UN

[Dwarf Kirlston]

It seems few people are happy with the UN getting more power, with the US republican party ignoring it and calling for the resignation of Kofi, and many failures in Peacekeeping.

Others view it as a beacon of unity, opportunity, justice, international democracy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)
www.un.org (http://www.un.org)
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/0...talk_gourevitch (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/041213ta_talk_gourevitch)

[Anarchist Freedom]

The united nations does nothing. They have no way of enforcing there laws.

[redstar2000]

And when it does do something, it's usually acting as a surrogate for U.S. imperialism.

Fuck those bastards! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Exploited Class]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 10:17 AM
And when it does do something, it's usually acting as a surrogate for U.S. imperialism.

Fuck those bastards! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Or when they try to do something that is against the U.S.'s best interests, it is impotent and fails in its attempts without US backing.

The UN in a nutshell.

"Pre 1989" Purpose, a place for everybody to listen to the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. ***** and yell about each other, hoping that it would be a better venue than using nuclear weapons."

"1989 to 1996" Used by the US to beat the shit out of other countries the US disagrees with.

"1997 to 2001" No idea what its purpose is, tries to go in a good direction, is allowed to because it serve's US goals as well.

2001 to present - Voice box for the world talk shit about the US, Condemn the US, Give small political wrist slaps to the US by taking them off the Human Rights Comission for 3 seconds. Impotent to stop the US.

Dramatic Realization for the UN, "We can't do shit when there is one super power in the world bent on doing anything it wants. Especially when its military budget is equal to about the military budget of 3/4th the combined world."

The WTO, now that is power. Countries don't like the US's steel tarrifs, BAM! WTO "Remove them." the US, "Okay".

Mexico, "We don't like this pollution being dumped into our drinking water!"
WTO - BAM! "Tough Shit, you will have to keep it there according to us."

Unless the UN can talk the whole world into giving it 500,000 awesome troops and raising the yearly military budget to 600 Billion a year, it is worthless to do anything to stop a single world super power. Not that it would ever do it, I doubt it could even realisticly impose and keep economic sanctions on the US. Essentially making it void of having any purpose other than being a centralized vox box for pissed off foreign diplomats.

The UN, won't do anything harsh to Isreal or the US.
If the UN wanted to it couldn't.
If there exists even one country in the world that it is powerless to stop, it has almost no value and no purpose to exist.

Although the idea of the UN is a great concept.

[bolshevik butcher]

koffi does a good job. The un does do some good, the problem is that it doesn't really have the strength to enforce it's resolutions.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 23 2005, 08:51 PM
koffi does a good job. The un does do some good, the problem is that it doesn't really have the strength to enforce it's resolutions.
Of course it doesn't. On a literal sense if they had an army it would be extremely hypocritical considering it is supposed to be a peace keeping device. And on a figuritive sense if the U$ doesn't back something internationaly it uses its force to make sure it gets it's way.

[Colombia]

Saying the UN does nothing shows a lack of knowledge of the world. THe UN can't do everything and yet you moan and groan yet do not praise the UN for what it is doing.

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_25258.html

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_25260.html

http://www.unicef.org/emerg/index_25266.html

I guess that is NOTHING huh?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Ow, wow. None of those could be done without a US puppet organisation.

[Ele'ill]

Ow, wow. None of those could be done without a US puppet organisation

If you do not further explain and give evidence to back your accusations, they might as well have never been mentioned.

[codyvo]

I agree they need a more effective way of enforcing their laws but if it weren't for the US the UN would be fine. Without the UN their would be no Geneva Convention which has only been broken by fascists and americans or no wait just fascists americans the point is, it is great to have almost every nation in the world have equal opinions somewhere.

[Irish_Bebop]

What do you expect from an organisation that recieves nearly all of its funding from the US?

First of all i will say that they UN has done huge good around the world, its nearly single handedly wiped out, polio and other deadly diseases off the face of the earth, and its humanitarian relief programs have, in the past been quiet effective. Its only in the political and economic realm that i see it as impotent. I see the Cold War as being responsable for that. Wrangelings between Russia and America cemented the organisation in the US corner, as well as the fact that nearly all directors were capitalists and friendly towards the US. Russias spuratic boycots lso helped center American dominance. Basically the world feared the communist block and entrusted all its power to the opposition, that power hasn't moved since. This coupled with the fact that America now is the worlds first and only Hyper-power, pretty much sums it all up(IMHO).

The UN is impotent when faced with American interests. Maybe one day it will go the same way as the League of Nations, if it hasn't already. :(


Edit: I also think that if it wasn't for America the UN would NOT be just fine, minus American domination, its also subject to the will of the more powerful countries, which can be summed up as the permenant members of the Security council, France, Russia, China, Britain, Germany are all dominant in their own right. Any country thats interests don't coincide with theirs....is pretty much screwed too.

Money makes the world go round, and one day it will be responsable for it stopping to spin too. :angry:

[Phalanx]

Watching Hotel Rwanda formented my anger for the UN. It seems to me that they care more about the plight of white people, but the causes of the Africans, South Asians, and South Americans are only secondary. Yes, they do help around the world, but they seem like they cannot shake this ethnic bias.

[Ele'ill]

If the UN was to suddenly vanish, would this world be better?
If their 'evil' is done by not doing, but what they are doing is helping, they should stay.
What do you all think?

[Phalanx]

At least they do some good for the world. But i wish to see a better organization that makes more of a difference.

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

It is a pitty that the UN can't really operate without the US since I believe that they have done some major good over the years. I wish the UN was more powerful to enforce its resolutions and act without some of its major nations but as it stands today, it just is too weak and not nearly effective enough.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:24 PM
Edit: I also think that if it wasn't for America the UN would NOT be just fine, minus American domination, its also subject to the will of the more powerful countries, which can be summed up as the permenant members of the Security council, France, Russia, China, Britain, Germany are all dominant in their own right.
Just to correct you, Germany is not a permanent member of the security council.

[Irish_Bebop]

Just to correct you, Germany is not a permanent member of the security council.

oops, thats right, there are five and for some reason i was trying to think who the fifth one was, hard to forget - America :P

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:02 PM
I agree they need a more effective way of enforcing their laws but if it weren't for the US the UN would be fine. Without the UN their would be no Geneva Convention which has only been broken by fascists and americans or no wait just fascists americans the point is, it is great to have almost every nation in the world have equal opinions somewhere.
Ah but were it not in existence in the first place then we could not accuse them of breaking it.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:31 PM

Ow, wow. None of those could be done without a US puppet organisation

If you do not further explain and give evidence to back your accusations, they might as well have never been mentioned.
I don't need to, it's too logical.

- Schools could be run with an US regime puppet organisation and many do.
- Vacination centres could be run with an US regime puppet organisation and many do.

Etc. Etc.

My evidence:

http://www.humana.org/

[Red Robe Majere]

Ah but were it not in existence in the first place then we could not accuse them of breaking it.

Yes we couldnt accuse of breaking it. but also there would be nothing stoping them from doing it in the first place

[Mitch Flo]

What is that suppose to mean?


I don't need to, it's too logical.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What do you think it means? It means exactly what it says. It's more logical then 1+1=2.

[Yazman]

He's right you know. It's logical enough that it doesn't NEED further explanation, unless you can't read english properly.

[Ele'ill]

Ow, wow. None of those could be done without a US puppet organisation.

They could potentially be done without a 'us puppet organisation'

I was asking for evidence showing that they couldn't be done without one.

[antiimperialist]

Originally posted by Dwarf [email protected] 23 2005, 04:19 PM
It seems few people are happy with the UN getting more power, with the US republican party ignoring it and calling for the resignation of Kofi, and many failures in Peacekeeping.

Others view it as a beacon of unity, opportunity, justice, international democracy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)
www.un.org (http://www.un.org)
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/0...talk_gourevitch (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/041213ta_talk_gourevitch)
The UN is just another tool for the Western nations (especially now after the Cold War) to control third world nations.

Just the way it is set up, with the five nation security council, US, China, UK, France, and Russia, all with veto power (in a reality, the US is the nation with aboslute veto power) just sets it up for the UN to work in those nations interests.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:36 AM
The UN is just another tool for the Western nations (especially now after the Cold War) to control third world nations.


Why would they need an organisation to control countries that cannot even feed their people?

[redstar2000]

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the attack "in the strongest possible terms".

He said the only purpose of such "repeated acts of senseless violence" was to "undermine the prospects for a democratic and prosperous Iraq".

He urged all sides to "put aside their differences and work together in a spirit of national reconciliation".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/4303629.stm

There's the word from the lackey of U.S. imperialism himself...telling the Iraqis to become reconciled to U.S. rule through a "government" of quislings.

Fuck the United Nations! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:08 AM
Fuck the United Nations! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Do you truly beleive that even though the UN has done much to benefit the poor of the world although obviously not enough?