an internationally agreed manner of laws without an international body to decide these laws.

It is simply foolish to impose somekind of a worldwide
control through such a corrupt discion making proccess as
the one that takes place in the UN.
As the Iraq conflict showed all too well, it is foolish to say the UN in any ways imposes control. And remember, the UN is simply an union of nations. The corruption comes from the various nations. Leave out the UN, and the corruption remains.

No country half way
around the world should tell another country what it should
or should not do as part of its internal politics and
relations with nearby countries, based on its own intrests
rather than anything else.
Must resist making Iraqi war comparison...
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
And that's precisely where the UN comes in. You cannot have an internationally agreed manner of laws without an international body to decide these laws.
There are and can be general international laws without
the UN. Further more, regional organizations or organizations
dealing with specific aspects - like the red cross, are ussualy
much more effective.
Originally posted by FZ+
As the Iraq conflict showed all too well, it is foolish to say the UN in any ways imposes control. And remember, the UN is simply an union of nations. The corruption comes from the various nations. Leave out the UN, and the corruption remains.
No, the corruption comes due to the form of the
discision making proccesses. Further more, the organization
itself depends upon uneven economic and political support of
the member countries which further causes internal corruption.
Originally posted by FZ+
Must resist making Iraqi war comparison...
Why ? Is that relevant ?
When dealing with a tyrant military force is most welcome
since it's the only way to remove one and free the people.
Aspecialy if you do it in such an ellegant manner.

In fact, the reason that the UN did not agree with this was
due to intrest of arab leaders - who don't care about their
peoples at all as well as France, Germany and Russia who
had great intrests and investments in Iraq - which means that
they did not care about anything else. It is another example
of the UN's failure to make a difference.

Peace and long life.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,139
This may be a topic for another thread, but I read today about European plans to increase the EU into a political union as well as an economic one. The're talking about a "Constitution" and everything. From what it sounds like it would be similar to if slightly stronger than the Articles of Confederation that the US had before our current Constitution. I had no idea they were so close to such a union. Far cry from the nationalism that ruled Europe 55 years ago.
 
Drag, don't you see the relationship between what you said and the Iraq War?
 
50
9
This may be a topic for another thread, but I read today about European plans to increase the EU into a political union as well as an economic one. The're talking about a "Constitution" and everything. From what it sounds like it would be similar to if slightly stronger than the Articles of Confederation that the US had before our current Constitution. I had no idea they were so close to such a union. Far cry from the nationalism that ruled Europe 55 years ago.
I hope not! dont even think tony would agree to that, if that did happen i think i would emmigrate.
 

Zero

The UN doesn't matter, because the US has decided that its sovereignty supercedes anyone else's.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Drag, don't you see the relationship between what you said and the Iraq War?
I am making a distinction between democratic and non-democratic
countries. I think it's justified. Do you ?
 
Originally posted by drag
I am making a distinction between democratic and non-democratic
countries. I think it's justified. Do you ?
Well, that's not what you said. In the case that a tyrannical government is opressing its people, then I think that it may be justified, depending on the specific circumstances, for another country to step in.

However, I don't think that it's justified for a country to step in "based on its own intrests rather than anything else." I don't find it justified to say, "We're a democracy, so we can do whatever we want to you, because you're not."
 
I think that the confederation of Europe would be a good thing. One of the largest problems in the world of human affairs is tribalism/nationalism. If you can have a bond among a larger group of people, you have less exclusion and bickering, and people will tend to settle their disputes more peacefully.
 
50
9
I think that the confederation of Europe would be a good thing. One of the largest problems in the world of human affairs is tribalism/nationalism. If you can have a bond among a larger group of people, you have less exclusion and bickering, and people will tend to settle their disputes more peacefully.
I agree in principal with this but there is no common bond between the europeans apart from belonging to the continent of europe, and when the British, French and Germans get together there is always bickering.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,139
Originally posted by Andy
I hope not! dont even think tony would agree to that, if that did happen i think i would emmigrate.
The UK is not (and probably never will be) a part of the EU. I wasn't implying that they would.
 
50
9
The UK is not (and probably never will be) a part of the EU.
Yeah thats the way most people in the UK feel as well! but we are still technically a member of the EU, we havent changed to the euro yet (and hopefully wont) which is what i think the confusion must be here.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,139
Originally posted by Andy
Yeah thats the way most people in the UK feel as well! but we are still technically a member of the EU, we havent changed to the euro yet (and hopefully wont) which is what i think the confusion must be here.
It says you are from England, so maybe I shouldn't argue, but you sure about that? The "EU" is the economic alliance/organization of Europe and adopting the currency is one of many requirements of entry. England has chosen NOT to enter that particular organization.

AFAIK, England is geographically a part of Europe, but that does NOT make them a part of the EU.
 
50
9
The european union has been about for many years maybe since the late 80's not sure about how long but it has been around alot longer than the European Currency, the Euro has only been in use for a few years if that, i think it was last summer that it started to be used or maybe the summer before that.
 
YUP,SURE,YES,OK,OUI,DA,JA,CERTAINLY...

I voted "Yes", just because I can!
 

Related Threads for: UN today ?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
13K
Replies
59
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
689
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
895
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
742

Hot Threads

Top