Have you ever noticed the UN condemns everything but doesn't do a damn thing about it?

[Mill]

I have noticed this. Every bad thing that happens the UN condemns. They never do anything about the things they condemn. They just sit back and watch the world almost boil over while telling the US we need a UN mandate to deploy anywhere militarily. Right...

 

[ElFenix]

i don't remember reading in the consititution that the commander-in-chief has to get the UN's approval before sending troops somewhere. its not in the war powers act either.

 

[Czar]

The UN itself cant do anything at all, its the member countries that can.

And this happens all the time with just about every western country, when something bad happens all of them condamn it but nothing changes.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i don't remember reading in the consititution that the commander-in-chief has to get the UN's approval before sending troops somewhere. its not in the war powers act either.

Not saying we do. Why do we even care what the UN says? We need to be in contact with our allies and trade partners, but why the UN? It is simply a farce.

 

[308nato]

The UN is in business to keep itself in business. A lot of fat happy bastards from around the world get to live in the USA on someone elses dime and be a pain in our arses.

If we boot the Un out of the US and it relocates to Guatemala, how many "ambassadors" would still show ?

 

[arcas]

The problem with the UN is twofold: One, the UN has no real power or authority. It's just a loose conglomeration of representatives from member nations each with its own agenda. Second, the UN is just a loose conglomeration of representatives from member nations each with its own agenda. The UN condems actions because it's easy: condemnation requires very little effort or sacrifice on the part of its members. It is far easier to convince a diverse group of nations to sign off on a resolution of condemnation than it is to convince them to sign off on "real" action and the costs (financial, human and moral) associated with it. In alot of ways, this is no different from any other committee made up of a large diverse group of people.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: 308nato
The UN is in business to keep itself in business. A lot of fat happy bastards from around the world get to live in the USA on someone elses dime and be a pain in our arses.

If we boot the Un out of the US and it relocates to Guatemala, how many "ambassadors" would still show ?

Well said.

 

[StageLeft]

When believe it or not I thought bush's speech was great. If the UN continues to make resolutions which they have no intention of enforcing they will be seen as empty-threats. This is why Iraq continues to act as it does because in ten years of denial damn near nothing has been done about it other than sanctions and a bomb here or there. If the UN wants to be a serious entity into the future they need to start practicing what they preach.

 

[sandorski]

The problem isn't the UN, it's the UN's members. The UN was purposely made the way it is, that being not have a standing army(the only way the UN can enforce any decree). With a standing army comes increased costs(must be payed by the members). Then you have to consider what/when/where/why/who that army would be used for/against. What kind of mess would we have been in with an "effective"(by the definition being put forth here) UN during the Cold War?

Not being an expert on the inner-workings of the UN, I'm going out on a limb here, but go I will. IMO, the Security Council is likely the problem with the UN. During the Cold War, the USSR and China were philosophically opposed to the US, France, Britain, and the other members(or are these the only permament members?). Anyway, this schism severely crippled the effectiveness of the UN, although some very important and effective actions were still able to be implemented(Korea, Cuba Missile Crisis, Peace Keeping missions in various conflicts, etc). Now that the Cold War is over, and after many years of a wearing down of dedication of the various SC members(I remember the US complaing about the UN's communist tendencies during the Cold War, I'm sure others felt similar things, and it wouldn't surprise me if the USSR and China complained about the capitalist tendencies), the SC seems to still not be dedicated to the idea behind the UN. Now those same members are more concerned in their own interest, which continues to work against the effectiveness of the UN. They seem to be involved only because it's tradition(similar to how some people attend church, they just do), rather than try to make the UN concept work. After years of stagnation at the top, most of the other members probably don't expect much from the UN either(disillusionment).

Should the UN be abolished then? I dunno, if it is, it needs to be replaced with something similar. What I'd like to see, and why it's not being done boggles my mind, is for the US(and whoever else on the SC that wants to join them) become more active in the UN. The US(and it's citizens) states repeatedly it's desire to spread Democracy/freedom across the globe, why not use an organization where practically all the nations in the world gather on a regular basis? Why not be an example instead of constantly complaining and only show up when it's in your best interest?

 

[Kadarin]

Ever wonder what a future would be like if the UN ran the world? In his "Continuing Time" series, sci-fi author Daniel Keyes Moran illustrates a future where the UN grows a set of teeth and defeats the US in military action in the first part of the 21st century. There are both good and bad things about that particular future...

Amazon.com link

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: 308nato
The UN is in business to keep itself in business. A lot of fat happy bastards from around the world get to live in the USA on someone elses dime and be a pain in our arses.

If we boot the Un out of the US and it relocates to Guatemala, how many "ambassadors" would still show ?

I don't think we can do that. The US gave the UN territory to the UN, if I am not mistaken (correction please if wrong). Therefore, they actually aren't on US soil so we can't kick them out.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: 308nato
The UN is in business to keep itself in business. A lot of fat happy bastards from around the world get to live in the USA on someone elses dime and be a pain in our arses.

If we boot the Un out of the US and it relocates to Guatemala, how many "ambassadors" would still show ?

Don't dish Guatemala. Actually go for it.....Just not El Salvador


" Yu no messes wit mi"

 

[Schadenfreude]

The highest legal authority in the world are nations. They are granted sovereignty, meaning that they are the highest legal autority and no international communities can rule over other nations as of this standing point, with the exception of wartime - the only way that nations can be punished are for war crimes, and even during that, no specific person may be put on trial by an international committee (wait, I think they recently changed the last one . . . I'm supposed to know this stuff . . . Damn.)