Has the UN failed?

[Frozzy]

We all (should) know that the League of Nations failed from lack of meat, so to speak.

Has the United Nations failed?

I mean, if anything the only thing stopping a WWIII in the Cold War was nukes. The UN was a mere paper tiger and could no nothing about the rife between communism and capitalism.

Also, today we are seeing rips and tears in the security council system with the veto. As we (almost) saw in Korea, the South would be under Kim Il Sung today if the Russian Delegate hadn't stormed out of the debating chamber.

Any comments?

[monkspider]

An interesting question, ultimately it may depend on the upcoming resolution. If the UN folds and gives into US threats, despite the overwhelming population of the world it is supposed to represent being strongly against war, then it will become little more than a puppet of the world's hyperpower. If it somehow stops the resolution, then there may yet be hope for it.

[MRT144]

hyperpower, i like that.

i agree with monkspider, being the ***** of the US does not create a world united.

[Dis]

not yet, but it's about to.

Because the U.S.'s involvement in the U.N. will become much less after they veto the resolution to use military force (which I'm certain they will do).

and monk if they do veto the resolution- the U.S. may even withdraw completely- doubtful, but still possible. What will happen to the U.N. then?

Even if they don't withdraw, I think the U.S. will be very wary in the U.N.- and essentually it will be toast.

There is no reason they should be against going to war. Have they forgot what their purpose was in 1991? 1441 anyone?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monkspider
If the UN folds and gives into US threats, despite the overwhelming population of the world it is supposed to represent being strongly against war, then it will become little more than a puppet of the world's hyperpower

Has it ever been any different for any of the permenent members of the UNSC?

[notyoueither]

I think it is about to fail, big time.

[Urban Ranger]

Define "fail."

[Frozzy]

Easy. Failure to reach its aim of achieving world peace and stability.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Easy. Failure to reach its aim of achieving world peace and stability.

Okay.

Are you saying that if the UNSC won't give a green light to the US invasion of Iraq, it has failed?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Dissident
not yet, but it's about to.

Because the U.S.'s involvement in the U.N. will become much less after they veto the resolution to use military force (which I'm certain they will do).

and monk if they do veto the resolution- the U.S. may even withdraw completely- doubtful, but still possible. What will happen to the U.N. then?

It's difficult to say for sure. If the USA resigned from the UN, it would be highly reminiscent of bad guys like Japan and Italy resigning from the League. It would severely hurt both, and it would put the USA at odds with the world.. If the USA did withdraw, it would almost certainly put the world on the path toward a calamity on a scale unknown since dawn of time.
It is difficult to say what the UN would be like minus the USA, it would probably more interested in various philanthropic causes, but it would also have to constantly stare down a mighty US juggernaut looking to stop it at every pass. Plus, where would the UN move? Paris? Berlin? London?
One thing is certain, the UN cannot become a tool for US expansion, that is the the worst scenario.

[Dis]

expansion?

where are we expanding to?

we aren't in the beginning of the 20th century btw.

perhaps aggression is the word you wanted.

[Frozzy]

Are you saying that if the UNSC won't give a green light to the US invasion of Iraq, it has failed?

And here we go again. Whether Iraq is a threat to world peace or not, keep it to another thread.

The UNSC is designed to strive for world peace and stablitity. Whether Saddam Hussein is an immidiate threat to world peace is up to them.

[Straybow]

Another good one, monkspider!

Originally posted by monkspider
One thing is certain, the UN cannot become a tool for US expansion, that is the the worst scenario.

"Jane, you ignorant slut." —Dan Akroyd.

The only country that successfully used the UN to the expansion of its hegemony was the Soviet Union.

I guess it would be the worst scenario for every country in the world to be ruled by an elected representative government tolerant of dissent, economically healthy, educated, etc. My God, what would the liberals complain about then?

Oh, wait… what am I thinking? There's always "animal rights."

[MRT144]

frazzy stop playing debate dodgeball.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frozzy
And here we go again. Whether Iraq is a threat to world peace or not, keep it to another thread.

The UNSC is designed to strive for world peace and stablitity. Whether Saddam Hussein is an immidiate threat to world peace is up to them.

Okay.

If there are no immediate threats to World Peace, how has the UN failed?