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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
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.

Wildly successful if we don't include the Greek civil war, First Indochina war, Korean war, Laotian civil war, Vietnam war, Guatemala civil war, Angola civil war, first Afghan war, Iran-Iraq war, Nicaraguan civil war, and the Bosnian civil war.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
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.
Even if you get rid of veto powers and move things to the UN general assembly, the UN will still be both ineffective and useless.
 

Tango

Senior member
May 9, 2002
244
0
0
Wildly successful if we don't include the Greek civil war, First Indochina war, Korean war, Laotian civil war, Vietnam war, Guatemala civil war, Angola civil war, first Afghan war, Iran-Iraq war, Nicaraguan civil war, and the Bosnian civil war.

You somehow missed the between great powers part...
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
You somehow missed the between great powers part...

Weapons and troops fighting for South Korea: American, British, French
Weapons and troops fighting for North Korea: Chinese and Russian
-roughly 1 million soldier deaths
-roughly 1-2 million civilian deaths
To put that in context, the total number of British killed during WW2 was less than 0.5 million. Korea was a gigantic war.
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,203
7
81
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.

Well, we have the discussion club..... ;)

But that would make spying on everyone else far less fun!