Does the world need the UN?

Belgium Post ^ | 12-17-2004 | Arseny Oganesyan

[processing please hold]

The trouble is that the world is divided over the future of the UN, which is nothing more than a burden for the neo-conservative team of US President George Bush. It must be sustained, but it is virtually useless when urgent and resolute actions are needed, as in the case of Yugoslavia and Iraq. Why should the world's sole superpower confine itself to acting within the international legal framework stipulated by the UN Charter, if it can attain its goals with the help of regional blocs (NATO) or by creating ad hoc international coalitions?

[BobS]

The UN is useless while the Lowest Common Denominator of Nations are in control of comittees. That is the PC application to international bodies. Useless, inefficient, and wasteful to both natural and human resources. They sit in a nice piece of river front property and just spend money and create difficulties that they cannot solve without Divine intervention. And about 12 countries defied the rules of Man while they are shoving paper between offices and coffee breaks.

Ship them to France and send them not a single penny more.

[processing please hold]

Look at the UN's role or lack thereof in Iraq. One bomb, and they scurry off like the rats they are.

[GOP_1900AD]

No.

[dljordan]

If we want to achieve a harmonius, one-world government, that cares for all people and their unique cultures equally and distributes wealth fairly as it is needed to bring about the end of hunger, genocide, homophobia, gun crime, Aids and mean people, then yes.

Kumbaya

[processing please hold]

For other Western styled democracies to still support the UN is beyond belief. How can they, in good conscience still show support for such a useless, corrupt organization astounds me.

[processing please hold]

I love the subtle nuisances of sarcasm.

[susiek]

"I have been against the U.N. since the fiasco at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They are a thorn which needs to be removed from our side."

The U.N. has been screwing things up for much, much longer than just since the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. It has been a very, very long time since the U.N. was anything but one big mass of corruption tempered only by silliness.

[processing please hold]

That is when I made a conscious decision to wash my hands of them completely and forever.

I watched as things began to fall apart where the UN was concerned. I was one of those where hope springs eternal. I found out with the UN....there is no hope.

[RetNav96]

If the UN does collapse, I’ll start buying a lot more shares of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE, BAE and a host of other military equipment stocks.

[Billthedrill]

Why should the world's sole superpower confine itself to acting within the international legal framework stipulated by the UN Charter, if it can attain its goals with the help of regional blocs (NATO) or by creating ad hoc international coalitions?

While that is a perfectly legitimate question, it misrepresents what actually happened in Iraq. The members of the UN (i.e. France) got cold feet only after it became evident the Bush had every intention of enforcing the resolutions already passed within that international legal framework. Were these not intended to be enforced they shouldn't have been passed - passing empty rhetoric and declaring the problem solved is precisely what is wrong with the UN.

[processing please hold]

I'm sure people are doing that now with the UN in existence. What war have they prevented? In my opinion, the UN is only good for handing out food parcels and they don't do that very well. Look at the starving people around the world.

They are a farce, pure and simple. The leaders at the top are lining their pockets with taxpayers money and telling the rest of the world to go to Hades.

[processing please hold]

Bush rocked the boat by actually enforcing their resolutions. I think they were caught off-guard by someone who would interpet a resolution of 'serious consequences' as something worth more than a scrape of paper it was written on. You can bet they won't make that mistake in the future....if they have a future that is.

[processing please hold]

The invasion of Iraq and the Abu Ghraib scandal led to the defeat of the US in the battle "for the minds and hearts" of the global public. Several shops in Ankara, the capital of a NATO member state, have "Americans Not Allowed" signs in their windows above photographs of US servicemen torturing Abu Ghraib inmates. When Washington criticizes the UN for its failure to settle the Iraqi problem, it disregards the fact that this helped the organization to keep face, in particular, in the Arab world. But the actions of the US administration had achieved the opposite: the potentialof American "soft power" has decreased everywhere in the world. But king-of-the-hill America does not seem to notice this.

This is the part that angers me the most about the article. Where is the condemnation of Saddam murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? Or the million that was killed in the Iran war?

They focus on panties on the heads of prisoners.

[daddyOwe]

No, but the UN needs the world. Where else would they get their money?

[RetNav96]

I buy those stocks now.
UN has provided a means of preventing many piss ant countries from getting hardware. We have used it often in that capacity.
UN gone; sanctions gone, inspections gone... free market arms sales. I wouldn't mind it; I’d buy some European, Israeli and Russian arms stocks too.

[processing please hold]

Exactly. America needs to come up with an alternative to the UN. An organization that truly works for the world. Where each member state comes from a democraticaly elected government. Fellow members will be able to scrutinize all future members and vote Yea or Nay on their admittance.

The UN is a lost cause.

[processing please hold]

Sanctions gone...inspections gone. Are you kidding me?

Is the UN in Iran? They have given them a wink and a nod. Have they stopped their proliferation of nuclear material? Has the UN stopped the North Koreans from acquiring nuclear weapons?

The UN is a joke. They have accomplished nothing except lining their pockets.

[wizard61]

In theory there needs to be a counter balance to the USA.

In my view, however, even with its many flaws the USA is more moral than the UN. The USA knows things like Abu Graib were bad. The USA has multiple vocal oppositions, such as the other party and the press.

The UN can shrug off any scandal no one cares. No opposition, no press watch dog, no oversight, no competition...

And so, without moral credibility, without armed forces, without economic power- it has not more effectiveness than what the USA gives to it.

Not a great situation.

[Paul_Denton]

definently NO!

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

No, if for no other reason then Alger Hiss was involved in its creation.