What role, if any, do you think the UN should serve?

berzirk

berzirk

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Do you think it is a gathering that is beneficial? Is it outdated?

Is the way the veto process works through the security council unfair?

Just curious how people feel about it.

I actually think it's a wonderfully beneficial organization, with no higher corruption than any standard government. It has absolutely no teeth, and I would like to see the UN have more international power.

The security council is a joke. One veto vote from the US, UK, France, China, and Russia, and a resolution doesn't pass, even with an overwhelming majority of support from non-permanent security council and general assembly members. The US has used this more than 40 times in the last 25 years. More in the last 25 years, than all of the UK. More than France and China combined.

I think this is a graph that many of us have seen...maybe even previously on CAG:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg

Obviously this is spurred on by recent events, and discussed here:

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/09/23/u-n-security-council-is-it-time-to-veto-the-veto/

So, esteemed CAGs, what do you think of the UN?
 
We live in a global society, so something like the UN will be necessary going forward.

It needs to have more power than it currently does, get rid of the veto power given to only a few members etc.

It's powers would be dealing with matters of international law and violations of it, enforcing treaties, authorizing military action against member nations who violate treaties, violate the sovereignty of other nations and things along those lines. In short, international matters involviing disputes between member nations.
 
Where in the Constitution does it say we need to be part of the UN? I'm worried about a worldwide global conspiracy.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Where in the Constitution does it say we need to be part of the UN? I'm worried about a worldwide global conspiracy.[/QUOTE]

I still like Ron Paul as a candidate asshole! Haa haa. :nottalking:
 
I think the U.N. is something of a catch-22, as in how could they enforce international law without the support of the most powerful nations (even to the point of being against the national interests of those nations?) I could see the matter of national sovereignty being a big burger of worms as well, since if you head over to any Middle-Eastern-themed issue thread any given person will have a different opinion on which nations deserve sovereignty, what is a violation, and etc.
 
As you can guess, as a right leaning libertarian with an emphasis on fiscal conservatism, I'm very critical of the UN.

#1, it is too bureaucratic to actually do anything with too many chiefs and not enough indians.

#2, I wouldn't want it to have any more power as many of the policies and members are opposed to US objectives. The structure of 1 country 1 vote in the GA doesn't help. See the NAM, OIC, and G-77 as groups mostly against US and with the majority of votes to pass what they want (good thing for the power to veto) or block necessary UN reform (see #1, above)

#3, it is not worth the financial investment when #1 and #2 exist.....

What happened to all the libs saying "we should take care of things here in the US first?"
$7+ Billion could repair a lot of America's failing infrastructure, right?

wmUScontributionstoUNchart1_590.ashx
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']The whole point of the UN is to prevent war between great powers. Anything else it does and everything else is just gravy.[/QUOTE]

How many world wars have there been since the UN was founded? How many were there before the UN was founded?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just another classy tolerant liberal here, folks.[/QUOTE]

This is a common misconception - I don't value all opinions equally, that's just straight-up stupid.

Berzerk is a dummy. He holds contradictory beliefs and when he gets called out on it he acts proud of his ignorance. He's a little more eloquent then Unclebob but it's basically the same act.

UN is fine, if countries are talking then there's a better chance that they won't start fighting. Tivo whining about the 7 billion it costs - you're a fucking joke dude. The Iraq war alone cost at least 760 billion, meaning that if the UN contributed to stopping even one war then it's already paid for itself.
 
[quote name='Msut77']How many world wars have there been since the UN was founded? How many were there before the UN was founded?[/QUOTE]

The UN can't end war. It's a meeting place so great powers can prevent war. That's its main purpose. And, on the whole, it does a pretty good job.

Ultimately, it can't force a power, great or small, not to go to war (see Iraq War 2.) But it attempts to lend legitimacy when force is required and find alternatives so that war is a last resort. In general, the UN will only authorize military action when one power commits ablatant act of aggression, invasion, or land grabbing. (See iraq 1 and Korea.)
 
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']The UN can't end war. It's a meeting place so great powers can prevent war. That's its main purpose. And, on the whole, it does a pretty good job.

Ultimately, it can't force a power, great or small, not to go to war (see Iraq War 2.) But it attempts to lend legitimacy when force is required and find alternatives so that war is a last resort. In general, the UN will only authorize military action when one power commits ablatant act of aggression, invasion, or land grabbing. (See iraq 1 and Korea.)[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, I was saying there are still wars obviously but no "world wars" since the UN was founded.
 
Hard to say how much role the UN has played in stopping any wars between super powers since WWII.

A lot of that is probably the result of mutually assured destruction in such wars in the nuclear era.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is a common misconception - I don't value all opinions equally, that's just straight-up stupid.

Berzerk is a dummy. He holds contradictory beliefs and when he gets called out on it he acts proud of his ignorance. He's a little more eloquent then Unclebob but it's basically the same act.

UN is fine, if countries are talking then there's a better chance that they won't start fighting. Tivo whining about the 7 billion it costs - you're a fucking joke dude. The Iraq war alone cost at least 760 billion, meaning that if the UN contributed to stopping even one war then it's already paid for itself.[/QUOTE]

What potential war has the UN stopped that the US was involved with?
 
[quote name='Knoell']What potential war has the UN stopped that the US was involved with?[/QUOTE]

How could I prove this? It's not like everything is as easily demonstratable as global warming or the theory of evolution.

It's pretty simple - when people are talking, they're not fighting. A forum for dialog between the countries of the world is a good thing.
 
[quote name='camoor']Berzerk is a dummy. He holds contradictory beliefs and when he gets called out on it he acts proud of his ignorance. He's a little more eloquent then Unclebob but it's basically the same act.[/QUOTE]

Ahh man! Finally someone is on to me!

Nah, thrust, don't sweat it. He and I argued in an obesity thread months ago, he got bent out of shape, and has had a raging hardon for me in every other thread, going out of his way to namecall. It's like a real life political debate! Haa haa.

-Berzirk replies to someone effectively saying, "I get the sarcasm, but I still like Ron Paul"

-Camoor replies to Berzirk's reply to someone not named Camoor with, "That's cause you're a fucking idiot"

It's a high level debate technique. I just can't match wits with intellectuals like Camoor. Instead Uncle Bob and I sit around all day naming our farts. Gosh, and I offered Camoor a warehouse job too. Sheesh. There goes that olive branch.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Ahh man! Finally someone is on to me!
...
-Berzirk replies to someone effectively saying, "I get the sarcasm, but I still like Ron Paul"[/QUOTE]

This is more irony - instead of replying to me take a minute to give IRHari a decent response. These "what do you guys think of X" threads and "haha" comments are fucking tiresome.
 
[quote name='camoor']This is more irony - instead of replying to me take a minute to give IRHari a decent response. These "what do you guys think of X" threads and "haha" comments are fucking tiresome.[/QUOTE]

u mad...so...add me to your ignore list? :pray:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top