Official Poll: Does the UN suck?

[Sava]

I think World government is a novel idea, but in practice it sucks because nobody can agree. And if a supposedly democratic country like the US can defy the UN just so some politician can run his own little agenda, well, then yes, it does suck.

[Winston]

It just occured to me, the UN issues some of the coolest stamps this side of Jupiter.

Maybe it's worth the effort after all.

But UN affairs in general are still booring.

[Frankychan]

Hey, I support one-world government. Just so long as it's not oppressive, then things should turn out ok....ppl think that just because it's one big governmental entity it's going to be an evil thing.

So long as it's not a fundamentalist government, I support it. I hate fundamentalism.

[PLATO]

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

Which "Chief" members obey all international laws?

I would argue that the US is as good as anyone at supporting the rule of law around the world.

[Bereta_Eder]

Plato where did you see me say that the "US wants to destroy the world"?

Jesus if that's your level of intelligence (or should I say paranoia) then I don't see any point in talking further.

[Bereta_Eder]

It is very easy to have the kinds of you saying how great I speak BTW. All I have to do is agree with you or mildly flatter you really you should see yourself

[Frankychan]

Plato-True, but if you look at all the protocols or "legislation" that the UN has created, you'll see that the US stands out. The Kyoto protocol was called "irrelevant" and the bill for children's rights (forgive me, I can't find the exact info) wasn't signed by the US and I believe S. Africa.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I can assure you that if the US wanted to "destroy the world" that it could certainly do it.

You go girl LOL

That's the level of debate that has made OT such a bore lately


BTW to say that the US doesnt want to udnermine the UN (my point) is to say the sun doesnt rise from the east.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Plato-True, but if you look at all the protocols or "legislation" that the UN has created, you'll see that the US stands out. The Kyoto protocol was called "irrelevant" and the bill for children's rights (forgive me, I can't find the exact info) wasn't signed by the US and I believe S. Africa.

those are secondary IMO.


To the important ones: It is real simple: The US has attacked countries without UN security council authorization.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Plato where did you see me say that the "US wants to destroy the world"?

Jesus if that's your level of intelligence (or should I say paranoia) then I don't see any point in talking further.

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.

I see...You meant destroying the peace. Sorry

[Frankychan]

? How can you call the environment and children's rights secondary? They shouldn't be put in a tier system where things can get shifted to meet the political ideal's of whomever is in charge.

Albeit, human rights IS a top priority here, but don't these fall under human rights legislation, if not indirectly?

[Bereta_Eder]

Destroy/undermine the UN! It's ok; my bad english

[PLATO]

Originally posted by paiktis22



those are secondary IMO.


To the important ones: It is real simple: The US has attacked countries without UN security council authorization.

Paiktis...Wrong. UNSC resolution 1441, and two others (can't remember the exact numbers...676 and 989?????) can legally be interpreted as authorization to use force. Since your point is international law then your argument has no merit. It was sanctioned by the UN, just not "blessed".

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Frankychan
? How can you call the environment and children's rights secondary? They shouldn't be put in a tier system where things can get shifted to meet the political ideal's of whomever is in charge.

Albeit, human rights IS a top priority here, but don't these fall under human rights legislation, if not indirectly?

Neithier of these issues is secondary. Kyoto had the correct goal, it was just extremely faulty in the way it pursued it. This is also the case in the Children's rights treaty, but I can't remember the specifics.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
As winston said, the development arm (Unicef, Who, and others) do vital work aorund the world and have greatly helped the poor of this world, whle the veto power and other constraints meant to make national soverignty pre-eminent weaken its ability to carry out collective peace actions: only when all 5 veto members agree on a course of action can it happe. The way to fix that would be to remove the Veto power.

I agree that the various UN agencies do some vital work that no one else would agree to undertake but I must respectfully disagree about removing the veto power. Face it, the majority of the world's countries, and I dare say people, are still ruled by military dictatorships & authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. Giving them the power to out vote the the modern democracies & the Great Powers is a recipe for making the world a worse place and not a better one.

All to often the U.N.'s various committees and subcommittess degenerate into a series of three ring circuses where the world's worst dictators & mass murders grand stand and continually horass their political enemies instead of dealing with the world's most pressing problems or even discussing the issue which the subcommittee was originally created to address. What's worse is that many of these tin pot dictators and Banana Republic Presidents already use the UN as a giant welfare agency which they pack with thier cronies and fellow criminals.

If we really wanted to make the UN live up to its ideals then we should make it a forum where only the world's democracies can hold positions of influence. We should be naming and shaming the world's many military dictators and, yes, we should be striping voting powers & aid money from countries which are not democracies and who do not respect basic human rights.

Of course this will never happen because the Chinas, Saudi Arabias, North Koreas, and Zimbabwes of the world won't allow it. They will continue to murder, imprision, torture, and censor their own citizens while demanding that their corrupt & ruthless elites continue to be treated like Great Men instead of the theives and thugs that they are.