UN - One member - one vote - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

goober · #31 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007

The UN is a first step, or actually a second step, the League of Nations was the first step, towards an international framework to resolve differences with out war.
Since it has been formed, about a million people a year have died in wars on average. Sounds bad, but this is a huge improvement over the 50 years before it was formed when hundreds of millions were killed in wars.
Like every human endeavor, it is far from perfect, but it has had numerous successes, and all in all costs only a small fraction of what wars cost in the first half of the 20th century. If the current administration had gone through the UN instead of launching an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, perhaps another 100,000 lives would have been spared.

Diuretic · #32 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

Ummm No. The United States and Russia solved that one on our own.

I disagree. Not completely but I don't think the US and USSR resolved it without the assistance of the UN, that was my point. My memory might be faulty (Google is always right of course) but U Thant did a lot of work to get things rolling. There's always the open theatre of the UN - which Stevenson used to remarkable effect - but of course the parties to a dispute will negotiate in private and that's exactly what happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know I'm putting a hypothetical but I wonder if the outcome would have been as successful without the UN being in place? Anyway I suppose I'm getting off the point here a bit.

CowboyTed · #33 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamperpr00f

International law is a farce. Nations do what they are capable of getting away with. The power behind the UN (the power that comes from international alliances) has existed since before the UN and in fact exists apart from the UN. I will say this though. The United Nations does serve to encourage, to some degree, more international discourse.

International Law solves well over 90% of international problems... Ireland and the UK have problems with each other all the time and International law is used to solve those problems.. We don't intend to fight wars but this is how we solve diputes over such thing as fishing rights, nuclear powerstations etc etc...

The UN's solves problems for law abiding nations...

Would you get rid of the police force because crimes happen...

Does the UN deserve more support? Yes. Do countries act irresponable? Yes.. But without the UN we would have 95% of the countries involved in disputes with there neighbours...

By the way you have not commented on other areas like
UNICEF
Human rights
Nuclear weapons
Arms dealing
Disaster relief
Nation building
Election monitoring
Climate Change
Landmines
Human trafficing
....

Un Troop deployments are just a small part the UN mandate

EricOKC · #34 (**permalink**) 04-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Does the UN deserve more support?

No. Personally I favor Pax Americana, but thats just me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Do countries act irresponable? Yes.. But without the UN we would have 95% of the countries involved in disputes with there neighbours...

And this percentage is different than real life exactly how?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

By the way you have not commented on other areas like
UNICEF

One charity among many, and less efficient than most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Human rights

You werent serious about that were you?

Oh wait - you didnt mean any actual EFFECT in that regard, just a lot of posturing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Nuclear weapons

THOSE are managed by simple lack of technology and fear of the US stepping on the other country's head. US and USSR nuclear proliferation was dealt with by the nations involved - NOT the UN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Arms dealing

What about it? It is a legal business not regulated or affected by the UN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Disaster relief

You did say UN right? You realize the bulk of any international disaster relief comes from the US do you not? Do you also realize we do it not because of UN mandate, but because thats just how we are? (Not denying the obvious political bonus the US may get out of it)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Nation building

Not being sarcastic here: Would you please name a single example of the UN doing this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Election monitoring

Yeah so? This has had little to no real effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Climate Change

You MUST be kidding. I wont even address that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Landmines

What about them? Private organizations foot the bill for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Human trafficing
....

Typically addressed through the laws of other nations - not by anything done by the UN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Un Troop deployments are just a small part the UN mandate

The UN is a joke - nothing more.

tamperpr00f · #35 (**permalink**) 04-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

I think the fact that mankind hasn't been thrown back to the dark ages again is a testiment to effectiveness of the UN.

I think it a testament to the alliances between sovereign nations. And at least to some degree the fear of "good" nations.

hairballxavier · #36 (**permalink**) 04-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

International Law solves well over 90% of international problems... Ireland and the UK have problems with each other all the time and International law is used to solve those problems.. We don't intend to fight wars but this is how we solve diputes over such thing as fishing rights, nuclear powerstations etc etc...

The UN's solves problems for law abiding nations...

Would you get rid of the police force because crimes happen...

Does the UN deserve more support? Yes. Do countries act irresponable? Yes.. But without the UN we would have 95% of the countries involved in disputes with there neighbours...

By the way you have not commented on other areas like
UNICEF
Human rights
Nuclear weapons
Arms dealing
Disaster relief
Nation building
Election monitoring
Climate Change
Landmines
Human trafficing
....

Un Troop deployments are just a small part the UN mandate

What about The WHO and that whole eradicating smallpox thing. You know... getting rid of that horrible plague that decimated mankind for centuries. Seems like an accomplishment to me. But I guess one doesn't notice because people forget about non-threats that don't kill everyone anymore.

Can we give a kudos to the UN for that?

caseras · #37 (**permalink**) 04-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Congo
Lebanon
Yom Kippur War
Cyprus

But it is easy to show there failures rather than there successses because acievements in negociation is not as defineable as a millitary operation...

But Tamper the UN spents a tiny fraction of money of the US millitary and have produced results in the list I gave earlier which you have failed to point out... Without UN there is no international law or agreements...

you forgot Ivroy Coast

caseras · #38 (**permalink**) 04-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

No. Personally I favor Pax Americana, but thats just me.

Of course, for once UN says no to US the US doesn't want to keep their toy anymore.... pathetic...

Quote:

And this percentage is different than real life exactly how?

I'm not sure all African nations or Asia nations are in war currently....

Quote:

One charity among many, and less efficient than most.

It clearly shows you actually don't know the topic. Even if it saves just 1 life it means it is efficient....

Quote:

THOSE are managed by simple lack of technology and fear of the US stepping on the other country's head. US and USSR nuclear proliferation was dealt with by the nations involved - NOT the UN.

yes, so what ? what's your point ? Do you mean "it was our problem and we deal with it without the UN, as a civilized nation ! "

Quote:

You did say UN right? You realize the bulk of any international disaster relief comes from the US do you not? Do you also realize we do it not because of UN mandate, but because thats just how we are? (Not denying the obvious political bonus the US may get out of it)

Again, it clearly shows you do know this topic.... BTW you managed alone the Katrina Hurrican and we saw the result....

Quote:

Not being sarcastic here: Would you please name a single example of the UN doing this?

Sure, Israel

Quote:

You MUST be kidding. I wont even address that.

He didn't say GW. And you won't adress that maybe because there are plenty of examples to provide.

.

Diuretic · #39 (**permalink**) 04-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

What about The WHO and that whole eradicating smallpox thing. You know... getting rid of that horrible plague that decimated mankind for centuries. Seems like an accomplishment to me. But I guess one doesn't notice because people forget about non-threats that don't kill everyone anymore.

Can we give a kudos to the UN for that?

Good point, I know I forget all the other UN agencies and sort of just focus on the Security Council but you're right, the WHO, UNICEF, UNHCR and so on, do good work.

EricOKC · #40 (**permalink**) 04-09-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

Of course, for once UN says no to US the US doesn't want to keep their toy anymore.... pathetic...

The UN is hardly our toy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

I'm not sure all African nations or Asia nations are in war currently....

Perhaps not currently...give it time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

It clearly shows you actually don't know the topic. Even if it saves just 1 life it means it is efficient....

Um - no, thats not the case. If it saves 1 life at the cost of thousands of others would you still call it efficient? Additionally, when you're dealing with massive amounts of money being wasted, whats' the point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

yes, so what ? what's your point ? Do you mean "it was our problem and we deal with it without the UN, as a civilized nation ! "

Pretty much. Ted was saying that it was all the UN's doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

Again, it clearly shows you do know this topic.... BTW you managed alone the Katrina Hurrican and we saw the result....

Dont let reality enter the equation. The issue with Katrina was a failure of local government, nothing more.

You'll note we also dealt with it entirely on our own. Didnt see the UN even offering to assist.

Now, if you want to attack the US rather than dealing with the UN (which IS the topic i might add), then I'll be MORE than happy to start pointing out where France has fucked up. Lets see...where shall we start....

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

Sure, Israel

They've done that pretty well on their own. The UN is not "building" Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseras

He didn't say GW. And you won't adress that maybe because there are plenty of examples to provide.

No - i wont address it because its crap.

caseras · #41 (**permalink**) 04-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

The UN is hardly our toy.

I tend to think the opposite...

Quote:

Perhaps not currently...give it time.

And how many times ? Do we need to wait for another 50 years to see how the UN is efficient to you ?

Quote:

Um - no, thats not the case. If it saves 1 life at the cost of thousands of others would you still call it efficient? Additionally, when you're dealing with massive amounts of money being wasted, whats' the point?

You know it saves a lot of people from famine, it provides water, and schools and a lot of stuff like this. If there is one thing which is very necessare about UN it's UNICEF.

Quote:

Pretty much. Ted was saying that it was all the UN's doing.

IT's clear you don't understand what was my point. My point is, if you are able to deal with you own problem, why the UN should be involved ? there are no reasons. UN have been made for countries whose are incapable to deal with their problems, and in this world, it happens.

Quote:

Dont let reality enter the equation. The issue with Katrina was a failure of local government, nothing more.

You'll note we also dealt with it entirely on our own. Didnt see the UN even offering to assist.

And of course you are sure about that, aren't you ?

here is the truth. Actually, even the US needed the UN's aid. just guess without the UN what could be the fate of some countries in the world ...

United Nations steps up aid to US in wake of Hurricane Katrina

Quote:

Now, if you want to attack the US rather than dealing with the UN (which IS the topic i might add), then I'll be MORE than happy to start pointing out where France has fucked up. Lets see...where shall we start....

Actually it wasn't an attack, it was a point. But I didn't expect you didn't know your country have had some help from UN.

Quote:

They've done that pretty well on their own. The UN is not "building" Israel.

Are you sure ?

And of course, you believe the jewish people has created its state alone.... ???

Quote:

No - i wont address it because its crap.

What do you mean ?

Fozmonster · #42 (**permalink**) 04-10-2007

Eric.

You seem fairly convinced of the UNs faults - how would you reform it?

CowboyTed · #43 (**permalink**) 04-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

No. Personally I favor Pax Americana, but thats just me.

And this percentage is different than real life exactly how?

One charity among many, and less efficient than most.

You werent serious about that were you?

Oh wait - you didnt mean any actual EFFECT in that regard, just a lot of posturing.

THOSE are managed by simple lack of technology and fear of the US stepping on the other country's head. US and USSR nuclear proliferation was dealt with by the nations involved - NOT the UN.

What about it? It is a legal business not regulated or affected by the UN.

You did say UN right? You realize the bulk of any international disaster relief comes from the US do you not? Do you also realize we do it not because of UN mandate, but because thats just how we are? (Not denying the obvious political bonus the US may get out of it)

Not being sarcastic here: Would you please name a single example of the UN doing this?

Yeah so? This has had little to no real effect.

You MUST be kidding. I wont even address that.

What about them? Private organizations foot the bill for this.

Typically addressed through the laws of other nations - not by anything done by the UN.

The UN is a joke - nothing more.

Eric,

Do you even know what the UN does... It's not just the security council...

The US doesn't regulary supply may troops to the UN so you don't know what they do...

How do you think civil nations should sort out disputes...

UNICEF is very good organisation that does alot of good in the world in some of the worst conditions.. There is other NGOs but in disaster relief the UN in the organiser in most cases..

Eric, you have no interest what happens in Africa and other severly poor areas of the world. Eric do you how poor these areas are and how unstable they are... The UN is alot of times the only hope these people have got. The US doesn't send troops in without exit straegies...

Eric your all critism without any alternatives... Since the US goverment is one of the meanest goverments in the world when compared to GDP I would advise to be embarressed and say very little...
Donor per Captia

MattLarson · #44 (**permalink**) 04-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Eric your all critism without any alternatives... Since the US goverment is one of the meanest goverments in the world when compared to GDP I would advise to be embarressed and say very little...
Donor per Captia

And yet we still give more than any other country, by a long shot - and that is just government donations.

Private sector charity probably equals what the government gives.

Per capita means squat - we give more actual money than anyone else.

Matt

EricOKC · #45 (**permalink**) 04-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fozmonster

Eric.

You seem fairly convinced of the UNs faults - how would you reform it?

Why reform it? I would abolish it.

The world is not ready for a unifying government, and the UN is frankly broken beyond repair. It was a good idea, badly executed, which has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.