U.N.?

**Captin Morgan** · November 01, 2011, 08:25 PM

I wanted to know peoples positions on the U.N. if people support it or don't?
I personally do not support it i think of it as the home owners association, if you paid your hard earned money to buy a home and don't maintain it to the satisfactions of the association what gives them the right to tell you should and should not do with your home if you paid for it not them. so what gives other countries the right to tell another country what to do. the U.N. that system can be very corrupt if one country has a lot of influence over countries they can make them vote the way they want them to like a puppet. so i might be wrong whats your opinion?

**bushbush** · November 01, 2011, 08:27 PM

what is the alternative? Countries will still bully one another into submission without UN. At least UN provides a platform for discussion and a minimal degree of control, forcing countries to at least pay attention to their actions in the eyes of international community.

**hellheaven1987** · November 01, 2011, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by bushbush

what is the alternative?

United Earth Union, obviously.

**DimeBagHo** · November 01, 2011, 08:42 PM

Moved from the Mudpit to the Academy.

**~~Basil II the B.S~~** · November 01, 2011, 08:54 PM

Disband all the crap that surrounds the UN, like specialized agencies (in wasting money), human rights councils (dominated by countries that violate human rights every day of the week, twice on sunday), reduce to the minimum the effect of decisions over sovereign states and its ''powers'' in general, cut all the unncessary staff and they will be fine.

**SLN445** · November 01, 2011, 09:06 PM

Needs to be reformed so it can actualy be effective, how i dont know.

**Mr.Mad** · November 01, 2011, 09:06 PM

Indeed the general idea behind the UN is a good one. Granted, there are countries with disproportionate power. But those countries would wield that power either way, with or without an international council. In the long run, have ties that brings governments and the people under them together brings more benefits than drawbacks. Though I can see how what might be (real or imagined) a loss of autonomy would irk a lot of people. And to be fair, the red tape and bureaucracy that fills the UN is a nightmare.

**hellheaven1987** · November 02, 2011, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mr.Mad

Indeed the general idea behind the UN is a good one. Granted, there are countries with disproportionate power. But those countries would wield that power either way, with or without an international council. In the long run, have ties that brings governments and the people under them together brings more benefits than drawbacks. Though I can see how what might be (real or imagined) a loss of autonomy would irk a lot of people. And to be fair, the red tape and bureaucracy that fills the UN is a nightmare.

Na, when UN has no financial base and has to rely on country's donation for running there is nothing good about it.

**Dr. Oza** · November 02, 2011, 12:35 PM

To be fair, the UN has done everything it is supposed to in its charter. If you don't like the UN ,change the UN

**Town Watch** · November 02, 2011, 01:42 PM

I don't think the UN is a bad idea, but I agree it's a little bit ridiculous how the security council just keeps vetoing each other about so many international issues that nothing usually gets done.

Even so, there's the great irony that seemingly it's the Americans who hate the UN, they after all created the organization. The first meeting being held in San Francisco. Fateful decision by Roosevelt (or Truman actually) but it did "serve" America's interests for example during the Korean war.

UN gets a whole lot of hate from Americans, because they expect the UN to always side with the country that gives it the most funding? Like a bribe, just what Israel is doing withholding the funding for UNESCO.

I mean Russia opposes Kosovo's independence, at least they're being honest and legit, and just exercise veto with their security council vote. And Hillary Clinton spying on the UN... so funny.

**Captin Morgan** · November 02, 2011, 02:29 PM

Yes i guess the U.N. has worked towards its main purpose and even if its not the best it at least gives small countries a say

**Condottiere 40K** · November 02, 2011, 02:40 PM

Might be more efficient if you had regional groupings who dealt with their regional problems, and sent representatives to a global body for problems they couldn't solve on their own.

**Armenum** · November 02, 2011, 08:03 PM

I really like the notion of the UN and believe it should be improved and strengthened to facilitate more dialogue and be able to enact more reforms on the countries in the world. It should act as a neutral place where countries can discuss over a range of issues in a civilised manner.

**Town Watch** · November 03, 2011, 11:36 AM

I think one big critique towards the UN is because of UN peacekeeping. The one good thing about blue helmets is that they're pretty much the closest thing you can get if you want impartiality in containing a volatile crisis situation. Some sort of arrangement can always be made, if both parties are willing to solve a crisis through negotiation (I think I just quoted Ahtisaari there

)

UN forces with obsolete equipment are mostly enough to keep the peace in random African countries with instability, but for bigger undertakings you're going to need that NATO firepower, like with Libya. Indeed, it was the power projection of the American Mediterranean Fleet that busted the Libyan door open, so in that sense the UN was not "necessary".

UN peacekeeping worked at first in Palestine, but as of the current times, Israel allegedly murdered several Scandinavian and French UN observers in Lebanon a few years ago with air force attacks and artillery, Israel also refused any investigation into the matter.

Still I think UN approval and mandate is better than not having them, to soothe the minds of critics and such. I think that internationally people are more comfortable if there's at least the notion that the "world's policeman" actually obeys the laws himself(international law, and treaties) that oblige him. Maybe Americans fear that UN might try to really impose itself on the US, in terms of reforms and treaties and such.

With hindsight of course, one of the biggest flaws in the precursor to UN, the League of Nations was that the US never even joined as a member. League of Nations off the top of my head did solve at least the Finnish-Swedish issue about the sovereignty of Åland Islands, so they had some success here and there.

**mehzel** · November 04, 2011, 03:08 PM

No because China and russia just veto against everything that France, Uk and Us veto for so nothing ever ends up happening.

**Stark of Winterfell** · November 04, 2011, 10:17 PM

Even if the UN gets little useful done and serves as a place where dictators and other trollish world leaders (Chaven, Ahmadinejad etc) can get a speaking platform, it is still useful because it is a place where representatives of every country can discuss things.

I think that the US should be happy to have the UN, even if it costs some money. Only one nation in the world gets to boast that the center of international relations lies within its borders.