Is the United Nations legitimate or not??

[shiner]

A post in this thread gave me the idea to create this poll.

Personally I think the U.N. is about as useful as a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.

 

[Queasy]

Well, to respond in cliche form...

The inmates are running the asylum.

When you have countries in open violation of human rights charing the Human Rights commitee...I think it is time to flush the whole thing down the toilet and start over. Unfortunately, there are alot of career bureaucrats there who do nothing but give themselves an excuse to live it up.

 

[GoodToGo]

UN sux donkey balls.

 

[Novgrod]

I actually know people who want the UN to have more power.

Thank God it'll never happen.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

Because of what?

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

WTF????

 

[Pepsei]

Pretend we're going to have a "United Nations"...now compare that with a system of government that we have.....

it's smilar to a republic...execpt it doesn't have any teeth.... imagine our country with little or no police.

would it work better as a dictatorship? imagine our country having a hand in every other country's policy.


UN isn't not working too well because they don't have a lot of power... they don't have a lot of power because many people doesn't want to give power to someone who could dictate what they can and can not do.

Until this changes... it's the only thing we have right now. is it better than nothing? i dunno.

 

[rufruf44]

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

WTF????

Heh, I would love to hear the reasoning for the "likely alive" part.
UN = paper tiger at best, with no strength to enforce any of its resolution, without the backing of some power-broker countries.

 

[SlowSS]

A toothless lion organization.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

WHAT??? Please explain....

 

[Aceshigh]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
A post in this thread gave me the idea to create this poll.

Personally I think the U.N. is about as useful as a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.

I agree with you. The U.N is useless.

 

[exp]

UN = League of Nations Part Deaux

'Nuff said.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Legitimate? Depends on definition. Useful? Of course. You are most likely alive today due in part to the UN.

Hmmmmm. I really don't know what to say about that.



It is a legitimate sham I guess, but I still voted no.

 

[nord1899]

Legitimate? Yes, all the governments of the nations involved have agreed to it.
Useful? Sort of. It gives everyone a chance to diplomatically resolve things before resorting to force. Gives nations a stage to address the world on more easily.

But as it does not have a military of its own, it is only as poweful as it wants to be. That is, if no one in it wants to go after someone (for example Saddam) then the UN has no power. And with the US as powerful as it is, it can almost go on its own to do things (for example, go after Saddam).

So the toothless lion is probably a good analogy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The UN is quite legitimate. Unfortunately, its power is limited. Permanent members of the Security Council and their client-states pretty much operate as they see fit. If you are outside the power structure you are at the mercy of their whims unless of course you've got some angle . . . like NK military + nukes.

The US has been the greatest overrall supporter of the UN in part based on principles embodied in the Charter and b/c we hold inordinate influence (permanent status, allies, and funding). As the UN has charted a more global perspective the US has undermined the UN through witholding funding and opposing legitimate resolutions which affect the US or its client-states (typically Israel).

Only the UN could provide a venue for Stevenson to show the USSR to be liars beyond compare. Our current version, Negroponte, is far from convincing but if he had evidence the UN would be the place to display it. Maybe Colin Powell will do a Stevensonesque presentation next week.

Regardless, the UN is no more legitimate than the honor of the countries which signed its Charter. At the moment quite a few members are pretty dishonorable . . . particularly the Security Council (including the USA).

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Pretend we're going to have a "United Nations"...now compare that with a system of government that we have.....

it's smilar to a republic...execpt it doesn't have any teeth.... imagine our country with little or no police.

would it work better as a dictatorship? imagine our country having a hand in every other country's policy.


UN isn't not working too well because they don't have a lot of power... they don't have a lot of power because many people doesn't want to give power to someone who could dictate what they can and can not do.

Until this changes... it's the only thing we have right now. is it better than nothing? i dunno.

Republic? What UN are you talking about? The UN is socialist to the bone.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The UN is quite legitimate. Unfortunately, its power is limited. Permanent members of the Security Council and their client-states pretty much operate as they see fit. If you are outside the power structure you are at the mercy of their whims unless of course you've got some angle . . . like NK military + nukes.

The US has been the greatest overrall supporter of the UN in part based on principles embodied in the Charter and b/c we hold inordinate influence (permanent status, allies, and funding). As the UN has charted a more global perspective the US has undermined the UN through witholding funding and opposing legitimate resolutions which affect the US or its client-states (typically Israel).

Only the UN could provide a venue for Stevenson to show the USSR to be liars beyond compare. Our current version, Negroponte, is far from convincing but if he had evidence the UN would be the place to display it. Maybe Colin Powell will do a Stevensonesque presentation next week.

Regardless, the UN is no more legitimate than the honor of the countries which signed its Charter. At the moment quite a few members are pretty dishonorable . . . particularly the Security Council (including the USA).

The US provides almost 75% of the total UN budget. Of course we should get a louder voice, but instead we get pushed around by everyone else. We don't have money to burn either. I say we get rid of the UN. Name 3 instances where the UN actually pulled it's weight?

 

[BigJelly]

If this is what you call legitimate then yes. But to people that actually think realize the UN is about as usefull as the League of Nations: too buricratic and unwilling to stop countries that WILL bring chaos to the world. Moreover, the UN is anti-American and my link just proves it. The US has become the wipping boy or scapegoat for the rest of the world.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Pretend we're going to have a "United Nations"...now compare that with a system of government that we have.....

it's smilar to a republic...execpt it doesn't have any teeth.... imagine our country with little or no police.

would it work better as a dictatorship? imagine our country having a hand in every other country's policy.


UN isn't not working too well because they don't have a lot of power... they don't have a lot of power because many people doesn't want to give power to someone who could dictate what they can and can not do.

Until this changes... it's the only thing we have right now. is it better than nothing? i dunno.

Republic? What UN are you talking about? The UN is socialist to the bone.

I'm just talking about structure...not the policy...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The UN is socialist to the bone.

That's the point . . . caring for the collective good instead of the limited perspective of a few.

The US provides almost 75% of the total UN budget. Of course we should get a louder voice, but instead we get pushed around by everyone else. We don't have money to burn either. I say we get rid of the UN. Name 3 instances where the UN actually pulled it's weight?

2002 UN regular budget dues
graph for the table-challenged

graph of historical trend in total peacekeeping past due

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
A post in this thread gave me the idea to create this poll.

Personally I think the U.N. is about as useful as a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.

It is legitimate but has NO real power. I've done model UN multiple times at multiple conferences and realized they could do nothing.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The UN is socialist to the bone.

That's the point . . . caring for the collective good instead of the limited perspective of a few.

Yes, but with socialism that rarely -if ever- happens.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: shinerburke
A post in this thread gave me the idea to create this poll.

Personally I think the U.N. is about as useful as a one legged man at an ass kicking contest.

It is legitimate but has NO real power. I've done model UN multiple times at multiple conferences and realized they could do nothing.

I thought I saw you on that island with your face painted like Peter Criss. Thank God Moe rescued all of you.

 

[exp]

That's the point . . . caring for the collective good instead of the limited perspective of a few.

Idealistic bullsh*t. The only "limited perspective" here is that of pie-in-the-sky UN supporters who believe that countries that work through the UN are doing so "for the collective good." Nonsense...they're looking after Number 1 just as every nation throughout history has done.

Can anyone sit there with a straight face and tell me that France, Germany, etc. support the UN not in hopes of limiting U.S. power to their own benefit, but because they want to help the Gambias, the Ecuadors, the Bangladeshes of the world?? ROFL Give me a break.

The UN is no different from any other political arena--it's always about ME ME ME ME ME. If France was on top it would brush the UN aside at its leisure, just as the U.S. has done. If Gambia was the world's only superpower it would do the same.

Let's face facts here, people: there is no such thing as a country that cares more for the welfare of other nations than it does for its own. And so the UN is really no different from communism--a triumph of idealism over realism--and it is doomed to suffer the same fate. Luckily for us the UN has no real teeth, and that impotence will prevent it from visiting great evils on humanity as communism has.