What do you think of the U.N.? Does it work? Do we need it? Do they have a cool flag? Do you want your country to be a part of it? Post any comments you have.

Although I think the UN is a good thing, and the U.S. should stay in the UN, I do feel that the system is broken and needs to be overhauled!

I think there should be definitive consequences for not following UN resolutions (even if the US violates a UN directive) and all participating nations should adhere to the UN's rules and charter.

I am sometimes ashamed at the fact that the US developed the UN as a vehicle to raise global concerns and try to put an end to global warfare, but we just as easily disregard UN resolutions if they do not go our way. We're part of a community and we need to act like it. If the US thumbs its nose at the UN, it dimishes the UN's capability to resolve issues.

With that said, I do have one caveat: The US is obligated to reject any UN resolution that is contrary to the US Constitution and its Amendments.

[ September 26, 2002, 19:58: Message edited by: Sir Belisarius ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 32 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: United Nations... (32 votes.)

Should the United Nations be disbanded? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 13% (4)
* No - 88% (28)

Is the U.N. effective at resolving international issues? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 31% (10)
* No - 69% (22)

Do you want your country to continue participating in the UN process? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 81% (26)
* No - 19% (6)

I say America and Britain break off and form a seperate union. We never do what they tell us to anyway. :lol:

There are two fundamentally different perspectives on how the U.N. should function and these clashing view points have been around from its inception.

On the one hand, there is the view that the U.N. should speak with the force of law, and that a decree by the U.N. should compell nations to do as told.

The other view is that the U.N should and does operate more along the lines that the League of Nations did. A place for nations to get together, discuss common concerns and issues, and seek a unified approach to addressing these concerns in a civilized manner. However, this view holds on to the idea of the soverign state, maintaining the right to decide for itself the rightness or wrongness of certain actions. This view is that by giving up all rights to determine for yourself your own course of action you are surrendering your soverignty for what is soverignty without the ability to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong? Ultimately, this point of view believes that nations should maintain their independence and the U.N. does not have the ability to force its views on nations because to do so is to violate the soverignty of a nation. So, if nations disagree with a resolution, it can choose to disregard it since it is within its soverign right to do so, but, that nation will of course have to deal with the consequences.

Traditionally, the continental Europeans have advocated the former view that the U.N. should have the force of law. The U.S. has been of the view (along with a lot of Brits apparently) the the U.N. can not supersede the soverignty of the individual nations. These two views have always been around and likely will be for a long time.

I, like most Americans, am of the view that we should not sacrafice our soverignty.

[ September 26, 2002, 20:36: Message edited by: Laches ]

The general feel you get from people here (Britain) is that we don't really consider ourselves as part of Europe properly. No one wants the euro, we'll agree with America over almost anything (no puppy jokes ;) ), and we don't really act like Europeans either.

I feel that the UN is pointless - it has done nothing, I don't see how people are beniffiting, I think it's pointless, it's taking everything from countries and jumbling them :confused:

What's the point?

I don't want to get involved with it, I don't think britain should, though it is more than likely that Blair will go ahead regardless of what the people want, because he is a little...

I just don't see the point ;)

America and England? I don't think so, England and America don't operate the same way and the countries act different, Brits aren't European or American, best to stay allies. England gets dragged into most conflicts without being tied to unions meaning we'd have to get involved and sacrifice becuase 'big guy' said so

Z, I miss your old pic!

I'm happy to say I like the results of the poll so far!

I am disappointed my country shows such disregard for the UN. We cannot be fair weather friends.

I think it could use some improvements and in the future I'm sure their will be. We need an institution that is capable of looking at the global picture. Myopic visions are not acceptable.
I respect the notion of sovereignity with consequence, any good relationship will have this.

Someday maybe economics will be a part of the equation.

Yeah, I fall once again into the stereotypical American category. I'm all for one world government, but only once the entire world agrees with Western democratic principles. That ain't happening soon.

Right now the most effective international bodies are those like NATO and the EU that wield military or economic power. The UN really wields none; thus, its approval or disapproval has, in most matters, become nothing but a propaganda tool.

What it is effective at is destroying native cultures with its social programs. That's the real evil of the organization and the reason that the international communitity should withhold dues.

Let me tell you a story from my youth.

Once upon a time there was a land without nuclear mushrooms, without fear of instant-human-made Apocalypse. And this land was under the rulership of a great nation. A nation of warriors and scholars, who controlled a third of the world. Noone was above them, but the Gods of the Realms.

I still remember well that day, when the greatest of shames was brought upon this nation. A wandering tribe, part descendants of the Masters, rose with tools of destruction in their hands, and chose to be free. It wasn't the best choice, but it was Their choice.

Ten generations have passed. Now, the once proud nation rules the land only through the power of their words. The empire of old is nearly forgotten, and new rivals rise from the shadow of history, not wielding weapons, but papers filled with useless proclamations.

The nation of warriors and scholars can handle its problems by its own. But when the going gets rough, who do you think is there to lend them a hand? Who stands beside them, when everyone else runs in hiding? The wandering tribe, having become a proud and powerful kingdom, still shows respect for true valors. Enemies of old, friends of new, sharing the same visions of the future of mankind.

The moral (for those of you who beared with me and reached this far): you won't get true allies by signing a piece of paper; friendships between people take years to be forged; friendships between nations take centuries for that. The U.N. is bound to fail at its purpose: to unify all humans on this piece of rock. That won't happen inside our insignificant lifetimes.

Organizations like NATO or EU are indeed the most effective international bodies but they don't represent all the countries, which was the main idea behind UN and League of Nations. In addition, organizations like these do not struggle for world peace but for the interests of their members.

r'Hant I totally agree with you. The relationship between America and Britain is a friendship that will never break. Even though they could crush us into the ground, they still hold us with equal respect. And will stand by us no matter the enemy.

Personally, I feel the U.N. should be significantly stronger. Strong enough to provide a significant threat to the United States. Because unless someone points a nuke at Bush and tells him to back the f' off, he's gonna start some trouble that no one wants.

Eh, I ranted about this already.

To stay on topic, the U.N, in its current incarnation, just isn't strong enough. I don't agree with the idea of one-world government, although a one-world police force would definitely be agreeable. Ideally, the U.N. would be strong enough to prevent any one nation from becoming omnipotent (cough), and moral enough to prevent mass genocide by any state, group, or army. Also, in order for a country to be officially recognized, it should be required to join the U.N. -- this would go a long way to solving the Iraq problem, IMO. Finally, the United Nations should be strong enough to *force* countries to comply to a unanimous decree. Both Saddam and Bush should be too scared to even think about hiding their chems and nukes.

Lastly, the use of nuclear weapons, even small, tactical warheads, should be completely outlawed, and every nation should be forced to dismantle theirs. Sure, you might say that this lets the terrorists use 'em...but maybe instead of building weapons of mass destruction, we can get to work on an infallible missile defense system. Besides, it's not like we can freaking blow up Al Queda. This would also make the U.S. use its damned soldiers. Our troops are better trained and armed than any others in the world, and yet we don't use 'em. I don't mean to sound heartless, guys, but you shouldn't be handed a free college tuition just for flying to a foreign country and sitting on your ass for a few months. Work for it. I know Black Hawk Down was gruesome, but barring a complete f-up like that, you don't have anything to worry about. I mean, do you see Saudi Arabia wearing Land Warrior gear?

I'm in a political rant mood today. Sorry :p

Young Man: I don't think the system works.

Young Woman: How would you have it work?

Young Man: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.

Young Woman: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree.

Young Man: Then they should be made to.

Young Woman: By whom? Who is going to make them?

Young Man: I don't know. Someone.

Young Woman: You?

Young Man: Of course not me.

Young Woman: But someone.

Young Man: Someone wise.

Young Woman: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

Young Man: Well if it works...

Z, I miss Paladin Man too! That was so funny!

The UN is not a body of law, it never was and never was intended to be. It's meant to facilitate international diplomacy, help settle disputes, etc.

The problem with giving the UN more power is, who is impartial enough to wield it? The UN is made up of representatives from different countries, and there's enough bickering within as it is.

I do agree that the US defies the UN too often (the Kosovo treaty, Bush's war on Iraq).

Big B: Eh, point taken. Then again, Richard's dictatorship turned out fairly well :p

Heh...in retrospect, I guess I'm promoting Christianity's version of the End Times over the possibility of Bush wiping everyone out. Lose-lose situation, either way. Guess we're all screwed, then.

@ Big B

Democracy obviously isn't the solution to our problems. The perfect form of government is centered upon an inividual who holds supreme power in the state. IF that guy is the good choice, then everybody is happy. We only have to figure out how to generate demi-humans utterly emptied of emotions or ideas of god-hood...

The only problem with the UN is the corruption
something like

A: We need your vote so that we can invade (a imaginary country)

B: But that will cause war in the entire (imaginary region), if not a WWIII

A: Here, $500.000 buy something nice O.K?

B: Uh, ok, you have my vote, nuke the whole (imaginary region) if you want, I don´t care

The obvious ignorance of some of the replies here is sickening. To ensure that everyone is aware what the UN is - and, as a result, this thread is actually about, check this:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

To understand the problems of the UN I strongly recommend to especially check the chapters V and VII and especially the Articles 23, 27, 107, 110 and 111.
It's useful to reflect about the basics to avoid ranting about things not fully understood.

[ October 01, 2002, 10:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]