Official Poll: Does the UN suck?

[Bereta_Eder]

The UN doesn't suck. It's some of the countries in the UN that do.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
The UN doesn't suck. It's some of the countries in the UN that do.

Paiktis, I agree...but I bet our lists are different.

[Bereta_Eder]

For sure

[Bereta_Eder]

Of course noone can play holier than thou. Indeed, the very phrase of whether one "sucks" in the UN can only be said by someone partisan.

It's all about interests. For example it is in one country's best interest to see some other countries collapse or modernize etc etc That doesn't mean that one country sucks more than others. In the end whether one country sucks depends on the suffering it inflicts to its onw people or to peoples of other countries.

But you cannot say one country "suck" unless you're partisan about something. And if this is not democracy and human rights, it is completely irrelevant and hypocritical.

[Kuciwalker]

I think the UN sucks BECAUSE of the power of the member nations who suck.

[DanS]

Of course noone can play holier than thou.

Why not?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Of course noone can play holier than thou. Indeed, the very phrase of whether one "sucks" in the UN can only be said by someone partisan.

It's all about interests. For example it is in one country's best interest to see some other countries collapse or modernize etc etc That doesn't mean that one country sucks more than others. In the end whether one country sucks depends on the suffering it inflicts to its onw people or to peoples of other countries.

But you cannot say one country "suck" unless you're partisan about something. And if this is not democracy and human rights, it is completely irrelevant and hypocritical.

Paiktis, Youre scaring me. I have to agree with this also.

Human rights and the right to self determination have to be two of the most fundamental "rights" that people can have. To strive for these on a world scale should be every countries goal. Unfortunately, national interest does get in the way from time to time. But this is to be expected as long as there are the inequities that currently exist in the world.

[Frankychan]

Dunno....I think the UN needs a MAJOR restructuring. I think someone in a previous thread suggested a new council model...but I can't remember who or where I've seen it.

The UN is like public transportation: it gets you to your destination, but there's so much problems with it that you might as well find another way there.

[optimus2861]

The security arm of the UN is pointless, because not only is the structure of it prone to abuse (vetos), but because there's no accountability. The UN is comprised of unelected bureaucrats loathe to take the blame for failed policies, usually just sticking its head in the sand and insisting its way is best, or choosing to blame member states (typically the USA) instead.

The humanitarian arms are worthwhile ventures, though.

[Frankychan]

I thought the US was the UN's security arm.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by optimus2861
The security arm of the UN is pointless, because not only is the structure of it prone to abuse (vetos), but because there's no accountability. The UN is comprised of unelected bureaucrats loathe to take the blame for failed policies, usually just sticking its head in the sand and insisting its way is best, or choosing to blame member states (typically the USA) instead.

The humanitarian arms are worthwhile ventures, though.

Optimus, at some point you have to have a final authority. How can any "final authority" be accountable. The check and balance to this is the member state's ability to take action in its national interest just as the US has done. The UNSC can always evaluate the merit of these actions and vote to reverse them if the will to do so is present by the big 5.

The problem of accountability that I think you are addressing is that the big 5 don't have to be accountable to anyone. Given the balance of power in the world, I would suggest that this would be the case with or without the UN.

[Bereta_Eder]

well the UN was designed to keep the peace in a world that no longer exists. the one who wants to destroy it is the US with its actions since it feels to emprisoned in it now.

The Un is supposed to uphold International Law. This is hard to do when basic members of it don't follow it.

SO there you have it.

Of course there cannot be a withdrawl of the US from it cause the US admin knows that it needs concent from many parts of the world if it is to try and push its agenda forward. And concsent means taking a few slaps on the face now and then.

[Bereta_Eder]

For example the US is dissatisfied with France's position?

That was nothing big really. It could have been dissatisfied if Europe deported all american military personel, closed american bases, closed air and water passages, gave sadam nukes and personael to operate them against the US etc

and the same did the arabs.

how are you going to reach 3world country iraq if people are blocking your way?

would you go fight all of them?

impossible, you would simply withrdaw


Of course countries opposing the war escalated only to the level they saw as serving their own interests to do so.

however if the UN didnt exist, it might be more easy to engage in more radical approaches than just vetoing.


But that depends always in one country's self interests and in the matter of europe in the yet hazy supranational interests.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
well the UN was designed to keep the peace in a world that no longer exists. the one who wants to destroy it is the US with its actions since it feels to emprisoned in it now.

The Un is supposed to uphold International Law. This is hard to do when basic members of it don't follow it.

SO there you have it.

Of course there cannot be a withdrawl of the US from it cause the US admin knows that it needs concent from many parts of the world if it is to try and push its agenda forward. And concsent means taking a few slaps on the face now and then.

Here is the Paiktis I have come to know and love. Faulty logic and untenable positions.

I can assure you that if the US wanted to "destroy the world" that it could certainly do it. Show me where the regime is that meets your "democracy" and "human rights" tests you stated above that the US has supported sanctions or military action against.

[Frankychan]

Gee, how is the UN supposed to uphold International Law when one of its chief members, the US, doesn't obey international law?