Just wondering what the body of posters on here thinks.

I really can't think of any metric (historical, quantitative, philosophical) that would indicate the UN has been a bad thing.

The answer is both, IMO. Its a good idea, and a necessary entity that can (and sometimes does) play an important role. Also, its poorly run, corrupt, and doesn't execute nearly as well as it should.

 

Also, its poorly run, corrupt, and doesn't execute nearly as well as it should.

I'm curious as to how an IGO like the UN can be poorly run and corrupt? The execution factor falls much more on the shoulders of member nations than the UN itself.

I'm curious as to how an IGO like the UN can be poorly run and corrupt? The execution factor falls much more on the shoulders of member nations than the UN itself.

Were you not aware of the Oil-for-Food mess? And the if the execution factor falls to the member nations, then the UN serves no purpose. It has to actually DO something to be of use.

 

In addition to widespread corruption, it has also failed to bring about success in places like Darfur or Somalia. Its resolutions can be ignored with little or not consequences.

 

I wouldn't say it's useless or counterproductive, but it needs to do much better than its doing now.

Were you not aware of the Oil-for-Food mess? And the if the execution factor falls to the member nations, then the UN serves no purpose. It has to actually DO something to be of use.

Meh there is no possible way to force nations into compliance to do anything. IMO some people complain about the UN because they expect it to do more than it's capable of doing, which is to provide a process for nations to carry out diplomacy. Obviously it's not perfect, but neither are the member nations, and I can't see how having it hurts.

In addition to widespread corruption, it has also failed to bring about success in places like Darfur or Somalia. Its resolutions can be ignored with little or not consequences.

 

I wouldn't say it's useless or counterproductive, but it needs to do much better than its doing now.

Thats the IMF and World Bank. There is a very common misconception that the UN is a world government or even something that's supposed to hand out aid like the IMF or World Bank. The UN is focused on keeping peace between great powers, and it's done a very good job.

Thats the IMF and World Bank. There is a very common misconception that the UN is a world government or even something that's supposed to hand out aid like the IMF or World Bank. The UN is focused on keeping peace between great powers, and it's done a very good job.

Lately it just seems interested in passing resolutions condemning Israel and trying to mkae it a crime to criticize Islam.

Lately it just seems interested in passing resolutions condemning Israel and trying to mkae it a crime to criticize Islam.

Well Israel did shell the UN building in Gaza....

Well Israel did shell the UN building in Gaza....

Yeah that was pretty lulz

The UN is completely useless, corrupt, and a waste of money.

The UN is completely useless, corrupt, and a waste of money.

I'd like to hear some rationale behind this.

I'd like to hear some rationale behind this.

 

Nation states will always do what is in their own best interest; the UN has no control over major world events. The money we pour into this corrupt and failed organization can be spent in better ways. We can put all the money into health care or some other priority . If anything, the United States should pay in less than the average member of the organization. This financial support would merely be a show of good will; as the money is going to be wasted as the organization is completely incompetent. The truth is the UN has no real power and is one hell of an expensive grandstand.

 

The United States co-founded and continues to support the United Nations as an instrument to foster international peace and security; to fight poverty through development; to eradicate diseases; and to advance freedom, human rights, and democracy.

 

The UN barely does any of this. They have brutal dictators on their bogus human rights commissions. They filter money that was designated for poverty relief directly to dictators to buy weapons. It's completely corrupt and wasteful, there are much better ways to distribute world aid.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by mr_genius

Nation states will always do what is in their own best interest; the UN has no control over major world events.

This isn't true at all.

 

There has been one instance of conflict between great powers since 1946. Before the UN there was the Russo-Japanese War, World War 1, World War 2 and plenty others. The UN has been extremely effective at preserving world peace, it's actually exceeded any realistic expectations they could've had at it's inception.

This isn't true at all.

 

There has been one instance of conflict between great powers since 1946. Before the UN there was the Russo-Japanese War, World War 1, World War 2 and plenty others. The UN has been extremely effective at preserving world peace, it's actually exceeded any realistic expectations they could've had at it's inception.

 

The UN hasn't stopped any major world wars. There are a number of variables which have kept us all out of another world war; the UN not being a major player. The notion that the UN has stopped world wars is fairly absurd.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by mr_genius

This isn't true at all.

 

There has been one instance of conflict between great powers since 1946. Before the UN there was the Russo-Japanese War, World War 1, World War 2 and plenty others. The UN has been extremely effective at preserving world peace, it's actually exceeded any realistic expectations they could've had at it's inception.

The Un was officially formed in 1945.

General Assembly didn't convene until 1946. I swear to god guys, read a f***in book.

I swear to god guys, read a f***in book.

 

lol

 

nice try

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by mr_genius

The UN hasn't stopped any major world wars. There are a number of variables which have kept us all out of another world war; the UN not being a major player. The notion that the UN has stopped world wars is fairly absurd.

Can you go into these variables?

 

btw- mutually assured destruction doesn't count. Both sides had their fingers on the button multiple times and were fully willing to go all the way.

Can you go into these variables?

 

btw- mutually assured destruction doesn't count. Both sides had their fingers on the button multiple times and were fully willing to go all the way.

 

-Mutually assured destruction does count. The soviets and the United States were not going to blow each other up. There was a lot of dangerous activity, but neither wanted to end the world.

 

-There has been a lone super power for a number of years

 

- World economics

 

- Increased free trade

 

 

 

 

-Mutually assured destruction does count. The soviets and the United States were not going to blow each other up. There was a lot of dangerous activity, but neither wanted to end the world.

Have you read what Robert McNamara said about the Cuban Missile Crisis? We didn't even know there were warheads in Cuba until after the crisis, quite a few US generals were advocating a military strike on Cuba and that would've been the end of the world.

 

-There has been a lone super power for a number of years

If you dont count that giant nuclear standoff that lasted almost 50 years.

 

- World economics

 

- Increased free trade

I would say increased free trade is a direct result of globalization and the UN. That's an extension of decolonization which has been one of the UN's largest platforms.

Have you read what Robert McNamara said about the Cuban Missile Crisis? We didn't even know there were warheads in Cuba until after the crisis, quite a few US generals were advocating a military strike on Cuba and that would've been the end of the world.

 

Yes, and again the UN did not stop the invasion or a nuclear war.

 

If you dont count that giant nuclear standoff that lasted almost 50 years.

 

The UN did little to nothign to cool down the standoff. The United States and Soviets themselves did it. You are proving my point for me.

 

I would say increased free trade is a direct result of globalization and the UN. That's an extension of decolonization which has been one of the UN's largest platforms.

 

The UN does little to nothign in building economic ties between countries such as the United States and China. Again, these nations set up these agreements and do not need the UN.

 

The UN is largely a symbolic organization; albeit a very expensive one.

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by mr_genius

Who really runs the world? It's not the UN, or any one "country".

 

 

Who really runs the world? It's not the UN, or any one "country".

 

Illuminati? Free Masons? Reynolds Tin Foil company?