Why do many of you hate the UN so much?

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

It's due to the UN being a walking joke, the only ignorence is from it's appologists.

Trouble is, it rarely does any good.

You amaze me. You only think this because you are not one of the millions of people that they have helped. Just because they haven't helped YOU doesn't mean they haven't helped ANYBODY, AofA. There are other people in the world other than you and those you know personally.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

Actually, UN appolgists need to look in the mirror and realize the organization is immensly flawed, and accusing people of "ignorence" and "xenophobia" because they recognize it's uselessness is the very essence of foolishness.

There are far to many "tools" there already.
If the UN nations had there way, Israel would be a parking lot and the Jews would be a memory.

Its flawed, thus it must be disbanded! Please.

Oh, and uh, that last statement? That's the ridiculous paranoia I was talking about. I'm sorry, AofA, but that is a laughably paranoid claim. I don't buy it for a second.

They are not anti-Israeli. Thing is, they are not anti-Palestinian, which is what drives so many of you batty. :crazyeyes

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
You only think this because you are not one of the millions of people that they have helped. Just because they haven't helped YOU doesn't mean they haven't helped ANYBODY, AofA.

I think the point you should have drawn from that was that Americans deep seeded pragmatism conflicts with the UN. I know the US doesn't fund the whole thing, but we do pay to the general UN funds, plus we also pays the expenses for many of the poorer nations to have representatives in NY, which isn't exactly cheap. So when Americans pay for something, they want to know what they're getting out of it. Many people look at the structure and the work of the UN and say "This isn't worth the price tag." The Red Cross, Amnesty International, WTO, and the World Bank could probably go further than the UN in relieving people's suffering if they had the UN's budget (not just from America). Unlike every other issue where the 'international community' disagrees with the American public they can't blame this on the media or government propoganda.

The UN functions as its original intent as an international discussion forum. Its everything ELSE it tries to do where it begins to ruffle my feathers.

I'm with AoA on this one... I don't respect the legitimacy of leaders that weren't freely & fairly elected (I'm giving Bush a temporary bye on this one ). As long as the UN does I don't respect its authority, resolutions, or necessity as anything else but the political whims of dictators.

 

[Satis5d]

I dislike the U.N. because it is based on flawed foundations. Everything that the U.N. is about is based on the notion that man is basically good and that if we would all just sit down and talk out our problems we could solve anything...HOGWASH!

The U.N. is made up of a bunch idealistic dreamers as well as skilled predators of the first sort. Yes, in theory the system works, but in reality we all put our own interests first.

If the U.N. is really what it says it's all about then why does it continually scream for more funding? The answer is that the U.N. is run behind the scenes by beureaucrats who would love nothing better than to see a one-world government where THEIR interests would be able to trump national interests.

And as to the "good" that the U.N. does - I think the recent news that widespread physical and sexual abuse by U.N. workers has been going on for years is evidence of the kind of good that people who are accountable to nobody but their "natural goodness" produces.

It's a money pit where we feed the dog that will eventually bite its owner.

 

[Maj]

Considering that the UN has such an eclectic agenda covering a wide variety of national/international social and political issues it would be unfair to label the entire organization as uselss based upon the actions (or lack thereof) of some of its members. To say that delivering relief aid to those in dire need of it is "useless" would be to say that human life is worthless and does not warrant attention when it is placed in jeopardy.

Frankly, the difficulty with maintaining an organizaiton that attempts to unify and assist humankind in general is that the human part is so spread out along the ideological spectrum that any one action taken to rectify a situation may seem culturally and socially appeasing to one party and a pointless waste of time and effort by another. Then there are all the arguments that fall in the middle. While one society may value individualistic and competitive practices, another may view socialist and common welfare practices as the key to success. For one organization to find a suitable and acceptable solution "in the middle" is a tremendous, if not impossible, task. To add, corruption within such an organization would only further undermine its efforts at reaching a compromise that pleases the majority from all involved camps.

The concept of a nation works well because those within one normally share a common culture, government, ideological framework and relation with eachother. An organization that tries to unify a group of nations, however, will find itself in a more than difficult position, especially when many of the nations involved are plagued with significant amounts of racism, violence, corruption, hatred and suffering. To further the problem, some of those representing their nation are guided by the intents of their government and/or elite rather than by the will of the relatively supressed masses.

I really don't know much about the UN and its operations but I can see how its failings pose serious threats to its continued existence. Globalization works at the economic level because just about everyone understands currency and market exchange. In terms of political and social issues, however, the world seeing eye to eye is a rare and fortunate occurrence.

- Maj

 

[VoodooAce]

All this complaining, and no suggestions of what should replace it.

To me it is obvious that it is desirable to have a world forum. To have a body represented by the majority of the world's nations. Someplace to try to work out problems and issues.

To use the recent scandals as a reason to shut it down is like using the recent scandals in the US to shut IT down.

So. What should replace the UN? Should we go with RMSharpe's suggestion and have the US President select its leadership????

Or, since not all decisions go their way, should the US take its ball and go home?

We've heard the complaints, now how about something constructive.

 

[amadeus]

VoodooAce, here's what I'd like to see. A kind of "pyramid" of sorts:

All nations pay for their diplomats, and all diplomats in the United States must obey United States laws. Parking in front of fire hydrants? Forget it.

First, you have the top five nations, which can grant speaking time and are permitted fifteen "voting points." The five would be the US, UK, Russia, China, and Japan.

Second, you would have the other sub-powers: Canada, Spain, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, South Korea, Brazil, Australia, Singapore, and Argentina. Each of these nations is given five "voting points."

Third, would be the lower yet powers: Mexico, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Austria, Hungary, the Phillipines, New Zealand, etc. Each would get three points.

Below that are the Chads, Sudans, and Ethiopias, which are allowed one point.

Also, you'd have temporary "hot spot" nations, which are granted ten points. Today, it'd be Afghanistan.

This body would be funded by private businesses and donors, rather than extortion of first-world governments.

[dance] :crazyeyes [dance] :crazyeyes [dance]

 

[VoodooAce]

Yup. The United Nations isn't against Israel.

I didn't see anything in that link to make me change my mind.

I'm not pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. And I don't see anything there to make me think that the UN is either.

 

[sgrig]

Originally posted by Greadius
I think the point you should have drawn from that was that Americans deep seeded pragmatism conflicts with the UN. I know the US doesn't fund the whole thing, but we do pay to the general UN funds, plus we also pays the expenses for many of the poorer nations to have representatives in NY, which isn't exactly cheap. So when Americans pay for something, they want to know what they're getting out of it. Many people look at the structure and the work of the UN and say "This isn't worth the price tag."

Well, that's why the US doesn't like paying into the UN and still owes quite a lot of money to the UN. The consequence of this imo, is that the UN, in hope of getting that money from the US, does nothing to pressure the US a bit on various issues.

Also, imo, the US is rich enough to spend some money without looking at how much they will get out of it. Your govenment is willing to waste $100s of billions to build a missile defense system which even if would work would protect the US from a non-existant threat, but many Americans seem happy with that. However they object to the US spending $100s of millions on UN which in pragmatic terms gives nothing to the American people, but maybe slightly improves the image of the US abroad.

In most parts of the world, the UN is seen as a 'fair' institution which gives practically every country in world a say (although a few countries have more say than others), but the attempt by the USA to somehow ignore or disrespect the UN is seen by many as the US is trying to say that they are different and 'better' than other countries and are thus not controlled by the UN.

Unfortunately this is due to the objective fact that the US is the world's only economic, political and military superpower, but people around the world still don't feel that they are in any way inferior to the US. Thus anti-UN feelings and/or policies in the US make other people think of Americans as arrogant and conceited.

Note this is my opinion.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
You amaze me. You only think this because you are not one of the millions of people that they have helped. Just because they haven't helped YOU doesn't mean they haven't helped ANYBODY, AofA. There are other people in the world other than you and those you know personally.

Your sweeping generalizations are shocking.
Does anything you ever talk about deal in fact?
Only a fool or someone simple minded would fail to see the UN for what it is, a flawed and corrupt organization that has long outlived it's usefulness.
And I know far more about how they opperate then you, they almost got me killed once, I know whay kind of screw-ups they are.

Its flawed, thus it must be disbanded! Please.

You can ask me nicely all you want, it isn't up to me, but I agree, it should be disbanded.

Oh, and uh, that last statement? That's the ridiculous paranoia I was talking about. I'm sorry, AofA, but that is a laughably paranoid claim. I don't buy it for a second.

Hardly surprissing, since you set yourself up as an apologist for them.
If you were honest about it, you would freely admit the immense anti-semitism the UN displays on every occausion, one has only to look at the Resolutions passed in the General assembly, that thanks to the US veto, never see the light of day, and then your naievete would become apparent.
You remind me of the many sickening lefties it's been my displeasure to meet over the years, to them everything is paranoia that they don't want to believe.
Yeah, right.

They are not anti-Israeli.

Go look at the voting records if you believe this.

Thing is, they are not anti-Palestinian, which is what drives so many of you batty.

Doesn't bother me a bit, because I'm not either, but that doesn't mean I'll turn a blind eye towards the muslims and the murder they love as your willing to do.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Exactly, AH. So many "patriotic" Americans these days despise anything that it not also pro-American.

The rampant dislike of the UN is due to rampant ignorance.

Um, AoA is quite right to note that as a Canadian, I would have a bit of a problem with the UN if it was simply an american mouthpeice.

But as for the "good" that the UN does, the League of Nations had similar programs in terms of world health, poverty, labour standards, etc. That didn't stop anyone at the time from describing the League as particularly flawed either, because the critics of it then recognize something It would be quite easily to destroy or replace the "political" functions of the UN and leave everything else intact. You accuse us of ignorance, but you're making the bigger mistake - presuming that the "good" the UN does is somehow dependent on leaving the "bad" in place. It isn't. We can have a WHO without a Kofi Annan and meaningless UN resolutions on a moment's notice if we wanted.

R.III

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Richard III


Um, AoA is quite right to note that as a Canadian, I would have a bit of a problem with the UN if it was simply an american mouthpeice.

But as for the "good" that the UN does, the League of Nations had similar programs in terms of world health, poverty, labour standards, etc. That didn't stop anyone at the time from describing the League as particularly flawed either, because the critics of it then recognize something It would be quite easily to destroy or replace the "political" functions of the UN and leave everything else intact. You accuse us of ignorance, but you're making the bigger mistake - presuming that the "good" the UN does is somehow dependent on leaving the "bad" in place. It isn't. We can have a WHO without a Kofi Annan and meaningless UN resolutions on a moment's notice if we wanted.

R.III

I don't know why you think I believe that the "bad" needs to remain unchanged in order to keep the "Good".

I say, 'Sure, fix it, regulate it, police it, whatever. Just don't shut the entire thing down is all I'm saying.

Just don't use the "Bad" as an excuse to do away with it.

If that's all the reason we needed, we'd no longer have a Catholic Church. Or an Atlanta Sherriff's Department. Or many other institutions that actually do more good than bad.

 

[Richard III]

So Voodoo Ace, you'd be happy to put the general assembly, peacekeeping under UN direction and the security council to bed, provided we kept the rest and kept calling it the UN?

R.III

 

[DinoDoc]

:rocket2:

 

[Satis5d]

Okay, I'm not getting it.

To those of you who support the existence of the U.N. - WHY???
Are you completely bent on maintaining the status quo or are you in favor of one-world government. The U.N. can only support these two causes.

Peacekeeping is a joke. Nations that have a compelling interest will send in troops to maintain order to protect their interests. Why does nobody step in and stop the Tsutsies from massacring the Huutus - because they've got nothing anybody else wants and it won't upset the balance of power.

Any entity with power will do what it can to protect and expand its own power - WE AS CIV PLAYERS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS!!!

The U.N. is completely unnecessary except to garner power for itself leading to a new world order, namely one-world government. It's the only real purpose it has. As long as the majority of the world's population is in favor of the U.N. the possibility of one-world government gets stronger as the U.N. will continue to feed itself until it is strong enough to stare down a rival such as the current nation superpower.

This isn't brain science guys.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think that the UN often finds itself used as a scapegoat by people just wanting to slag something off, whilst considering their own country far superior. I think that MOST (emphasis on the most, by no means all) Americans who express anti-UN veiws often do so because they consider the US far superior to the UN, and that they see it as a threat because they fear that the other nations may oppose them on issues such as missile defense.

rmsharpe - I dislike your system, it gives way to much power to these 'top 5 nation', the ones which you included were highly debatable. And would make these small nations feel inferior, which is always bad. One vote per nation, with NO vetos would be my preffered option:crazyeyes

 

[Satis5d]

Just so eveyone understands, I am a Canadian living in Philadelphia.

When I talk about U.N. peacekeeping I'm not speaking from a vaccuum.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
rmsharpe - I dislike your system, it gives way to much power to these 'top 5 nation', the ones which you included were highly debatable. And would make these small nations feel inferior, which is always bad. One vote per nation, with NO vetos would be my preffered option:crazyeyes

First, I don't see the top five as being debatable. If you care to tell me what you think the top five overall powers are, feel free to do so.

Second, the single vote per nation would elminiate the superpower status of the United States, Russia, and China.

 

[Maj]

The U.N. is completely unnecessary except to garner power for itself leading to a new world order, namely one-world government. It's the only real purpose it has. As long as the majority of the world's population is in favor of the U.N. the possibility of one-world government gets stronger as the U.N. will continue to feed itself until it is strong enough to stare down a rival such as the current nation superpower.

Considering the UN is a coalition of nations and not itself a nation I cannot see how this would occur. The UN military is comprised of elements of other national armines, not its "own" troops and equipment. The UN has no land, resources, factories or soldiers. It is nothing more than a patchwork of people and ideas held together by beucrocrats from across the globe. Unless the major powers would be willing to cede some of their own (which would go against your earlier statement that those in power do all they can to retain and expand it) then I do not view the UN as anywhere close to garnering the power of a one-world government.

Other international organizations such as the WTO and IMF have far greater power than the UN and an agenda bookmarked with nothing other than dollar bills. Funny how no one cares much about their doings.

RM...What were the last five books you have read that covered political science, global issues, economics, sociology, anthropology and/or history? I'm getting the impression that your proposed UN voting platform is based largely on a loose understanding of global economics, politics and other affairs relevant to international organizations.

- Maj

 

[EdwardTking]

Hey CornMaster


"There is nothing we SHOULD do. I mean.....it's there country, they can do what they like. If the elections are being rigged....or information is flawed, then the UN should step in to set things striaght. "


Like replace Governor Bush with President Gore?!

 

[dannyevilcat]

Take away the U.N. and you are still left with the racism, animosity and suspicions. Only without an organized forum, the stakes would likely escalate and become even more dangerous.
Nations cannot be trusted to act responsibly or reasonably when left to pursue their own agendas.
Without the U.N., then the USA does become the end-all-be-all of international policy. While Americans aren't villains, they can be overbearing, and imposing humanitarianism is, IMHO, not justified, though I imagine I'll get some heat for saying it. Never confuse politics with the pursuit of decency. It will never happen satisfactorily.

I support the U.N. I also agree it needs an overhaul. But the fact is, the more teeth it gets, the more complaints you'll have that it is being manipulated/abused/ignored by (insert opposition here).

It does do the world some good. It also gives a spotlight to nasty politics. Take the good with the bad, and you realize that no nation is dependent on it, members are there voluntarily, so why the hostility?

Personally, I'd sooner see NATO vanish than the United Nations.