Politiks

agentkgb · Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:21 pm United Nations?

What do you think of the UN? I think it has the potential to be good for the world, but they need to get rid of the Security Council, otherwise it's worthless.

Matt · Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:23 pm

The UN shouldn't exist IMO.

Citizen187 · Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:02 pm

If it weren't for the Security Council I'd fully support the UN, it has the potential to be hugely useful in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

XRichX · Wed May 02, 2007 2:12 pm

I like having the UN there but in my view it doesn't really do much, i mean, they are peacekeepers, but sometimes they can't keep the peace and then the likes of NATA (i think its that) takes over in some situations.

agentkgb · Wed May 02, 2007 7:54 pm

NATO?

Maximus Vigilus · Thu May 03, 2007 10:18 pm

Quote: What do you think of the UN?

Useless, completely.

The functions the UN was supposed to serve when it was created are not being fulfilled to an appropriate level.

Citizen187 · Thu May 03, 2007 10:27 pm

Doesn't mean it'll always be useless, it could improve and I support it in the hopes that it will.
And, though this is completely off-topic, what does your signature mean?

Maximus Vigilus · Thu May 03, 2007 10:41 pm

Citizen187 wrote: Doesn't mean it'll always be useless, it could improve and I support it in the hopes that it will.
And, though this is completely off-topic, what does your signature mean?

Unless some radical changes are made the UN will remain as it is.

Im not sure if I want to give up the meaning of my signature.

NightSnake · Thu May 03, 2007 11:40 pm

Maximus Vigilus wrote: Citizen187 wrote: Doesn't mean it'll always be useless, it could improve and I support it in the hopes that it will.
And, though this is completely off-topic, what does your signature mean?

Unless some radical changes are made the UN will remain as it is.
Agreed, and it is unlikely that these radical changes will ever be made, so I don't like the UN.

Maximus Vigilus wrote: Im not sure if I want to give up the meaning of my signature.
I googled it.

Maximus Vigilus · Thu May 03, 2007 11:49 pm

Maximus Vigilus wrote: Im not sure if I want to give up the meaning of my signature.
Quote: I googled it.

Sigh*

Google, the ultimate evil.

Redneck · Sat May 05, 2007 4:13 am

I am against the UN. They're worthless, they cannot stop any of the major powers from going to war. we witnessed this when the US basically told the UN to piss off and invaded Iraq. the UN even has a hard time preventing minor civil wars like the ones in Africa. I do like the idea of having an international forum for nations to have discussions, but I think the UN is just set up wrong and will never work.

Maximus Vigilus · Sat May 05, 2007 9:40 pm

Quote: They cannot stop any of the major powers from going to war

They could but they won't.

Quote: but I think the UN is just set up wrong and will never work.

That I actually do agree with, the major problem with the UN is the interests are different from what actually needs to be done.

Redneck · Sat May 05, 2007 9:51 pm

Quote: They could but they won't.

How could they stop the US, China, Russia or Great Britian from going to war? The US and Great Britian are the ones who send most the forces to any UN operation, and sanctions wouldn't work against the US or China because of how much the rest the world depends on their economies.

Maximus Vigilus · Sun May 06, 2007 4:46 pm

Quote: and sanctions wouldn't work against the US or China because of how much the rest the world depends on their economies.

First you just gave yourself one way they could stop them, second of all the UN could stop anyone if they were all actually "United" against any problems posed by other countries. However the way the UN is setup and its policies as of now make it impossible for it to really get anything done.

So honestly the UN is more concerned with economics, hence "they could but they won't"

And because they are not "United" anything they would try to do would not work.

Redneck · Sun May 06, 2007 6:14 pm

like you said they aren't United, no way would countries like Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia agree to sanctions against the US. their entire economies would collapse. Sactions would also actually be a good thing for the US, as it would require the US to become self sufficiant again.

also, if they did put sanctions against the US, the US would likely expelle the UN from New York City, effectivly ending the UN.

The UN isn't concerned with economies per say, its each individual country which is concerned with their countries well being. and most countries would rather let the US go blow up some third world country than risk having their economy collapse. Each country watching out for its own well being is also why you're not seeing many other countries involved in the Sudan, Liberia, or the war on Terror. they don't want to piss off radical Muslims and have a 9/11 type attack happen to them.

Maximus Vigilus · Sun May 06, 2007 6:16 pm

Quote: The UN isn't concerned with economies per say, its each individual country which is concerned with their countries well being. and most countries would rather let the US go blow up some third world country than risk having their economy collapse. Each country watching out for its own well being is also why you're not seeing many other countries involved in the Sudan, Liberia, or the war on Terror. they don't want to piss off radical Muslims and have a 9/11 type attack happen to them.

In a quick summary of everything you just said, you agree they could but they won't.

marketstrat · Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:01 am

yes you are right................

Kopoka · Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:40 am

The UN? Hah...

Its a good idea, but sense when was killing keeping the peace?
There were TONS of events that took places and the UN did nothing! They sat back and watched people die!

They kill in the name of peace -Hypocracy.

They froze in the face of disaster, and stood silent when Terror took hold the world in 2001!

Its worthless, it doesn't do its job, get rid of it.