United Nations

Are you for or against the UN? What are you views on the UN as it is currently?


Also, what would happen if the US pulled out of the UN? What would be consequences for the US, the UN, and other countries?

Better the U.N. than none.

Originally posted by pinguin Better the U.N. than none.   The U.S. simply can't replace the role the United States do. NATO and EU are just local organizations that have not the reach of a UN-   Otherwise, without the UN, It would be only the empire of the force and money.   Sovereign nations are the causes of wars. They has to be controlled, particularly when low I.Q. people get in power.   With respect to corruption in the UN, what do you spect? Tell me one single developed country that doesn't have any corruption scandal at all.   Pinguin

I should clarify: I want the US to return to its own soil, and leave the rest of the world alone. Don't bother us (the USA), and we won't bother you. It should have always been this way, but hasn't been the path the US followed for at least 50 years. A return to isolation is needed.


Edited by Adalwolf - 22-Sep-2007 at 20:30

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival      What has the U.N. done/accomplished? I mean besides documenting massacres and creating an armed force which is not allowed to engage in combat.

I went with other because I have not yet made up my mind on this.  As an american there is certainly an appeal to what Adalwolf has said in regards to isolationism.  I think because we are so large and strong a nation, there is this opinion in all of us of who cares what europe and especially elsewhere like africa think or do it doesn't concern us.  With global warming and the extinction of species I think we need to work with other countries to curb our destruction of the environment, (especially this country) though the concern is getting entangled in every little conflict that has nothing to do with us.  Perhaps this is because of prior experience like Vietnam and current experience like Iraq.  My personal opinion is that there is also this feeling that if we loosen our protectionist policies other countries, especially india and the rest of asia, will start exploiting the environment and other areas to the degree we do and that is the last thing we would want to see.

Edited by Justinian - 22-Sep-2007 at 21:35

I'm not sure that anyone who posted in this thread is aware what the UN is actually for. The UN isn't for peacekeeping, or education, or human rights declarations, it can do none of that and still be necessary. The UN isn't for global government or controlling rouge super powers.
The UN is a meeting place!
The UN is just the collective opinion of the governments of the world. It is a congregation of embassies, where governments can discuss their business with multiple other countries at the same time.

If the UN won't agree to something it is because the governments of the world won't agree to something. If the UN is opposing you its because the countries of the world oppose you. Its solders are provided by countries that choose to. It is not an entity in its own right. It is only a secretariat.

A country pulling out of the UN is like a person refusing to use a telephone.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The UN isn't for peacekeeping

     So why have they wasted so many resources putting together armed forces and sending them to dozens of countries? I say wasted, because they are not allowed to engage in combat. Thats like giving money and resources to put someone through university, but then not allowing them to use their education for anything.

     Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against the UN, it has the potential for good, I just think they do some pointless things.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The UN is a meeting place!

     The UN is not just a place, it has its own bureaucracy which even goes so far as telling some countries what they can and cannot do (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it makes the UN more than just a place).

Originally posted by gcle2003 it seems to me that it should be possible to suspend (and deny benefits to) countries that are in flagrant violation of the Declaration on Human Rights.

     I agree. The main obstacle is the politics that certain powers have in relation to the UN which keeps the UN from addressing certain violations while preaching about others.

Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 23-Sep-2007 at 17:18

The UN is working. For people of the Western Hemisphere, for instance, we are more concerned about our problems rather than with the endless chains of problems of the old world. And our worst nighmare is Haiti: the poorest country in the hemisphere.

In there, troops of many countries of the region, with the mandate of the UN and the permission of the Haiti government, are helping to build that society once again from scratch. We think the effort is worth the try. Will it succeed? We hope so. We are wasting our taxes in that and we will keep it going.

Those are the things that the UN help to do. Not even the OAS can do it better than the UN in that matter.

 

Anyone else notice the irony of the change in the U.S. position in regards to the U.N.?  In the days of Wilson, the U.S. was the main proponent of an organization like the U.N., now we are at the other end of the spectrum.  I don't know what lesson is to be learned from this if any, just found it ironic.

Edited by Justinian - 24-Sep-2007 at 02:29