Can we all finally agree that the U.N. is pointless?

[Zaap]

Maybe if you spew out enough words you can cover for the fact that you didn't know something basic about the UN, and so had to construct a silly misinterpretation of what I wrote to cover for it?

It's really not working. But it is kinda funny!

 

[Abraxas]

Maybe if you spew out enough words you can cover for the fact that you didn't know something basic about the UN, and so had to construct a silly misinterpretation of what I wrote to cover for it?

It's really not working. But it is kinda funny!

Since you are just repeating yourself...


Your point in bringing it up, and I use point loosely, was that UN Peacekeepers have done some horrible things. My point in replying to you was that the Peacekeepers, first of all, aren't all the UN does, and second, are composed of the armed forces of member nations rather than the UN proper anyway. The UN is a massive, complex, and multifaceted organization and your reduction of it to just the actions of a few peacekeepers is unfair and dishonest. As I initially pointed out, there are things about the UN that don't work but there are also great goods that the UN does such as with the Food Programme, UNESCO, and WHO and your dismissing all that because of the actions of some peacekeepers is stupid.

Look, your posts are there for anyone to read, your insults transparent attempts to avoid people looking more closely at your asinine statements, and your accusations fool nobody. Tantrums like yours never gained anyone credibility so why don't you take a step back, take a couple English classes, and own up to your mistakes instead of lashing out at the people who point them out? This could be the very first learning experience of your entire life, use it wisely.

 

[Zaap]

Maybe if you repeat yourself with more walls of text it will cover for the fact that you didn't know something basic about the UN, and then tried to cover for it?

STILL not working! Keep going!

 

[PingviN]

There is Russia and China always using the veto and the 60 member Arab League which pushes for blasphemy laws.

The nation having (by far) [ab]used it's veto right in the SC the past 40 or so years is *drumroll*

The U.S.A!

 

[shortylickens]

But the UN isn't a jury.

They act like it. Judge and executioner too.
And police.


And they arent very good at any of the jobs.

 

[Incorruptible]

The nation having (by far) [ab]used it's veto right in the SC the past 40 or so years is *drumroll*

The U.S.A!

So? The US has done more good in the world than Europe and many of the vetos were for good reasons.

 

[CrackRabbit]

So? The US has done more good in the world than Europe and many of the vetos were for good reasons.

Ok, name some good Security Council vetoes that the US performed.
Oh and don't use Wikipedia or Google. I want this to come from you, not some random search of the internet.

 

[PingviN]

So? The US has done more good in the world than Europe and many of the vetos were for good reasons.

I'm sure both Russians and the Chinese think their vetoes were for good reasons as well. Also, Europe is not a country, but you're ignorant, so I'm not surprised.

 

[lothar]

How about we ask the nearly hundred million people the UN World Food Programme fed in 2011 in some of the most impoverished and famine stricken regions of the world if the UN is pointless? Just because the Security Council or even the General Assembly (among other parts) have deep flaws does not mean the entire massive organization is worthless.

I'm pretty sure that could be accomplished with less administrative cost.
You don't need a building that cost $65 million(uninflated dollars) to build in the 1940's with 49 floors that costs millions of dollars to maintain annually.
This also does not include the $1.9 billion renovation face-lift that they want to do to the headquarters.
And I'm sure the impoverished and famine stricken regions of the world would appreciate that additional $1.9 billion in food aid rather than using that for a face-lift and more administrative costs.

The UN is a peacekeeping force now?

Do you believe this would have expanded their influence over the UN if the US were to leave, and if so, in what sense would this be a good thing?

The US doesn't have much influence over the UN today.
Certainly not more than the Russians or the Chinese do.
Certainly not anywhere near it's 25% contribution.

Your assumption that the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Israel and any other US allies would start voting against US interests at the UN if the US were to suddenly leave is completely beyond a fabrication.

 

[lothar]

How many world wars have there been since the UN was established?

How many world wars were there in the same number of decades, prior to its establishment?

Yes, I think it is somewhat silly on a number of issues, but I would hardly go so far as to call it useless.

Before the UN, there was the League of Nations which was formed after WWI.
That didn't prevent WWII.

Prior to the UN being formed, there has only been 2 "World Wars" throughout all of human history(thousands of years).
The UN still have a long way to go(read: thousands of years), and they've already technically tied the record on the number of World Wars if you include the League of Nations record in less than 100 years.

 

[lothar]

A discussion forum for the world of dubious quality is still better than no discussion forum for the world.

This is the only valid reason in this thread. Pretty much all other reasons given so far are mindless.

 

[WelshBloke]

So? The US has done more good in the world than Europe and many of the vetos were for good reasons.

I think that the point was that if you leave the UN then you wouldn't be able to use your veto.

 

[Screech]

Before the UN, there was the League of Nations which was formed after WWI.
That didn't prevent WWII.

Prior to the UN being formed, there has only been 2 "World Wars" throughout all of human history(thousands of years).
The UN still have a long way to go(read: thousands of years), and they've already technically tied the record on the number of World Wars if you include the League of Nations record in less than 100 years.

If we only count the last two wars we call world wars, then its only a comparison of ~1914-1945 to the time since then -- 2 - 0. Obviously the league of nations failed.....hence it is not around anymore. If you want to go back a few hundred years, by most measures the seven year's war, napoleonic wars, and others could be considered world wars. It all depends on one's definitions, of course. And considerations of armaments. Leonidas with abrams tanks would certainly have changed the movie 300......

In any case, I pretty much agree with your post above (and yllus) -- the UN functions as a forum, although I do tend to think that a lot of the things that forum does or actions it tries to take (or not...) tend to be.......retarded. It does undertake a substantial amount of aid as well which is not to be overlooked but must be considered as something that is not necessarily going to end positively for everyone (ie, if you feed 1000 starving people now but pull out in the future will you indirectly lead to 10,000 people starving later......hate to make it a numbers game but it is what it is......but anyway, that's another thread)

 

[Agent11]

In this latest instance the UN has served it's purpose well however.

 

[irishScott]

How many world wars have there been since the UN was established?

How many world wars were there in the same number of decades, prior to its establishment?

Yes, I think it is somewhat silly on a number of issues, but I would hardly go so far as to call it useless.

That was due to the development of nuclear weapons, the UN had fuck-all to do with it.

 

[irishScott]

The UN isn't pointless, just merely ineffectual at a lot of what it tries to do. All it really is is a centralized meeting ground for nations to cooperate when they want to, and bitch when they don't want to. The UN has no power to enforce its own rulings or resolutions.

 

[walkur]

You do realise that if the US would leave the UN the UN would relocate and the US intelligence agencies would lose an enormous resource...
All of the current intellgence hathering would have to be done over much longer distances in a much more hostile enviroment.
The costs would be enormeous!

 

[rommelrommel]

The UN isn't pointless, just merely ineffectual at a lot of what it tries to do. All it really is is a centralized meeting ground for nations to cooperate when they want to, and bitch when they don't want to. The UN has no power to enforce its own rulings or resolutions.

/this

A lot of the functions that the UN has tried to take on are useless or worse than useless.

However, at least it's a place to talk. Maybe a lot of it should be defunded and cut but as a place to converse it has some value.

 

[Incorruptible]

I'm sure both Russians and the Chinese think their vetoes were for good reasons as well. Also, Europe is not a country, but you're ignorant, so I'm not surprised.

Some of the vetoes were good but others weren't. I never said Europe was a country but the US still has done more good in the world than the countries in Europe.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Ok, name some good Security Council vetoes that the US performed.
Oh and don't use Wikipedia or Google. I want this to come from you, not some random search of the internet.

Some of the vetoes were good but others weren't. I never said Europe was a country but the US still has done more good in the world than the countries in Europe.

Still waiting for an answer...

 

[lothar]

If we only count the last two wars we call world wars, then its only a comparison of ~1914-1945 to the time since then -- 2 - 0. Obviously the league of nations failed.....hence it is not around anymore. If you want to go back a few hundred years, by most measures the seven year's war, napoleonic wars, and others could be considered world wars. It all depends on one's definitions, of course. And considerations of armaments. Leonidas with abrams tanks would certainly have changed the movie 300......

In any case, I pretty much agree with your post above (and yllus) -- the UN functions as a forum, although I do tend to think that a lot of the things that forum does or actions it tries to take (or not...) tend to be.......retarded. It does undertake a substantial amount of aid as well which is not to be overlooked but must be considered as something that is not necessarily going to end positively for everyone (ie, if you feed 1000 starving people now but pull out in the future will you indirectly lead to 10,000 people starving later......hate to make it a numbers game but it is what it is......but anyway, that's another thread)

That is a LOT of money and maintenance to spend for something that essentially functions as a discussion forum though.

Someone should introduce them to the modern technological world and let them know they can create a forum anywhere on the intrawebs to have an online discussion.
Hell, If needed the mods/admins here can create a sub-forum specially for only UN member states.

 

[Gintaras]

I'm sure both Russians and the Chinese think their vetoes were for good reasons as well. Also, Europe is not a country, but you're ignorant, so I'm not surprised.

You "think"(if fact, you're not able to THINK) what your media tells you - that you're on the "good" side of The Fence, chinesse, russians - are on the "bad" side of The Fence....

Are you FREE? NO, not so, you can't THINK free...."The Fence" separates you from other people...at times, same kind of people, like yourself....Just on the other side of The Fence...

 

[PingviN]

You "think"(if fact, you're not able to THINK) what your media tells you - that you're on the "good" side of The Fence, chinesse, russians - are on the "bad" side of The Fence....

Are you FREE? NO, not so, you can't THINK free...."The Fence" separates you from other people...at times, same kind of people, like yourself....Just on the other side of The Fence...

What did I just read...?

 

[Spungo]

The UN is mostly useless. There are 5 countries that have complete veto power on any action:
-China
-France
-Russia
-United Kingdom
-United States

Which countries are responsible for 99% of the world's problems?
-China
-France
-Russia
-United Kingdom
-United States

Nothing gets done because every conflict somehow involves one of these countries. Vietnam was a proxy war between Russia, France, and the US. Afghanistan was a proxy war between Russia and the US. The government of Rwanda was supported by the French during their civil war. The UN peacekeeping forces are a great concept, but it's hard for the UN to be effective when things can be vetoed at any time.

 

[Tango]

I thinking many people are confused about the purpose of the UN.

The United Nations mission, as explicitly stated at their creation, was to avoid war between great powers. And in that they have been wildly successful.