Should we quit the UN

MontyB said:
The reality is you haven't proved that removing the veto would lead to the dire consequences you suggest hell to date you haven't even given me a positive that has come from a veto.

I would also suggest that "right" is far more accurately determined by a collective decision from 200 countries as opposed to 5.

I also have no doubt you do prefer proxy wars, those of us in countries that are not fighting them most frequently do.
Click to expand...

To prove how the world had been without the veto we must go back before the meeting in San Francisco, 1945 and the creation of the UN Charter, we might get a situation similar as the League of Nation, which were more or less ignored, you want that? So the first statement I quoted here is really stupid, sorry. You honestly think 200 can decide about something when the five permanent members have a problem to that? The world is not black and white as you think it is. These 200 will and they are doing that in the General Assembly, will create alliancies. During the Cold War, the proxy wars were bad as I said, but they were better than a war between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It is better with 50 000 dead than 5 million, the lesser evil, and welcome to the world that is called International Relations, it is a hard and egoistical world
 
r.fox said:
the UN is based on fairness to all member countries. the UN was designed to take over from the league of nations and eliminate the downfalls of the league. one of the reason that hitler was successful was because that every one in germany hated the league. so what if some dodgy mistakes are made? the leaders in question would probably make a huge stink if they suspected that they were excluded because of there leaderships of their countries. its okay if they let them sit in on the meetings, but its another thing all together if they were even allowed to suggest things
Click to expand...
And where have you been? Of cause it is corrupt and is now the forum for the Islamic states,how many of these states pay their way? very few.How many constantly harrangue the U.S. and other western countries?, how many of these piddle farting states turn to us when they have a disaster?[ all of them] The U.S. should ask the U.N. to move and who cares where it goes. I don't.
 
Tell me how do you retain power in a communication hungry world if you you have no method of communicating?

Here is a clue, the US will never abandon the UN no matter how much the rednecks of America (nor Australia for that matter) may decry it because the second the UN packs its bags the US loses its forum to dictate to the world.

Lets be honest here it is only corrupt when it doesn't do what you want but if you want to fix it just remove veto.
 
asma18 said:
And where have you been? Of cause it is corrupt and is now the forum for the Islamic states,how many of these states pay their way? very few.How many constantly harrangue the U.S. and other western countries?, how many of these piddle farting states turn to us when they have a disaster?[ all of them] The U.S. should ask the U.N. to move and who cares where it goes. I don't.
Click to expand...


i,ve been over in NZ. anyway the un is just as much a forum for christanity as it is for islam and to be quite honest, both can be as extreme as the other. and im sure that a LOT of other people besides islamic states harrase the US, but then again, how many people harrase the islams? and how long do you think a government will remain in power if it refuses to give diaster relief to a neighboor who needed it?
 
VDKMS said:
I would keep the UN. It has many faults but also many good ones. If the democratic countries join forces, so wil the non-democratic ones and we will propably get another cold-war. The first thing that has to be tackled is the sluggish bureaucracy.

Is it possible to leave Israel and Palestine out of this discussion and focus on the tread title.
Click to expand...

At least with a new cold war, there would be clarity. I am so sick of every 2nd and 3rd world country with an axe to grind, demanding the ridiculous.
 
A good example of UN incompetence is the west's formula for Syria. They want Assad out. Only Russia and China are supporting him. Not being a fan of either of these countries, I believe they are right. Assad is a disgusting human being. But what would replace him? It would probably be another Islamic state. Oh hooray.
 
VDKMS said:
You better come out of your cave. We live in a world were everything is linked toghether. In order to solve problems that comes with it you need a global institution. The UN is not perfect but for the moment nothing else comes close.
Click to expand...

I think maybe I'd take nothing else comes close. At least for now.
 
One of the biggest failures of the UN was Rwanda genocide.

Most of the world stood on the sidelines during the Rwandan genocide based on past slaughters that took place in Yugoslavia. As reports of the genocide spread through the media the Security Council supplied more than five thousand troops to give a strong force. But because of the delay and denial of recommendations, the deployed prevented the force from getting there on time and arrived months after the genocide was over.

In the events that took place after the genocide, many government officials in the community mourned over the loss of many and were surprised about the world’s obliviousness to the situation that could have prevented the massacre from taking place. The Rwandan genocide did not interest the outside world as the Yugoslavia genocide did. The outbreaks in Rwanda were seen as no sufficient interest and value to prevention of the violence and was not interested to warrant the expense of resources and the risk to losing more casualties. The delay caused thousands of Rwandan lives to be lost and mentally and psychologically scarred millions of those who lived the story.
 
The UN will never be of any use to the world until the power of Veto in the security Council is removed from from the five permanent members.

It is designed to be a failure.
 
I agree I think the answer is to remove the power of veto altogether and increase the size of the security council based on a rotating membership of continental groups (Asia/Oceania/Europe etc) and in order to balance the whole thing (That checks and balances thing) any decision of the SC can be overridden by two thirds majority in the General Assembly.
 
LeEnfield said:
It has become to big with to many vested interest to be an effective force
Click to expand...

Too many vested interests I would suggest that you only have 5 vested interests and in reality you can narrow that down to 3 interests, Russia, China and USA and the answer to this problem is to remove veto rights from all of them which means they have to validate their arguments rather than rely on the veto of a client country.
Currently we have a system where we can't sort out Syria and Crimea because the Russians wont let anyone do anything, we cant sort out the Israel/Palestine thing because the USA veto's everything, hell we probably could have avoided the Iraq mess altogether.

I also suggest creating regional zones (Asia, Oceania, Europe, Africa etc.) which put forward 1-5 member countries (depending on the number of countries in the zone) on a two year rotational basis to an expanded security council of say 50 seats (25% of the General Assembly).

It can then make decisions without the threat of veto and if there is an issue with the decision they make then a two thirds majority of the General Assembly can over ride it.

Will this cause issues sure it will I imagine the 5 countries with veto at the moment would argue that it means the end to their power but in reality it means that instead of riding rough shod over the UN they will have to get support for their demands and actually resort to diplomacy which is what the UN is there for.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top