Thoughts on the UN

[iacardsfan]

After the North Korean nuclear test yesterday the UN "strongly condemned" it according to CNN. Personally this irked me because if North Korea was willing to come this far, to simply condemn them is not going to reach the goal that the UN wants. I want to know what you all think about the UN and it's workings. Please explain.

 

[specklebang]

It's unfortunate that the UN has no real authority. But they don't.

After the North Korean nuclear test yesterday the UN "strongly condemned" it according to CNN. Personally this irked me because if North Korea was willing to come this far, to simply condemn them is not going to reach the goal that the UN wants. I want to know what you all think about the UN and it's workings. Please explain.

 

[lizzie]

I would like for us to withdraw from it completely, along with the dues we pay. They have become little more than a mouthpiece for tin horn dictators and terrorists.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The UN does need to have more authority. I believe the whole veto system in the UNSC needs to be abolished. The UN is supposed to be democratic and give every country small and large an equal voice. The UN and the couple major powers that dominate it have thrown out their charter and pretty much towarn it to pieces and that is a damn shame. The UN and the major powers that dominate it have used the UN for their interests and thier interests alone. I belive that the whole veto system needs to be thrown out and go back to the UN's Founding Charter where all countries have an equal voice and equal powers.

 

[samsmart]

After the North Korean nuclear test yesterday the UN "strongly condemned" it according to CNN. Personally this irked me because if North Korea was willing to come this far, to simply condemn them is not going to reach the goal that the UN wants. I want to know what you all think about the UN and it's workings. Please explain.

Yeah, but the nations don't want to subvert their own sovereignty by giving more authority to the UN.

i have no problem with the UN doing what it does now. Allowing nations a common forum helps keep the world more peaceful. But it's up to individual nations to decide to act.

 

[Ray410]

The essential purpose of the United Nations is to transfer money from 1st world countries to the corrupt leaders of 3rd world countries. Why are they in New York? They are there for the limousine, prostitute, expensive hotel and restaurant lifestyle. You couldn't pry those America haters out of New York with a crowbar.

The UN also seems to be a platform for globalist loons like Clinton and Obama who envision themselves as president of the entire world.

 

[Sherman123]

The United Nations is exactly what the name implies, a voluntary organization of sovereign states. That it has weak enforcement mechanisms and weak 'powers' is completely natural. The UN is a useful mechanism for allowing states to interact with one another, for policing and developing the third world, and for creating and harmonizing peripheral and ancillary areas of international law.

For issues of substance powers can and do choose to ignore its dictates with relative impunity and little long term repercussions. This is not a weakness of the UN it is an expected reality. The world still operates on the basis of power and concerts. However norms and international law have become very useful in constraining rogue actors and by providing pretexts for negative activity towards them. But it is worth mentioning that realistically international law and liberal norms are sustained and propagated not by the UN, which as mention is merely a mechanism, but by the liberal concert in the world that includes most of the democracies and principally the United States.

So I voted it works more or less how it should.

 

[Sherman123]

The essential purpose of the United Nations is to transfer money from 1st world countries to the corrupt leaders of 3rd world countries. Why are they in New York? They are there for the limousine, prostitute, expensive hotel and restaurant lifestyle.

The UN also seems to be a platform for globalist loons like Clinton and Obama who envision themselves as president of the entire world.

They are in New York because at the time of its inception the United States was the unrivaled power and banker on the planet. Moreover we were the leader of a concert that included the bulk of free nations and Europe was wrecked.

 

[Sherman123]

The UN does need to have more authority. I believe the whole veto system in the UNSC needs to be abolished. The UN is supposed to be democratic and give every country small and large an equal voice. The UN and the couple major powers that dominate it have thrown out their charter and pretty much towarn it to pieces and that is a damn shame. The UN and the major powers that dominate it have used the UN for their interests and thier interests alone. I belive that the whole veto system needs to be thrown out and go back to the UN's Founding Charter where all countries have an equal voice and equal powers.

Then the dictates and resolutions would have even less authority, perhaps none at all. The reason the resolutions from the UNSC carry such unique weight is because of the power system. It is a decision agreed upon by the major powers on the planet, and which acts as an incredibly powerful guide to global action. If China, the US, or Russia are suddenly at the whim of a General Assembly style UN then they will ignore its dictates as irrelevant as will most other major powers. No one cares what Ghana thinks about North Korea when it comes to compelling action.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Then the dictates and resolutions would have even less authority, perhaps none at all. The reason the resolutions from the UNSC carry such unique weight is because of the power system. It is a decision agreed upon by the major powers on the planet, and which acts as an incredibly powerful guide to global action. If China, the US, or Russia are suddenly at the whim of a General Assembly style UN then they will ignore its dictates as irrelevant as will most other major powers. No one cares what Ghana thinks about North Korea when it comes to compelling action.

Whole point is that it goes against literally everything the UN stands for.

 

[Gipper]

What bliterhing idiot voted "UN is fine and serving its purpose well".

They should be banned from any politically relevant discussion.

The UN is crap. It's the equivalent of a kangaroo court. Nobody's afraid of it, nobody respects it.

Period.

 

[Sherman123]

Whole point is that it goes against literally everything the UN stands for.

What the UN stands for is impossible in a world with divergent political systems, it can only work on a planet fairly uniform democratic standards. Moreover I'd argue pretty strongly that the principle powers involved in constructing the UN had a very decent understanding of the importance of enthroning the great powers of the world into unique positions within the UN, and we have some ample documentation and commentary to this effect.

 

[Sherman123]

What bliterhing idiot voted "UN is fine and serving its purpose well".

They should be banned from any politically relevant discussion.

The UN is crap. It's the equivalent of a kangaroo court. Nobody's afraid of it, nobody respects it.

Period.

I did. I think the UN is doing what its supposed to do just fine. The UN is far less important than its critics give it credit for. It's the easy angry thing to hit out at when it really does very little because it is not an independent body. It is nothing more than the mechanism for international consultation, action, and diplomacy. For what it realistically can do it does an alright job. I also have no problem ignoring its dictates and resolutions from the perspective of the United States, hypocrisy is our prerogative as the liberal hegemon.

 

[Ben K.]

If you come in looking at the UN with some puritanical notions, either left or right, it's a failure. As a forum of grey area geopolitical considerations it does its job as well as anyone can realistically imagine.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It's unfortunate that the UN has no real authority. But they don't.

Thank God they have no real authority.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I did. I think the UN is doing what its supposed to do just fine. The UN is far less important than its critics give it credit for. It's the easy angry thing to hit out at when it really does very little because it is not an independent body. It is nothing more than the mechanism for international consultation, action, and diplomacy. For what it realistically can do it does an alright job. I also have no problem ignoring its dictates and resolutions from the perspective of the United States, hypocrisy is our prerogative as the liberal hegemon.

The UN is a Saturday Night Live skit with all of the most absurd deranged idiocy presented with a straight face. If the US was wise, she's expel the UN and force it to set up shop in Iran or Syria where they hold the same values most of the membership hold.

 

[specklebang]

Why?

Doesn't seem that "god" has much authority either.

The UN is supposed to be a method for resolving conflict. They aren't very effective. Why does that please you?

Thank God they have no real authority.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The UN is a Saturday Night Live skit with all of the most absurd deranged idiocy presented with a straight face. If the US was wise, she's expel the UN and force it to set up shop in Iran or Syria where they hold the same values most of the membership hold.

The United Nations exists because It has the backing of the United States. As a founding member it is impossible to back out of our duty.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Why?

Doesn't seem that "god" has much authority either.

The UN is supposed to be a method for resolving conflict. They aren't very effective. Why does that please you?

An organization that thinks it's rational to appoint Pakistan and the Republic of Korea to it's Human Rights Council, as an example, is an organization that has no credibility and no moral authority or persuasion and is solely a social club for despots and the world's worst actors. I'm sure when a normal person leaves the building, they feel a desparate need for a shower.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The United Nations exists because It has the backing of the United States. As a founding member it is impossible to back out of our duty.

Nonsense.

 

[specklebang]

Theoretically, including the more radical nations might be a way of tempering their behavior.

What exactly are "human rights" anyway? Sharia law? American drones?

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I sure wish you were.

An organization that thinks it's rational to appoint Pakistan and the Republic of Korea to it's Human Rights Council, as an example, is an organization that has no credibility and no moral authority or persuasion and is solely a social club for despots and the world's worst actors. I'm sure when a normal person leaves the building, they feel a desparate need for a shower.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Theoretically, including the more radical nations might be a way of tempering their behavior.

What exactly are "human rights" anyway? Sharia law? American drones?

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I sure wish you were.

Leadership in countries like Iran, Pakistan, the People's Republic of Korea, etc., laugh at the west and hold up appointment to the UN Human Rights Council, as an example, as proof to their own people that the world thinks they're just in the way they run their countries. I can't believe any self respecting person who believes in human rights and the freedom of people to choose how they live their lives would believe Korea has any advice to offer any country in the world.

As to your other point, I condemn the President's use of drone technology in countries where you have not declared war and to assassinate American citizens who have not been given due process as well as innocent Americans who happen to be collateral damage. To somehow use that in some equivalency with Sharia law where women can be beheaded for adultery if they are raped is beyond me. But then I don't understand any rational, decent person supporting the UN.

 

[Andalublue]

After the North Korean nuclear test yesterday the UN "strongly condemned" it according to CNN. Personally this irked me because if North Korea was willing to come this far, to simply condemn them is not going to reach the goal that the UN wants. I want to know what you all think about the UN and it's workings. Please explain.

I think "strongly condemned" is about as far as anyone is likely to go. I don't see South Korea or the US taking any stronger measures. Do you?

The UN does the best it can given the complexity of the organisation, the incongruity of having to work with such diverse types of régimes and having to do so through consensus, having no executive. I'm always amazed it achieves what it does. It is often deliberately undermined in its work by certain countries who then use the failure, that they contrived, as a stick with which to beat the entire organisation.

I often hear people complain that the UK should either wholeheartedly participate in the EU or get the hell out. I tend to agree with that viewpoint, and I think it could be applied to those countries who clearly don't want to be a part of the UN, but don't seem to have the 'nads to leave it.

 

[Redress]

What bliterhing idiot voted "UN is fine and serving its purpose well".

They should be banned from any politically relevant discussion.

The UN is crap. It's the equivalent of a kangaroo court. Nobody's afraid of it, nobody respects it.

Period.

So you favor a stronger UN with more authority over countries?

 

[Gipper]

So you favor a stronger UN with more authority over countries?

I wouldn't mind if they had anything that vaguely resembles a standing army, or could say something they had a shot in hell of backing up.

When I think of the UN, I think of a bunch of talking heads who get together every so often and whine about things they can't stop. It's like a Republican convention.