The U.N.

[Slasher]

A thread to discuss the United Nations. Anything UN-related goes.

Is it good or bad?
Effective? Ineffective?

Some interesting points might get brought up.

I'll have more for this thread in a bit, but for now, discuss.

 

[Darth Budd]

The U.N. is a great idea, but they have no way of enforcing anything, and rely mostly on the U.S. and U.K. to do this for them. A.k.a. We only enforce what we want to, meaning the U.N. is only effective when they agree with us and the brits, making us and the brits basically the only real countries with international authority.

 

[No_One_In_Partic]

It's mainly just the US interests that hold sway, we're just that incessant in poodling along with everything America, we're merely adding to that authority.

It's a good cause, but it's frustratingly ineffective.

 

[MenaceInc]

this is all i have to say xD

 

[McNizzle]

this is all i have to say xD

HHAHAHAHA. Wow, that's hilarious.... what are the chances of that.

But, like Darth said, The UN is a get idea... on paper. They set up a whole bunch of international laws but if a country breaks them, little if anything happens.

Their biggest punishment as saying your kicked out of the UN.

 

[Slasher]

The U.N. is a great idea, but they have no way of enforcing anything, and rely mostly on the U.S. and U.K. to do this for them. A.k.a. We only enforce what we want to, meaning the U.N. is only effective when they agree with us and the brits, making us and the brits basically the only real countries with international authority.

How so?

Is it simply because the U.S. and the U.K. share a veto power? Well what about France, Russia, and China then? I think that's a load of hoot that you think it's entirely the U.S. and the Brits that run things there and therefor are the only ones with "international authority".

The biggest problem with the U.N. I believe is that international law needs to be treated as authority. If a country presents an idea that is legitimately struck down by the UN (Ie. Iraq), then a country should take the responsible route and listen to them. If it is simply disregarded, then what's stopping other countries from following the same path? I think some sort of sanction policy should be put into effect to perhaps deter rebelling countries from just doing what they please.

It's mainly just the US interests that hold sway, we're just that incessant in poodling along with everything America, we're merely adding to that authority.

It's a good cause, but it's frustratingly ineffective.

Do you have any specific cases in mind?

The only reason imo that it seems as though U.S. interests are the only thing being proposed is because the U.S. tends to veto anything that doesn't directly benefit them.

--

If the general consensus so far is that the U.N. is great in theory, but is currently ineffective - then what do you think can be done to make the U.N. a more effective entity?

 

[Cryox]

i think that the U.N. is good cause it will hopefully stop some countries from gaining too much power, thus becoming power hungry... or w/e. i could truly care less about anything that doesn't effect me though.... (i.e. this)

 

[Whisper]

i think that the U.N. is good cause it will hopefully stop some countries from gaining too much power, thus becoming power hungry... or w/e. i could truly care less about anything that doesn't effect me though.... (i.e. this)

I agree that the U.N. is a good idea but without the ability to effectively enforce international laws nothing great will come of it. The League of Nations had similar problems and I'm sure you're aware how they reacted to opposing nations. Hand slaps.

 

[Darth Budd]

How so?

Is it simply because the U.S. and the U.K. share a veto power? Well what about France, Russia, and China then? I think that's a load of hoot that you think it's entirely the U.S. and the Brits that run things there and therefor are the only ones with "international authority".

Not because of veto power, but because we contribute the majority of the forces that enforce U.N. regulations. If we decide that we don't like a regulation, they have little to no power to enforce them. France has no real military power beyond small scale operations, Russia is too poor to contribute (and has enough problems at home) and China simply won't send troops all over the world to enforce rules and regulations made by some authority other than their own.

 

[Slasher]

Not because of veto power, but because we contribute the majority of the forces that enforce U.N. regulations. If we decide that we don't like a regulation, they have little to no power to enforce them. France has no real military power beyond small scale operations, Russia is too poor to contribute (and has enough problems at home) and China simply won't send troops all over the world to enforce rules and regulations made by some authority other than their own.

When you say the "majority of the forces", are you talking about the number of peacekeepers made available to the UN?
Because if you are, then I'll let the numbers do the talking:
Pakistan (10,173), Bangladesh (9,675), India (9,471), Nepal (3,626), Jordan (3,564), Uruguay (2,583), Italy (2,539)
While the U.S. contributes only about 800 troops.

If you're talking about the UN's financial situation, then you have a point because the U.S. does contribute about 22% of the total budget which amounts to $282 million, or only one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. defense budget (over 1 trillion annually).

Sure, the U.S. can throw a lot of money everywhere, and they have a sizable military, but they are far from being "peacekeepers"


Also, what regulations are you talking about?

I agree that the U.N. is a good idea but without the ability to effectively enforce international laws nothing great will come of it. The League of Nations had similar problems and I'm sure you're aware how they reacted to opposing nations. Hand slaps.

I think it's quite effective at preventing some conflicts, and maintaining the peace when they finally actually get there. Working on more swift action would definitely benefit them (it might have prevented the Rwandan & Darfur crises). I think the negatives and the failures of the UN are much more critically looked at and picked out, instead of all of the good that has been done as a direct result of the UN's actions