The UN.

I didn't want to take a thread off topic so I'm just creating another one.
Has the UN done more harm than good? Is the UN worth keeping around?
Please give adequate responses, if you say "the UN is the greatest" or "The UN is horrible" and give no reasons then, your opinion is worth is not worth the energy you expended typing it, or the time we used reading it.
Personally, I think the UN has done alot of good things. The UNHCR has helped many, many people escape torture, death, and slavery. You might say that countries could work together without the UN's interference - it'd be great if they did - but they usually don't, and that's why the UN exists in the first place, the UN is countries working together.
Sure it may seem like the US and the UN rarely agree, but the truth is that we have worked together on many things, and accomplished a great deal.
I'm not saying that the UN is greatest, or that it's even close to resembling perfect - in fact I have some bones to pick with them(but I'm not going to list any right now), but I am saying that the UN is not totally worthless. :2cents:

I don't think they are worthless. They give jobs to a number of translators who would otherwise be on the street.

My main beef with the UN is that with the way the UN is designed, it shouldn't even be in existance right now. Each country has an equal vote, there is no central military, there is no central currency, there isn't even a central language really. The United Nations aren't really 'united' at all. The UN is designed a lot like the articles of Confederation that the US first used, which failed after only about 8 years. With a confederation, there really isn't anything but good will tying the countries together, and good will doesn't cut it. If it weren't for the US and Russia using the UN to bite at each other during the cold war, the G7 countries using the UN to further their means and the 3rd world countries using the UN to try and influence the G7 countries, (notice 'used' is in there a lot), the UN would have fallen apart decades ago. It really shouldn't be here. It's been turned from a diplomatic body into a sword to be weilded by whomever bribes and coerces the UN deligates enough. It's outlasted its usefulness and a new version with different rules should be created, though I don't know what they would consist of.

I don't think the U.N. is worthless. However, it is in desperate need of 'sprucing up'.

The same question was posed in nearly the same way some time back. I don't want to rehash everything that’s wrong with the UN (as it would crush the server) but let me take it right to the horses mouth.

I think we should go to the Security Council’s permanent members and get their unique opinions. Wait. Can’t do that as the Soviet Union has three members. Hold on a second – the Soviet Union no longer exists. Perhaps those votes were divvied up between some of the larger countries that were the result of the split up. Oops. Nope, Russia has all three votes.

Ok. Asking for a unique opinion isn’t useful, so lets get a varied opinion. Lets ask the voting member who’s from the continent of Africa. Dang, forgot, the entire continent isn’t represented. Maybe the representative from South America can chime in. Rats! Forgot about that continent not being represented either.

All right, we’re not having a lot of success so far. Maybe the representative of 20% of the worlds population would like to chime in. Thank you Mr. Communist, I am glad to hear your opinion. Though I think you’re government isn’t representative of your people but it is much like the UN which isn’t voted in either. But, I was referring to the Indian represe…. Oops. My mistake. They aren’t here either.

Lets have a look at the Europeans. Oh goodie. There are three representatives from there (I know that Russia is also part of Asia, but they have three votes. Surely one of those is for the European side). Thanks Britain for your opinion, it was much appreciated. France? France? Can someone tell me what they did to have this position? Did they win a major war the last couple hundred years? Maybe they contributed some amazing advances to civilization or have a huge population center. Somebody throw me a bone here.

Alright. This avenue failed. Let me think of the last time I had a chance to vote on UN charter changes. I can’t? At least I should feel glad that all the representatives there come from governments that freely elect their politicians who in turn appoint that representative. CRAP! I forgot about China, Libya, Cuba, Iran and Taiwan. NUTS! Made a mistake again since Taiwan isn’t recognized since one of the veto members says they are not a country. Wait a second. Israel (and a few others) thinks they are a country. But that doesn’t matter because some in the UN would see Israel eliminated. Did I get a vote on that?













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

The same question was posed in nearly the same way some time back. I don't want to rehash everything that’s wrong with the UN (as it would crush the server) but let me take it right to the horses mouth.

I think we should go to the Security Council’s permanent members and get their unique opinions. Wait. Can’t do that as the Soviet Union has three members. Hold on a second – the Soviet Union no longer exists. Perhaps those votes were divvied up between some of the larger countries that were the result of the split up. Oops. Nope, Russia has all three votes.

Ok. Asking for a unique opinion isn’t useful, so lets get a varied opinion. Lets ask the voting member who’s from the continent of Africa. Dang, forgot, the entire continent isn’t represented. Maybe the representative from South America can chime in. Rats! Forgot about that continent not being represented either.

All right, we’re not having a lot of success so far. Maybe the representative of 20% of the worlds population would like to chime in. Thank you Mr. Communist, I am glad to hear your opinion. Though I think you’re government isn’t representative of your people but it is much like the UN which isn’t voted in either. But, I was referring to the Indian represe…. Oops. My mistake. They aren’t here either.

Lets have a look at the Europeans. Oh goodie. There are three representatives from there (I know that Russia is also part of Asia, but they have three votes. Surely one of those is for the European side). Thanks Britain for your opinion, it was much appreciated. France? France? Can someone tell me what they did to have this position? Did they win a major war the last couple hundred years? Maybe they contributed some amazing advances to civilization or have a huge population center. Somebody throw me a bone here.

Alright. This avenue failed. Let me think of the last time I had a chance to vote on UN charter changes. I can’t? At least I should feel glad that all the representatives there come from governments that freely elect their politicians who in turn appoint that representative. CRAP! I forgot about China, Libya, Cuba, Iran and Taiwan. NUTS! Made a mistake again since Taiwan isn’t recognized since one of the veto members says they are not a country. Wait a second. Israel (and a few others) thinks they are a country. But that doesn’t matter because some in the UN would see Israel eliminated. Did I get a vote on that?
For once, we have something we agree on, as far as this forum goes.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

"Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions onsubstantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power." ."Under the Charter, all Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out."

I think we should go to the Security Council’s permanent members and get their unique opinions. Wait. Can’t do that as the Soviet Union has three members. Hold on a second – the Soviet Union no longer exists. Perhaps those votes were divvied up between some of the larger countries that were the result of the split up. Oops. Nope, Russia has all three votes.


Russia is one of the most powerful countries in the world, in economics, military and nuclear capabilities.


Ok. Asking for a unique opinion isn’t useful, so lets get a varied opinion. Lets ask the voting member who’s from the continent of Africa. Dang, forgot, the entire continent isn’t represented. Maybe the representative from South America can chime in. Rats! Forgot about that continent not being represented either.


Great, name me a nation from either continent that is considered one of the 10 most powerful countries in the world, in any sense...


All right, we’re not having a lot of success so far. Maybe the representative of 20% of the worlds population would like to chime in. Thank you Mr. Communist, I am glad to hear your opinion. Though I think you’re government isn’t representative of your people but it is much like the UN which isn’t voted in either. But, I was referring to the Indian represe…. Oops. My mistake. They aren’t here either.


So you mean to say that just because a government is not democratically elected, it doesn't represent the people of it's nation? That's rather arrogant, don't you think? There are many who believe democracy is just another system to be manipulated by those with power, especially when it's a modern democracy like ours where people get their information they formulate opinions from through controlled media outlets with an agenda... I'm one of them.

The UN has appointed delegates, appointed by the countries that they represent. If that country has a democratically elected government, then they are in a sense democratically elected, just as in a sense, the secretary of state of the US is, or the governer general of Canada is.

India may one day be a permanant member of the security counsel, if they continue to grow and become more powerful.


Lets have a look at the Europeans. Oh goodie. There are three representatives from there (I know that Russia is also part of Asia, but they have three votes. Surely one of those is for the European side). Thanks Britain for your opinion, it was much appreciated. France? France? Can someone tell me what they did to have this position? Did they win a major war the last couple hundred years? Maybe they contributed some amazing advances to civilization or have a huge population center. Somebody throw me a bone here.


Russia is currently one of the most powerful countries in the world. Britain has historically been one of the most powerful countries in the world, and is rather powerful diplomatically, as they held a large empire, which is still bound together these days as the commonwealth. I still have a stamping of the Queen on the back of all my coins, and I know that the roots of my country extend back to Britain.

France has been one of the most powerful nations for a thousand years, even though it wasn't officially a nation until a few hundred years ago... France was one of the most powerful colonial empires, along with Britain, and they still have much influence around the world. They have one of the worlds largest economies, and are arguably the most powerful country in western Europe, and were the driving force behind the European Union, which makes them pretty damned important. They are also a strong supporter of the UN.

Maybe if you payed attention to what was really happening, and what has happened in the world, you know, that place outside of America, you would know these things...


Alright. This avenue failed. Let me think of the last time I had a chance to vote on UN charter changes. I can’t? At least I should feel glad that all the representatives there come from governments that freely elect their politicians who in turn appoint that representative. CRAP! I forgot about China, Libya, Cuba, Iran and Taiwan. NUTS! Made a mistake again since Taiwan isn’t recognized since one of the veto members says they are not a country. Wait a second. Israel (and a few others) thinks they are a country. But that doesn’t matter because some in the UN would see Israel eliminated. Did I get a vote on that?


Your vote for Bush was your vote for UN policy. The UN is not a global democracy for citizens of it's member nations, it's a forum for the policies of the governments of it's member nations.

China has clout, major clout, they are a very large and very powerful country. Taiwan is a very small country, with virtually no power. Who's going to get the short end of the stick in the schoolyard? Who's opinion should matter more in the UN?

Some in the UN would like aggressive nations to be punished through economic sanctions for their actions... Like Iraq, like North Korea, and like the US.

France? France? Can someone tell me what they did to have this position? Did they win a major war the last couple hundred years? Maybe they contributed some amazing advances to civilization or have a huge population center. Somebody throw me a bone here.

[



So you are implying that France had no contribution to the advancement of civilisation. And you also imply that they did not win any wars in the last couple of years???

You know I don't usually post in this forum section since everyone is entitled to his or hers political opinion. BUT posting lies about history is not open to debate.


So lets start with some historical extracts depicting major contributions to civilisation:

In many respects, the homeland of the Enlightement was France. It was there that the political philosopher and jurist Charles de Montesquieu, one of the earliest representatives of the movement, had begun publishing various satirical works against existing institutions, as well as his monumental study of political institutions, The Spirit of Laws (1748; trans. 1750). It was in Paris that Denis Diderot, the author of numerous philosophical tracts, began the publication of the Encyclopédie (1751-1772). This work, on which numerous philosophes collaborated, was intended both as a compendium of all knowledge and as a polemical weapon, presenting the positions of the Enlightenment and attacking its opponents. The single most influential and representative of the French writers was undoubtedly Voltaire. Beginning his career as a playwright and poet, he is best known today for his prolific pamphlets, essays, satires, and short novels, in which he popularized the science and philosophy of his age, and for his immense correspondence with writers and monarchs throughout Europe. Far more original were the works of Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose Social Contract (1762; trans. 1797), Émile (1762; trans. 1763), and Confessions (1782; trans. 1783) were to have a profound influence on later political and educational theory and were to serve as an impulse to 19th-century romanticism.

And a few other extracts from the French history:



The first great French writer of Renaissance prose, François Rabelais, brought together the humanist passion for knowledge and the Italian love of beauty and pleasure. The gigantic hunger and thirst of his fictional giants Pantagruel and Gargantua symbolize the new era’s insatiable appetite for learning and pleasures of the senses. In his works Pantagruel (1532), Gargantua (1534), Le tiers livre (1546; The Third Book), and Le quart livre (1552; The Fourth Book), Rabelais satirized stupidity, snobbism, superstition, and contemporary institutions, and he offered insights on education, war, justice, and religion. At the same time he exalted the cultivation and blossoming of all human faculties and potentials.

Two other writers of Rabelais's generation merit particular mention: Margaret of Navarre and Maurice Scève. The sister of Francis I, Margaret was the author of L'heptaméron (1559; The Heptameron). Inspired by Il decamerone by the Italian Giovanni Boccaccio (1353; The Decameron), the work is a collection of tales supposedly recounted by travelers detained by bad weather in the Pyrenees Mountains. Scève was the chief representative of L'Ecole lyonnaise (The School of Lyons), which included two important female poets, Louise Labé and Pernette du Guillet. The latter inspired Scève's masterpiece, a collection of poems entitled Délie (1544). The Lyons poets wrote of spiritual love and yearning, and their poems indicate a new acceptance of human emotion in written works.

and continued:

Blaise Pascal Noted primarily as a mathematician, scientist, and author, Blaise Pascal focused on religion late in his short life. Pascal argued that faith in God is reasonable. He reasoned that, although no one can prove God’s existence or nonexistence, the potentially infinite benefits of believing God exists far outweigh any finite benefits that might be gained by believing God does not exist.Hulton Deutsch



The philosopher René Descartes was developing his ideas at this time, and they followed much the same form as classicism. Descartes proposed a philosophy based on reason and advocated the use of scientific principles to discover truth. In his Traité des passions (1649; Treatise on Passion) Descartes describes the struggle involved in using reason to control the passions, an experience dramatized by Corneille in Le Cid and most of his subsequent plays. Descartes and Corneille were optimistic about the outcome of the struggle and believed that human beings could influence their own destinies. Two other writers were not so optimistic about the ability to control human fate. Blaise Pascal reflected the pessimism of the Jansenists, his teachers at the religious monastery of Port Royal, in his Lettres provinciales (1656-1657; The Provincial Letters) and Les pensées (1670; The Thoughts of Pascal) (see Jansenism). The Jansenists believed that humans need grace from God to save them from the sinful nature of their passions. The playwright Jean Baptiste Racine was also a student of the Jansenists. The influence of the Port Royal school shows clearly in his masterpieces Andromaque (1667; Andromache), Iphigénie (1674; Iphigénia), and Phèdre (1677; Phaedra), which are weighted with the concept that humans cannot escape their fate through their own actions.





Hmmm and you say in the past few centuries France has not won any major wars? Really because I could swear that Napoleon was arguably the best military comander in history and he lived in the 1800's

Plus during the Battle of Verdun(one of the most horrible battles in history i might add) they were capable of holding off the Germans in WWIaa

Russia is one of the most powerful countries in the world, in economics, military and nuclear capabilities.

Great, name me a nation from either continent that is considered one of the 10 most powerful countries in the world, in any sense...

You completely missed the point – the three votes belonged to the SOVIET UNION NOT RUSSIA. Do you not see the two issues there? 1. the country doesn’t exist any more. 2. They have THREE votes. Hope that helps clear it up for you. Can you tell me when the UN had the vote to transfer those security counsel vetoes to Russia? Yeah – I didn’t think so.

So you mean to say that just because a government is not democratically elected, it doesn't represent the people of it's nation? That's rather arrogant, don't you think? There are many who believe democracy is just another system to be manipulated by those with power, especially when it's a modern democracy like ours where people get their information they formulate opinions from through controlled media outlets with an agenda... I'm one of them.

They do not represent the people of its nation. Its rather naive to think otherwise.

India may one day be a permanant member of the security counsel, if they continue to grow and become more powerful.

What part of the UN charter allows for that addition? Once again, NONE.

Russia is currently one of the most powerful countries in the world. Britain has historically been one of the most powerful countries in the world, and is rather powerful diplomatically, as they held a large empire, which is still bound together these days as the commonwealth. I still have a stamping of the Queen on the back of all my coins, and I know that the roots of my country extend back to Britain.

France has been one of the most powerful nations for a thousand years, even though it wasn't officially a nation until a few hundred years ago... France was one of the most powerful colonial empires, along with Britain, and they still have much influence around the world. They have one of the worlds largest economies, and are arguably the most powerful country in western Europe, and were the driving force behind the European Union, which makes them pretty damned important. They are also a strong supporter of the UN.

Germany is the most powerful country in Europe.

Maybe if you payed attention to what was really happening, and what has happened in the world, you know, that place outside of America, you would know these things... Your vote for Bush was your vote for UN policy. The UN is not a global democracy for citizens of it's member nations, it's a forum for the policies of the governments of it's member nations.

I do not support Bush’s policies on the UN. I do not support the Congress’s stance on the UN. Had you applied deductive powers, you would have realized that by now.

China has clout, major clout, they are a very large and very powerful country. Taiwan is a very small country, with virtually no power. Who's going to get the short end of the stick in the schoolyard? Who's opinion should matter more in the UN?

So now you say might makes right? How about that.

Some in the UN would like aggressive nations to be punished through economic sanctions for their actions... Like Iraq, like North Korea, and like the US.

Which resolution was the one that put economic sanctions on the US? Oh, you say some would. Who would those be? Canada? France? Mexico? China?

Maybe if you had a sense of reality about the rest of the world I might believe something of what you have to say. You have some of the most focused tunnel vision I’ve ever seen. Perhaps spending more time reading international affairs and the UN charter will help you understand the reality of the world instead of some fuzzy fantasy world.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

You completely missed the point – the three votes belonged to the SOVIET UNION NOT RUSSIA. Do you not see the two issues there? 1. the country doesn’t exist any more. 2. They have THREE votes. Hope that helps clear it up for you. Can you tell me when the UN had the vote to transfer those security counsel vetoes to Russia? Yeah – I didn’t think so.


http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html


They do not represent the people of its nation. Its rather naive to think otherwise.


That's your opinion. I think that the Nazi party represented the German people more effectively than many current democracies represent their own people.


Germany is the most powerful country in Europe.

Economically yes, but not militarily, and not necessarily politically.



I do not support Bush’s policies on the UN. I do not support the Congress’s stance on the UN. Had you applied deductive powers, you would have realized that by now.


You've missed my point. My point was, you don't get a say in what happens in the UN, the leader you have elected does. You don't agree with the policies of the leader you elected? Too bad, that's democracy Yogs, enjoy it!


So now you say might makes right? How about that.


Might doesn't make right, and that's not what I said. What I said is, China is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and although Taiwan has a very strong economy for it's size, China commands much more power in the UN, as China is a much more powerful country than Taiwan. No one will stop China from annexing Taiwan, they're just to powerful. Do I agree with it? No. Did I agree with the US invading Iraq? No.


Which resolution was the one that put economic sanctions on the US? Oh, you say some would. Who would those be? Canada? France? Mexico? China?


I find it unlike that any of the major trading partners of the US would wish harm to the US economy, but it's more than likely many of the smaller countries that have bore the brunt of US foreign policy may have different sentiments.


Maybe if you had a sense of reality about the rest of the world I might believe something of what you have to say. You have some of the most focused tunnel vision I’ve ever seen. Perhaps spending more time reading international affairs and the UN charter will help you understand the reality of the world instead of some fuzzy fantasy world.


This from an American right wing pro-Bush libertarian proponent of democracy. I refer to the pot and the kettle.

Yogs, I would submit that if you had been exposed to more foreign media sources, you might have a broader understanding of world opinion. Speaking as a Canadian, who reads the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, watches CBC newsworld, checks The German Press's english page weekly, and occasionally tunes into the BBC when I don't have anything better to do, as well as from time to time checking out the Hindustan Times.

It's not a complete representation of the world, definately, but it's enough to give me a slightly wider perspective than most.

Yogs, I would submit that if you had been exposed to more foreign media sources, you might have a broader understanding of world opinion. Speaking as a Canadian, who reads the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, watches CBC newsworld, checks The German Press's english page weekly, and occasionally tunes into the BBC when I don't have anything better to do, as well as from time to time checking out the Hindustan Times.

It's not a complete representation of the world, definately, but it's enough to give me a slightly wider perspective than most.

Aren't you the arrogant one for thinking that you pay more attention to foreign media sources. :rolleyes: I'm sure I watch the BBC more then you. CBC is a foreign source here. I've posted many thing and reference the Guardian and al-Jazera among others.

You're becoming a boor with your arrogance in thinking that someone who has a different opinion is less well read. Really pathetic. :disappoin













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I don't want to break up this lively discussion, but rather interject this tidbit I recalled from News of the Weird. Back in May, Time.com reported the following:

The Moral Authority of the United Nations
Dining-room workers at the U.N. staged a wildcat strike at lunchtime on May 2, causing the building's restaurants to be locked down, but a man whom Time magazine called a "high-ranking U.N. official" ordered them unlocked so that staff members could eat (perhaps to pay for food on the honor system). What ensued, according to Time, was "Baghdad-style (looting) chaos," in which staff members ran wild, stripping the cafeterias and snack bars bare not only of food, but of liquor and silverware, none of it paid for, including bar drinks taken by "some well-known diplomats." [Time.com, May 3]
(http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/nw031229.html)

Aren't you the arrogant one for thinking that you pay more attention to foreign media sources. :rolleyes: I'm sure I watch the BBC more then you. CBC is a foreign source here. I've posted many thing and reference the Guardian and al-Jazera among others.

You're becoming a boor with your arrogance in thinking that someone who has a different opinion is less well read. Really pathetic. :disappoin

There is no need to get personally offended, Yogs. I was merely stating my opinion.

The bottom line is, the UN rocks and is doing well.