Is the UN effective?

[Tim]

I see this topic come up in quite a few posts.

So I want to know what you guys think of the United Nations. Is it an effective body? Should the U.N. be dissolved?

I would like to see some serious debate on this topic. Nothing off the hip and without some sort of backing.
Now let's see what you guys really know about the U.N. and what is just BS

 

[Peter Parka]

Personally I though the UN was an effective body. Unfortunately it has been rendered useless due to the fact the USA just do what the hell they want anyway and no one can do anything about it.

 

[Tim]

Personally I though the UN was an effective body. Unfortunately it has been rendered useless due to the fact the USA just do what the hell they want anyway and no one can do anything about it.

But in what capacity is it ineffective? Are you only talking about war related U.N. missions or the humanitarian efforts they under take through out the world?

 

[dt3]

I think each situation would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It's a large institution with decades of history, there's bound to be some good and some bad.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I think each situation would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It's a large institution with decades of history, there's bound to be some good and some bad.

Agree'd. There's some good and some bad in most everything.

On a case by case basis - my most dominant thoughts and opinions regarding the UN can be read here:
The United Nations : Corrupt, Ineffective, Dangerous

 

[All Else Failed]

It needs a massive overhaul, where we don't basically control it.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Why do I feel a lesson coming on?

**Types then deletes**
**Types then deletes**
**Types.... Hmmm... then deletes**
**Sits back and waits for Tim to tell me something I didn't know**

 

[Tim]

Why do I feel a lesson coming on?

**Types then deletes**
**Types then deletes**
**Types.... Hmmm... then deletes**
**Sits back and waits for Tim to tell me something I didn't know**

I don't stand for or against the U.N. Just like every large organization out there, I know there will be corruption, greed and wrong doing. I'm just curious on what you guys think about them and I want to get some good strong empirical facts. I know that many of you can sit there and list out 10 different reasons that they should be disbanded, but do you know the good that they do?
There is no argument that they make some bad decisions, but you also have to admit that they do some great things as well. So where do they stand as a whole? If you properly weigh the good they do with the bad, where do they stand?
I'm truly interested in what you guys think about them and if you really know what they do in the world.

I appreciate the link you provided Grace, but do you really agree with all of those pages condemning the U.N.? There wasn't a single positive on that site. Is that how you see the U.N.? No positive, just negative...

There were some posts on this site where some of you were very anti U.N. and you stated how they should be dissolved, these are the same sediments that I have heard over and over again on right wing talk radio. I was curious as to why you felt that way so I looked for some answers. When I started, I wasn't up to speed on the U.N. and what their role was. But for every story I read about U.N. corruption, greed and scandal I found 10 stories of where they do charitable missions around the world.

So far, from what I've learned, my stance is that the U.N. is a very important part of world peace and stability. That their humanitarian missions help millions that would not have received it otherwise. That we as a Super power in the world we should support the U.N. so that other countries may have a voice in world matters that concern all life on this planet. BUT, the U.N. IS in need of an overhaul. The permanent members of the U.N. need to work together to get rid of the greed, corruption and scandals. It's too important to let it fall apart, there is too much good that the U.N. does to let it all just stop. It would effect too many people world wide...

 

[dt3]

In my opinion, what the UN does best (when it chooses to do so) is on the humanitarian side. But, there's many instances where it's easy to say the UN should've stepped in and they didn't.

IMO, the UN shouldn't have any sort of military role. I think they should solely be a humanitarian organization. I believe it's what they do best, and they do things that single countries would never be able to do.

On the military side, I'd like to see NATO work more closely with the UN, and basically be the UN's "peace-keeping force". The Generals in charge of NATO whould report to the Secretary General of the UN.

If the Security Council decided armed force is necessary, all NATO members would be required to assist.

I think this would avoid a lot of the petty bickering and lack of consensus of the UN member-states.

 

[Tim]

I thought NATO was an arm of the UN...

Damn-it, not I have to go on another fact finding mission... thanks Donnie.


But you are right in your post, I think their humanitarian efforts are their strongest asset.

What I didn't know, is that the U.N. is also directly responsible for negotiations that have prevented multiple wars throughout the years. Having two nations come before the U.N. and work out their differences avoiding war is also something that's important. I guess you can consider that humanitarian to.

 

[dt3]

I thought NATO was an arm of the UN...

Damn-it, not I have to go on another fact finding mission... thanks Donnie.


But you are right in your post, I think their humanitarian efforts are their strongest asset.

What I didn't know, is that the U.N. is also directly responsible for negotiations that have prevented multiple wars throughout the years. Having two nations come before the U.N. and work out their differences avoiding war is also something that's important. I guess you can consider that humanitarian to.

Very true. I was kind of hinting at that when I said they can do things that no single country can. Very good point.

I'd like to see a much bigger role for NATO in the world. They've been extremely successful in Afghanistan. But on the whole, it seems like NATO has done very little since its inception. I think having the two work hand-in-hand would increase the effectiveness of both.

 

[Peter Parka]

I appreciate the link you provided Grace, but do you really agree with all of those pages condemning the U.N.? There wasn't a single positive on that site. Is that how you see the U.N.? No positive, just negative...

I agree. There was no reliable sources (if any) quoted there, it was just a big anti UN rant.

 

[NightWarrior]

I think the UN was created with good intentions, undoubtedly. Aren't we behind on UN dues anyway? How come we haven't been kicked out?

 

[Tim]

I think the UN was created with good intentions, undoubtedly. Aren't we behind on UN dues anyway? How come we haven't been kicked out?

Because 22% of U.N. funding is paid by us... and 27% of peace keeping missions is our responsibility.

If the gravy train is late... you can't just cut it off...

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

My biggest issue with the U.N. is the standards that we hold other nations up to.
A country that wants to be on the panel, needs to earn it by a commitment to human rights, education, anti-terrorism policies, and proliferation of weapons, that and be open to inspection froma neutral party like everyone else.

For too many years we have been the ones held to the highest standards (as well we should) and other groups are not scrutinized enough. If they are they make an attempt to look bullied.

They need to be pressured to put pressure on thier own people to act civilized and not satchel charge each other, they need to police thier own people. That way we can possibly stand down a little and not look like bullies to the universe.

 

[NightWarrior]

Because 22% of U.N. funding is paid by us... and 27% of peace keeping missions is our responsibility.

If the gravy train is late... you can't just cut it off...

Thanks for making my point I knew you'd have all the stats, I'm too lazy to look them up

 

[GraceAbounds]

I appreciate the link you provided Grace, but do you really agree with all of those pages condemning the U.N.? There wasn't a single positive on that site. Is that how you see the U.N.? No positive, just negative...

No I don't see the UN as ALL negative, as I already stated. But my dominate opinion of them is for the most part negative. And yes I agree with 95% of what that link stated.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I think the U.N. is a grand idea. Perhaps one of the best ideas to come out of the 20th. It has a history of greatness.

The problem comes in more recently. Political correctness, infighting, corruption, and national selfishness have all but crippled the institution.

Forty years ago, if the U.N. stood together, and said "This far. No further." The target of that warning would know beyond shadow of doubt what the consequences would be for failure to respond. Now a U.N. mandated time table is a joke. Sadly, this is once instance where the word literally is actually applicable.

I believe the league is still capable of greatness, but it is far from on the right track. Corruption has to be ripped from its halls, or the decay will continue.

Do I think we should leave? No. It would be foolish of us to walk away from a world body like that. As a founding member, we have Veto authority over the council. Our national agenda will never be threatened by it. Sad to say, but why would anybody ever leave something like that? Even if it gets driven into the ground, we never have to fear it as long as we hold that seat.

I believe as the primary contributor of both monies and force, the U.S. should exhibit a stronger leadership role in the U.N.. The corrupt will stir the pot and call us bullies, but hard times call for hard men and women. I would like to see the U.S. step back up to the plate again (Which I believe we have been slowing doing) and truly lead from the front.

Our nation, the U.S. has a history of inspiration. We should remember and choose to move forward.

 

[UncleBacon]

they have their ups and downs but what grinds my gears is that they rely heavily on the USA for everything from muscle of our military to the money in our pockets but when we need help they shoot us down or look the other way

 

[Peter Parka]

they have their ups and downs but what grinds my gears is that they rely heavily on the USA for everything from muscle of our military to the money in our pockets but when we need help they shoot us down or look the other way

I guess this is because they look at the big picture though. USA might have the biggest strength by far but the point of the UN is to provide understanding and protection for all its members.