I'm fed up with the UN

I think the concept of the UN is great. The idea of a forum where countries can co-operate should be applauded. I also agree with the concept of an arena where a country can [theoretically at least] be held accountable for their actions.

However, like every other large organization, they are not infalliable.

I also don't understand the necessity of the Security Council. If the UN truly intends on being a round-table organization, then five countries should not have the power to veto a decision.

Also, I think one of the reasons why the UN works so slowly at times is because there are so many members. The more members there is to an organization, the more dissension there is. It's a shame but I don't think there's a way around that.
 
Doody

When Robert Mugabe (a dictator with blood on his hands) criticizes the US and people actually cheer there is a problem, not the UN but with the US. Zimbabwe is run by a tyrant who persecutes his own people through violence and intimidation (White Farmers), not to mention any political opponent who dares criticize him (Morgan Tsangurii).

And yet people actually feel more compassion to Mugabe (a dictator), Chavez (a quasi-communist) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (an Islamic extremist) than they do about a democracy such as the USA. Thats a frightening

Its not that these people are liked so much as we are hated. The UN maybe inefficent (political quabbles), corrupt (oil-for-food) or spineless (Rwanda, Bosnia) but its not responisable for our bad image, we are.
 
The UN doesn't work. PERIOD. A bunch of pansy girly men argueing about this and that and then saying that they'll do something and do nothing. GET THE U.S. OF OUT THE U.N. AND GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.

'Nuff Said...

Luis (5.56X45MM)

Here are some defenations from the Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=UN
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=United+Nations

(1) UN

An ever-increasingly irrelevant group of nations whose widespread corruption is coming to light.
The UN's time is passing. Can you say "Oil-For-Food"?

(2) UN

An organization based on the principles that:

1. Asking your laws to be followed in a polite manner will get you listned to.

2. The USA should have as much say in world matters as Suriname or the Neitherlands.

3. That China and Libya should lead a Human Rights Commitee.
The UN, you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

(3) UN

the United Nations is both a haven for despots and the world-wide headquarters of anti-Americanism, and for all of those foreign readers, they are also Anti-white, so if you are of dark skin living in America they hate you and if you are white living anywhere in the world the UN hates you
just read anything about the UN

(4) UN

The organization that will :cen: over the world when we have to fight a instellar war . Many people believe they are related to the black helicopter theory
UN :cen: ed over every nation in the anime Evangelion even.

(1) United Nations

See "Oxymoron"

(2) United Nations

A good idea, but somewhat naive and inefficient. Like marriage and Communism, it looks good on paper but often fails in practice.

Formed shortly after the second World War, the idea was to bring representatives of numerous nations together in hope of discussing and peacefully solving whatever conflicts or disputes arose. They have done good in areas of Africa for example, but on the large scale it just doesn't work. Each nation is far too preoccupied with self interest to prevent any large treaties or organizations from being set up or enforced. Perhaps the most visible example of failure would be the recent Iraqi crisis.
Some think that if they had stronger centralized authority then things could improve, but it's hard to know.

(3) United Nations

please see "retarded"
The United Nations wants to control the entire world.

(4) United Nations

An all-knowing, all-seeing organization which in allowed Iraq to ship all of their biological and chemical WMDs to Syria by having Charter members Russia and France drag their feet in refusing to ratify unilateral military action under the obvious guise of "diplomatic negotiations" AKA Food for Oil program
Then after the United States and ITS ALLIES proceeded to enforce 1441, they cried foul, blood for oil, etc. And for the icing on this cake, the UN secretary general now says that the U.S. engaged in a totally illegal military action.
United Nations? Not since WWII my friends!

(5) United Nations

A support group for people who are unusually obsessed with Israel for some reason.
Contains both raging leftists and crazy Islamists who just sit around and talk about Israel all day long in Manhattan with American money paying to clean up all the filth that spills out when you open the door.
Why don't they all just move it to Palestine?
The feckless condor circled the U.N. building, looking for the dead Jew.

(6) United Nations

A group of nations whose purpose is increasingly irrelevant; whose widespread corruption is now coming to light.
The corruption of the United Nations is growing unchecked. Can't wait 'till Annan tries to explain the "Oil-for-Food" program.

(7) United Nations

A tool of the devil if ever their was one.
The biography of the united nations is avaliable in the Biblical book of Revelations.

(8) United Nations

Terrorist supporting :cen: ers!

A Racist organization that is vile and corrupt.A CLOWN-puppet of America's mortal enemies that supports terrorists and brutal dictatorial regimes and condemns benign states for minor :cen: .
AN outright enemy of the U.S. and Israel.

The UN should be evicted from the U.S. and their building demolished.
Evict the racist,evil UN and demolish the UN building at once!

It should be noted that the incompetent douchebag John Kerry states eerily similar phrasing to Kofi Annan,Jane Fonda and Saddam Hussein.

The UN is a racist cabal of America's enemies whom we rent a building to.

(9) United Nations

a good dream, pity about the fact that the amount of vetoes that have been passed by the USA to any resolutions they dont like/criticizing israel has rendered it useless
the un: great ambition, cruelly betrayed.

(10) United Nations

A place where dialog can be used to prevent bloodshed.

Relevant only to those preferring dialog.
Why waste time talking in the UN - let's kick ass!
 
5.56X45mm said:
The UN doesn't work. PERIOD. A bunch of pansy girly men argueing about this and that and then saying that they'll do something and do nothing. GET THE U.S. OF OUT THE U.N. AND GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.

'Nuff Said...

Luis (5.56X45MM)

Here are some defenations from the Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=UN
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=United+Nations

(1) UN

An ever-increasingly irrelevant group of nations whose widespread corruption is coming to light.
The UN's time is passing. Can you say "Oil-For-Food"?

(2) UN

An organization based on the principles that:

1. Asking your laws to be followed in a polite manner will get you listned to.

2. The USA should have as much say in world matters as Suriname or the Neitherlands.

3. That China and Libya should lead a Human Rights Commitee.
The UN, you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

(3) UN

the United Nations is both a haven for despots and the world-wide headquarters of anti-Americanism, and for all of those foreign readers, they are also Anti-white, so if you are of dark skin living in America they hate you and if you are white living anywhere in the world the UN hates you
just read anything about the UN

(4) UN

The organization that will :cen: over the world when we have to fight a instellar war . Many people believe they are related to the black helicopter theory
UN :cen: ed over every nation in the anime Evangelion even.

(1) United Nations

See "Oxymoron"

(2) United Nations

A good idea, but somewhat naive and inefficient. Like marriage and Communism, it looks good on paper but often fails in practice.

Formed shortly after the second World War, the idea was to bring representatives of numerous nations together in hope of discussing and peacefully solving whatever conflicts or disputes arose. They have done good in areas of Africa for example, but on the large scale it just doesn't work. Each nation is far too preoccupied with self interest to prevent any large treaties or organizations from being set up or enforced. Perhaps the most visible example of failure would be the recent Iraqi crisis.
Some think that if they had stronger centralized authority then things could improve, but it's hard to know.

(3) United Nations

please see "retarded"
The United Nations wants to control the entire world.

(4) United Nations

An all-knowing, all-seeing organization which in allowed Iraq to ship all of their biological and chemical WMDs to Syria by having Charter members Russia and France drag their feet in refusing to ratify unilateral military action under the obvious guise of "diplomatic negotiations" AKA Food for Oil program
Then after the United States and ITS ALLIES proceeded to enforce 1441, they cried foul, blood for oil, etc. And for the icing on this cake, the UN secretary general now says that the U.S. engaged in a totally illegal military action.
United Nations? Not since WWII my friends!

(5) United Nations

A support group for people who are unusually obsessed with Israel for some reason.
Contains both raging leftists and crazy Islamists who just sit around and talk about Israel all day long in Manhattan with American money paying to clean up all the filth that spills out when you open the door.
Why don't they all just move it to Palestine?
The feckless condor circled the U.N. building, looking for the dead Jew.

(6) United Nations

A group of nations whose purpose is increasingly irrelevant; whose widespread corruption is now coming to light.
The corruption of the United Nations is growing unchecked. Can't wait 'till Annan tries to explain the "Oil-for-Food" program.

(7) United Nations

A tool of the devil if ever their was one.
The biography of the united nations is avaliable in the Biblical book of Revelations.

(8) United Nations

Terrorist supporting :cen: ers!

A Racist organization that is vile and corrupt.A CLOWN-puppet of America's mortal enemies that supports terrorists and brutal dictatorial regimes and condemns benign states for minor :cen: .
AN outright enemy of the U.S. and Israel.

The UN should be evicted from the U.S. and their building demolished.
Evict the racist,evil UN and demolish the UN building at once!

It should be noted that the incompetent douchebag John Kerry states eerily similar phrasing to Kofi Annan,Jane Fonda and Saddam Hussein.

The UN is a racist cabal of America's enemies whom we rent a building to.

(9) United Nations

a good dream, pity about the fact that the amount of vetoes that have been passed by the USA to any resolutions they dont like/criticizing israel has rendered it useless
the un: great ambition, cruelly betrayed.

(10) United Nations

A place where dialog can be used to prevent bloodshed.

Relevant only to those preferring dialog.
Why waste time talking in the UN - let's kick ass!
Click to expand...

Dude you have issues.

GET THE U.S. OF OUT THE U.N. AND GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.
Click to expand...

So go who is begging the US to stay?
The simple fact of the matter is that the US is in the UN because the US government wants to be in the UN and no other reason so please give us a break from this pointless rhetoric.

Padre said:
I know for a fact that some agencies of the U.N. do great humanitarian work, that wouldn't happen or would not happen as fast, without the U.N. However that's the workers/volunteers on the ground. I am far from impressed with the UN executives who seem to be or have become fat cats on the c**k-tail circuit over-seeing a useless costly bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but one of the problems with the UN (and you can tell from some of the posts in this thread) is that its mission is almost an impossibility to achieve unless everyone is prepared to accept its authority and findings, this problem has been compounded since the Iraq fiasco as now every nation has been given the precident to ignore the UN when ever it feels like it.

To those that believe the UN is worthless heres something to consider, the UN is not a government and it has no more authority than each of its member states gives it therefore the UNs success or failure is infact the success and failure of our own governments so perhaps thats the place to start "fixing" the UN.
 
I want to U.S out of the U.N. Currently my Government will not leave, why? Because the majority of my fellow citizens do not see the threat that the U.N. is to our rights and freedoms. But the word is being spread and the sheeple are waking up and becoming people.
 
MontyB said:
...this problem has been compounded since the Iraq fiasco as now every nation has been given the precident to ignore the UN when ever it feels like it.

To those that believe the UN is worthless heres something to consider, the UN is not a government and it has no more authority than each of its member states gives it therefore the UNs success or failure is infact the success and failure of our own governments so perhaps thats the place to start "fixing" the UN.
Click to expand...

You state in the first part of my qoute of you that nations do not listen to the UN. By typing that you state that the UN is a WORLD POWER, FORM OF GOVERNMENT, or SOME OTHER POWERFUL BODY. And yet in the second part of the qoute you state that the UN has no power, that only it's members are the ones with power.

So in the end, I ask you this. Which one will it be? The UN is all powerful or the UN is nothing. Make up your mind. If only it's members hold the power, than the member nations can do what they want without UN approvial. The UN is about a good idea as communism is. It works on paper but not in real life.
 
5.56X45mm said:
MontyB said:
...this problem has been compounded since the Iraq fiasco as now every nation has been given the precident to ignore the UN when ever it feels like it.

To those that believe the UN is worthless heres something to consider, the UN is not a government and it has no more authority than each of its member states gives it therefore the UNs success or failure is infact the success and failure of our own governments so perhaps thats the place to start "fixing" the UN.
Click to expand...

You state in the first part of my qoute of you that nations do not listen to the UN. By typing that you state that the UN is a WORLD POWER, FORM OF GOVERNMENT, or SOME OTHER POWERFUL BODY. And yet in the second part of the qoute you state that the UN has no power, that only it's members are the ones with power.

So in the end, I ask you this. Which one will it be? The UN is all powerful or the UN is nothing. Make up your mind. If only it's members hold the power, than the member nations can do what they want without UN approvial. The UN is about a good idea as communism is. It works on paper but not in real life.
Click to expand...

Yes and according to science bumble bees and humming birds cant fly either but reality and real life are sometimes stranger than science can explain.

As for my comment I think it is fairly straight forward, the UN is a body primarily designed to work through issues diplomatically if nations choose not to accept the UN's decissions (and by UN I mean its member nations) then there is very little the UN can do about it unless of course they are bad enough to warrant sanctions or military action.

So in the end the UN as pretty much pointed out the first time has as much or as little power as its individual member nations are prepared to give it.

So any more semantics to quibble over?
 
I can't be bothered reading this entire thread, so I'll post merely regarding to the original topic creator;

The UN is not an organisation in it's own right. It is not an international power. It is a GROUP of organisations, nations, that use it as a medium for interaction and agreements. Saying "I hate the UN" is saying "I hate all nations who make up the UN", because it is those Governments that vote and make UN decisions. Not some mystical UN council completely seperate to all other nations.

Seriously, kid, learn about this sort of thing before you try and criticise it. Anything the UN does is does by its member states. The closest you can be to "fed up with the UN" is being "fed up with foreign Governments". I personally generally hold a negative stance towards the UN, but only as equally as I hold a negative stance towards most Governments. You must understand that these two are one in the same.
 
I'll have to agree with Islanfox here. Getting into action doesn't always mean:" send in the military". I can make a long essay on the "raison d'etre" of the UN but I won't. I'll make it somewhat more bluntly, because pointing a finger is easy if you don't look into the mirror...

So with thousands of lives in danger, the UN has once again shown its true colors. I must remind everyone that the UN also looked the other way during the slaughter in Rwanda
Click to expand...

First of all; it takes the US a lot more too to get into action. Thousands of dead won't get the 7th fleet moving an inch. Second, I had eleven friends get chopped to pieces in Ruanda while wearing a blue helmet. The US wasn't even on the scene... The UN was there, but they don't belief in blowing everybody to pieces in seconds notice. They like to get the facts in proper order before doing the damage, and yes sometimes that takes a while. Better late then rushing in, blowing to place to pieces and finding out you do it for the wrong reasons.
 
Ted said:
First of all; it takes the US a lot more too to get into action. Thousands of dead won't get the 7th fleet moving an inch. Second, I had eleven friends get chopped to pieces in Ruanda while wearing a blue helmet. The US wasn't even on the scene... The UN was there, but they don't belief in blowing everybody to pieces in seconds notice. They like to get the facts in proper order before doing the damage, and yes sometimes that takes a while. Better late then rushing in, blowing to place to pieces and finding out you do it for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

REALLY!? That is amazing. Especially in context to Rwanda.

But it is true the US is also shamed by not stepping in. Though, i'm sure if we did, you would be crying we breeched international law.
 
We studied the UN in history this year as part of 20th Century Studies.

I have to say that while the UN does a decent job on aid, education, etc., they are sorely lacking in the Peacemaking and Peacekeeping areas.

These are some of the reasons why i believe they are a largely ineffective peacekeeping organisation.

They have too many requirements and bureaucracies too quickly make a discision, such as....
It requires 9/15 members of the Security Council to vote 'yes' on an operation mandate
There must be no Veto from the permanent memebers, Britain, USA, China, Russia and France, which could cancel the whole thing.
The operation must be overseen by a ranking memeber of the council, usually the deputy SEC GENERAL, who may often be deployed elsewhere; he controls the politics in the given country.

The governments of peacekeeping units have total (and i mean total) control over their countries military, even though they are officially under UN control, eg Belgians in the Congo up and left at the behest of their government, rather than stay and finish the job. No offence to military, just governments.

The force commander (field marshall, CIC of theatre, wateva, head honcho) is often chosen for political reasons and not military skill. (Though not in the case of Romeo Dalliare, FC of Rwanda OP)

Both sides in the conflict must request/approve UN peacekeepers. therefore, one side can just say no and peacekeepers are not allowed in. Peacemakers are a different story. but the UN does not mandate them very often.

and probably the worst possible thing that plaugues any operation is the differentiation between peace'making' and peace'keeping', which basically means 'makers' can fight a proper war, meaning they can attack the enemy in a prudent fashion, and that 'keepers' act as more of a 'prescence' or police force, and, the worst part, are never allowed to fire their weapons even in self defence.

BTW in my opinion, the best operation was the East Timor op, because Australia and NZ basically said to the UN, "we're going in there, wether you like it or not, so just give u consent and make it official" and then proceeded to fight a proper battle with the MIlitia's and Indonesian Military.

In regards to Rwanda, it has been shown that the liason between the UN Sec Con and the operaation, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh (not kidding) was actually assisiting the Rwandan Military and the Hutu militias, and was suppressing his reports to the Security Council. He especially ommited the word 'genocide', because part of the UN charter is to not alow genocide to occur in any form, meaning they would have to commit to an operation thaty they were not ready for. In addition, various problems occured which caused delays, such as the Clinton administration being restrictive i its monetary aid (the UN wanted the US to pay for the OP), due to the public backlash caused by the Mogadishu episode. but thats just one example, not blaming the US. However, at the basic level the UN are inefficeint, especially in regards to this 'mobilisation' issue. They estimate that, including all international talks and negotiations about cost and force, they should be on the ground in 1, ONE month. It took so long for Rwanda because they are inefficient and parts are corrupt.

As to the general morals of the UN general assembly, and this "if you insult the UN you insult all governments that make it up" the majority of the general assembly is made up of NON -DEMOCRATIC nations.
So i leave you with one question,
How can an organisation that prides itself on its democratic values be run by a group of Marxist and authoritarian / totalitarian governments, and still achieve its democratic goals?

if u can answer this satisfactorily i will buy you a beer next time your in Melbourne.
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
But it is true the US is also shamed by not stepping in. Though, i'm sure if we did, you would be crying we breeched international law.
Click to expand...

That just depends on how you would do it. With the proper mandate, you cover that. Just sending in the army when you feel like it, that does like breeching international law.

So it's your turn again to cry "it takes them years to decide on anything, we need to act now!"
 
Ted said:
That just depends on how you would do it. With the proper mandate, you cover that. Just sending in the army when you feel like it, that does like breeching international law.

So it's your turn again to cry "it takes them years to decide on anything, we need to act now!"
Click to expand...

I see. So you would rather hold yourself to some abstract concept of international law than do what is necessary.

"All it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing"
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
I see. So you would rather hold yourself to some abstract concept of international law than do what is necessary.

"All it takes for evil to suceed is for good men to do nothing"
Click to expand...

I would say "yes" to your question for the following reasons. But somehow I reckon you will not agree on them with me.

1) Nobody, even the US, is willing to intervene in all the hotspots on this planet. So who decides where to act and on what grounds? You will look hypocritical and inconsequent if you choose only certain countries.

2) If you want International Law ever to succeed, then randomly sending the army isn't the way to follow.

3) The "people are dying" argument isn't really holding up. They have been dying all around the world and nobody can do anything about it. Sending in the military to make an end to this will take some killing and the new system will have it's enemies ready to kill the new rulers. (Not everybody will be happy with Iraq's new constitution.)

4) A framework for an international order can't be build on pragmatic and ad hoc interventions. You need an institution that can cope with it. These institutions are built on agreements and diplomacy and not intervention in places chosen by some countries. What is the point of multilateral conventions if noone sticks to them?

If you are against such institutions or multilateral agreements (which some of you most certainly will be) don't pretend to intervene on the behalve of some "better worldorder". What you are doing is upholding your nations interests by other means. If you carry out Von Clausewits's international politics, the least you can do is to say so. Name one intervention where a strong nation removed some dictator with just a pure altruistic motive. I can't think of one. And since this motive doesn't exist in an international order.

I believe that any structural, permanent answer to this will take time. Time in which people will die. But they die also while actively engaging and people will die in the process afterwards. In other words; there are always people dying no matter how you try to solve it. And I just believe that my approach will get us further on the long run.
 
This thread lives on with the recent actions in the Middle East.

First off, UN Resolution 1559 (I think) demanding that Hezbolla be disarmed. It was passed in September of 2004. Almost 2 years later and nothing has happened. Then Hezbolla goes and starts crap. Funny how the news doesn't really dawn on the fact that another UN resolution was ignored or not even enforced.

Then we have the words of Kofi Annon, "I appeal to all parties to spare civilian life and civilian infrastructure." Ok I can understand the civilian infastucture part. I do not agree with how Israel is attacking it. But asking all parties to spare civilian life. Lets see, unguided missiles loaded with bird shot being fired into Israel with the hopes of hitting Israeli cities. The soul purpose of those attacks is killing civilians. That message seems to be directed to Israel and only Israel.

A few weeks ago yet another UN declaration was vetoed by the US. It called for Israel to stop it's evil actions against the Palestinians with no mention of palestinian activities.

I am still not convinced the UN is worth anything. The UN is nothing more like those annoying small barking dogs. They sound all big and bad. But when you challenge them, they run back to a safe distance only to start barking again.
 
Screw thw United Nations.

'Nuff Said...

5.56X45MM

PS - Get the UN out of the USA and get the USA out of the UN.

UN - Useless Nitwits
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top