PDA

View Full Version : Who needs the UN?



Ryokan
March 25th 2003, 01:23 PM
I have been thinking about it, and I'd like to toss out this idea?

I don't think the UN is effective.

The United States seems to be the only country that actual even asks the security council before going to war. France certainly doesn't (Ivory Coast, anyone?). Britain didn't in the Falklands. Russia never has, nor China. Somalia didn't ask to invade Ethiopia, the Arab states Israel, or Israel the Arab states.

They stalled forever in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and never acted when the Soviets came down on Hungary, or China in Tibet. It certainly wasn't the UN that helped prevent a war between India and Pakistan. It is the US, not the UN that has worked to bring Israel around to the reality that they have to cut a deal with the Palestinians, as they tried in 2000. As far as I can tell, the UN never prevents wars.

Finally, the UN treats every nation, regardless if it has a few hundred thousand people, and/or is run by a murderous dictator, and/or maintains little or no military presence, as equal to every other nation. If the UN really wanted human rights, it wouldn't have countries like Libya as head of the Human rights commision, and they wouldn't vote countries like the US off. If it wanted collective Security, counrties with militaries, not Mexico, would have more of a say on whether or not it was a good idea to take military action.

I feel the UN is a failure that has no purpose but to give the rest of the world the moral high ground when they want to shackle the US, and that it ought to be replaced with a body that actually provides security.

Ryokan
March 25th 2003, 01:52 PM
Also, in the North Korea crisis, the world is demanding that the US hold bilateral talks, rather than having to deal with it the UN. One would think the NK crisis is something the UN would be watching with rap attention, especially since the world is complaining we are ignoring it.

$cirisme
March 25th 2003, 04:05 PM
A democratic one-world government(which is what the UN tries to be) is impossible. There are too many ethnic, religious, political, and geographic differences in the world.

yxboom
March 25th 2003, 05:43 PM
Today @ 12:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44765#post44765)
cirisme:

A democratic one-world government(which is what the UN tries to be) is impossible. There are too many ethnic, religious, political, and geographic differences in the world.
Not if you ask Jack Van Impe :hrm:

Captain Ochre
March 25th 2003, 05:43 PM
(Many of) The UN's endeavors not involving the Security Council are effective, so I voted the yes-with-room-for-improvement.
The Security Council makes the UN a joke, and some of the rotating council leaderships ring with irony.

yxboom
March 25th 2003, 05:49 PM
Egad! Someone actually voted "Yes, it works well." :hrm:

Sozo
March 25th 2003, 06:51 PM
Today @ 03:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44826#post44826)
yxboom:

Egad! Someone actually voted "Yes, it works well." :hrm:


I thought you guys banned Clinton :huh: