The UN

[Snuff.]

Something I've been thinking about.

The UN is a legislative body. Legislation, in essence, allows its adherers to do anything that isn't legislated against. Furthermore, adherers have to follow the procedures it lays out- thereby actively decreasing efficiency, roughly speaking.

My question: what would supersede the UN? Would nations--without being bound by the UN--be freer to act by accepted moral imperatives? To take an example, would NATO intervention in the Yugoslav crisis have come sooner and with greater efficacy without the fly-in-molasses reaction of the UN?

Can individual military, economic and political allegiances perform the role of the UN? Would that scenario function to a better or worse degree than the UN currently manages?

Food for thought.

[JACKASS2010]

damn snuffy!! that's one to dwell on!

[crazee horse]

wtf? my mate used to drive for the U.N. they got robbed of there lorrys regularly, and he knew a few who were killed. he had P.T.S.D. afterwards.........................

[phyuckew]

Something I've been thinking about.

The UN is a legislative body. Legislation, in essence, allows its adherers to do anything that isn't legislated against. Furthermore, adherers have to follow the procedures it lays out- thereby actively decreasing efficiency, roughly speaking.

My question: what would supersede the UN? Would nations--without being bound by the UN--be freer to act by accepted moral imperatives? To take an example, would NATO intervention in the Yugoslav crisis have come sooner and with greater efficacy without the fly-in-molasses reaction of the UN?

Can individual military, economic and political allegiances perform the role of the UN? Would that scenario function to a better or worse degree than the UN currently manages?

Food for thought.

At the time the UN was created it was worth it but unfortunately, sadly, it has outlasted its usefullness.

These are different times from then and to upgrade an ancient plan is not my idea of fixing a problem that needs to be fixed. The fiasco in Yugoslavia where they dragged their heels is an example and caused the "ethnic cleansing" of untold civilians. The trouble with Somalia is another example of "dragging one's feet".

Just scrap the whole lot and start all over again with modern technology/ideas/human existence a priority. There is no reason for anyone in the world to go hungry and as far as stopping conflicts in parts of the world it too should be brought up to date. Hell, this is the 21st century and we have advanced enough for great people to step to the plate.

Well, that's my take on it anyway.

[sib]

It's been a while since I studied anything on the UN. My biggest concern is that it is simply a political entity that is subject to being used politically by those with more clout. If I remember correctly, not every member of the UN has the same authority, the security counsil for instance, gives veto power to a select few. So the there is no real concept of egalatarianism.

Additionally, a nation savy in this political processes can easly get the justification for it's wants by pandering and pleading before the UN. This is most obvious with my nations entry into Iraq. In the Iraq case, the testimony was contrived and manipulated to suit the end game, invasion. And because the UN sactioned the invasion, it also protected America from reprisal.

So I think the UN serves a few, the most powerful, even if nefarious. So I see the UN as a political body designed to keep the status quo. The UN isn't completely useless, mind you, they do a lot to address suffering and famine. I see the benevolent side of the UN much like a charity and I see the human rights part of the UN like I see Amnesty Internation. More of an advocate trying to make the world aware of crisises.

I see nations looking out for their nations best interest even if that goes against the grain of the UN. The UN only gets involved militarily (protectionism) with smaller nations, the big boys don't even get a look. I don't think this is anything new, I think the league of nations worked only if all those nations wanted it to work and when nations decided to act selfishly we ended up in wars. I don't think we will ever legislate over the top of sovereign super powers, they simply won't let it happen. Those same sovereign nations will be more than happy to see that less powerful nations abide by UN mandates, though.

[Snuff.]

Additionally, a nation savy in this political processes can easly get the justification for it's wants by pandering and pleading before the UN. This is most obvious with my nations entry into Iraq. In the Iraq case, the testimony was contrived and manipulated to suit the end game, invasion. And because the UN sactioned the invasion, it also protected America from reprisal.

Dude... unless the books have been drastically changed while my gaze was averted the UN vetoed the Iraq invasion and effectively declared it illegal.

[sib]

Dude... unless the books have been drastically changed while my gaze was averted the UN vetoed the Iraq invasion and effectively declared it illegal.

UN resolution 1441 reinstated weapons inspections and stated "serious consequences" for Iraq if inspectors weren't permitted. The US interpreted that meant they could used military force if inspections weren't complied with. The US was using the broadest interpretation of 1441, of course, and there is a dispute over what "serious consequences" meant.

There is also an art in constructing and writing policies, whether business or political that allows for wiggle room and interpretation. Ambiguity serves politics well.

[Snuff.]

UN resolution 1441 reinstated weapons inspections and stated "serious consequences" for Iraq if inspectors weren't permitted. The US interpreted that meant they could used military force if inspections weren't complied with. The US was using the broadest interpretation of 1441, of course, and there is a dispute over what "serious consequences" meant.

There is also an art in constructing and writing policies, whether business or political that allows for wiggle room and interpretation. Ambiguity serves politics well.

No, I see where you're coming from, but none of that was agreed upon by the security council- the authoritative body on the subject. In fact, they vetoed it; thus striking such rationalisations from the record and effectively declaring the invasion illegal under international law.

[FuriousZ]

Something I've been thinking about.

The UN is a legislative body. Legislation, in essence, allows its adherers to do anything that isn't legislated against. Furthermore, adherers have to follow the procedures it lays out- thereby actively decreasing efficiency, roughly speaking.

My question: what would supersede the UN? Would nations--without being bound by the UN--be freer to act by accepted moral imperatives? To take an example, would NATO intervention in the Yugoslav crisis have come sooner and with greater efficacy without the fly-in-molasses reaction of the UN?

Can individual military, economic and political allegiances perform the role of the UN? Would that scenario function to a better or worse degree than the UN currently manages?

Food for thought.


No food, just snacks

U.N. is ,and here come the dutch proverbs, a wax nose and carrying water to the see.
Way I see it any crisis anywhere can be shut down and anyhilated before even becoming an issue.
Its the size of importance that dictates wheter action will be taken or not by the powers that be.
Things will only balance when truth is known and acted by.

And this may take awhile

[DC Thug]

Snuff, I recommend that you take a look at a few theories of international politics.

The first one is called Realism. Realism is based upon the Machiavellian belief that might makes right. Power is everything to a Realist. Realism however does seek stability, and it does this through alliance formations between countries of comparable size to those much larger and stronger. Realism is the system believed to be in effect right before World War I.

Liberalism, or Institutionalism, is more like the world of the UN which you describe. Nations voluntarily cede some of their power to an organization which manages and negotiates between them. Liberalism believes that the tighter the lines which bind us, the less likely we will go to war. These ties include military, political, and most importantly, economic interests.

I'd go into Neo-realism, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union, that one is moot.

Finally, there is Constructivism, which is very "touchy and feely." It views the international world through whatever lenses you want to view them with. Stupid post-modern bullshit which is hard to argue against since there is no firm stance like in Realism or Liberalism. Obviously, I don't care for this theory. :)

So depending on which paradigm you care to view the world with, your answer and reactions to certain issues are dictated by your ideological stance.

Any introductory International Relations textbook will give you the same information. Hope this helps!

[Grimmancer]

Its general chat so I wont even get started on what I think about the UN...
But I will say is,
Allegiances work better than the UN, NATO Has done far more in education rebuilding, feeding a population than the UN ever has done. even if and when the UN takes credit for it it was the NATO Nations that supplied and actually did anything...
But the UN really has no Power cause it is a vacuum of good intentioned BS...
For the last 20 years the UN is really a fake product that the power holders sedate the rest of the world with.

[Tilly]

Its general chat so I wont even get started on what I think about the UN...
But I will say is,
Allegiances work better than the UN, NATO Has done far more in education rebuilding, feeding a population than the UN ever has done. even if and when the UN takes credit for it it was the NATO Nations that supplied and actually did anything...
But the UN really has no Power cause it is a vacuum of good intentioned BS...
For the last 20 years the UN is really a fake product that the power holders sedate the rest of the world with.

That's pretty much my stance on the UN as well.

[Snuff.]

NATO is a military alliance. What its member states do as regards humanitarian aid has nothing to do with NATO. And the UN organises a shit-tonne of humanitarian aid, regardless of your opinion of it. It functions well in that respect.

[sib]

No, I see where you're coming from, but none of that was agreed upon by the security council- the authoritative body on the subject. In fact, they vetoed it; thus striking such rationalisations from the record and effectively declaring the invasion illegal under international law.

What were the consequences for this declaration? If I recall Iraq did have consequences when it invaded Kuwait. That's why I say it is a political body designed to keep the status quo. Two somewhat similar situations and two very different responses. DC Thug made some good points above, also got some rep for ya, DC. Snuff I give you rep but your meter doesn't show anything, I'm either shootin' blanks, or the Soopa Mod. thing prevents it. :1orglaugh:

DC Thug's comments on perspective make sense, I just feel that the nature of, for lack of a better word, "committee" work allows the perspective to be skewed by the most powerful and sometimes the most organized. The powerful can often coalesce the subordinant nations perhaps with incentives behind closed doors. The powerful can also intimidate. Member countries have to consider the implications of their vote and specifically trade agreements that may lead to a disruption of revenue. So often things that seem black and white may not be for political reasons.

[MontysDouble]

My question: what would supersede the UN? Would nations--without being bound by the UN--be freer to act by accepted moral imperatives? To take an example, would NATO intervention in the Yugoslav crisis have come sooner and with greater efficacy without the fly-in-molasses reaction of the UN?

Can individual military, economic and political allegiances perform the role of the UN? Would that scenario function to a better or worse degree than the UN currently manages?

Food for thought.Wow, this is a big topic.

Probably the conflict in Yugoslavia would have been far less catastrophic had NATO been able to act more rapidly -without having to wait for a UN mandate- and the country would now still exist as a single unit and not a small collection of ethnically-streamed rump states.

However, that's not to sat that there should not be a UN or other supra-national body: Without a clear mandate from such a body, even the best intentioned intervention can be taken as imperialist/neo-colonialist military adventuring.

The ICC is a really, really good idea. Idea. How could it be made an effective tool for justice? Well, a good start would be if all UN member countries were asked to sign the relevant treaty recognising the ICC's jurisdiction, and maybe take away the permanent Security Council seat (and veto) from any member nations who don't comply. Time will tell whether the ICC will be effective at prosecuting major criminals, or will restrict itself to nabbing the odd machete wielding tribal leader.

Mind you, the UN isn't a monolithic body:

IAEA, ICAO, IFAD, IMO, ITU, FAO, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WHO, WIPO, WMO and -just to prove that they aren't totally addicted to alphabet soup- the World Bank. Then there are sub-bodies. The amount of red tape involved would probably enable Christo to tie a bow around Jupiter. This little gem from the International Labour Organisation:

The ILO's supervisory bodies -- the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards -- regularly examine the application of ILS in ILO member States. Representation and complaint procedures can also be initiated against states that fail to comply with conventions they have ratified.Key words highlighted here: If you don't sign the treaty, you're not bound; thus sub-Saharan Africa (where the carrot of aid from the same organisation that wants treaty X signed is uncannily sticklike) gets a whole slew of ILO offices, yet China's factory owners are troubled by little more than the odd forewarned visit by 'inspection teams' from Nike.

NATO is a military alliance. What its member states do as regards humanitarian aid has nothing to do with NATO. And the UN organises a shit-tonne of humanitarian aid, regardless of your opinion of it. It functions well in that respect.Yes, getting food into hungry mouths is a very good thing. Doing so by importing thousands of tonnes of grain from elsewhere (chiefly surplus from the USA, Canada and Australia) while doing nothing to modernise agriculture in the countries suffering famine, and doing so on an ongoing basis, is coming to be seen as an unmitigated disaster. Farmers in third world countries can't compete under free trade (not having million dollar combine harvesters etc.) and when the rains and a season's crop fail, the poor sod gets a double whammy as WFP free grain drops the bottom out of the market.

Mind, there's a lot of humdrum stuff that is overseen by UN agencies: International post, telephony, aviation, shipping and trade are harmonised -after a fashion- by UN created agencies. It's not all about General Assembly hollow posturing and high-minded ineffectiveness, or Security Council inaction due to vetoes by self-interested permanent members.

[Big Dave]

The UN will never be as effective as it could if it was an autonomous body with the might to enforce its laws and agreements between its member nations.

We all know the UN is rife with corruption with everybody trying to get a peice of every action. The security council is set so as to allow stonewalling and isn't even capable of actually doing anything of conseqeunce.

The way to go is an autonomous triumvirate, that would have a standing army and control of space....

but then we're just talking about a world gov't and thats fucked in the goat ass

[Big Ozzie]

Its general chat so I wont even get started on what I think about the UN...
But I will say is,
Allegiances work better than the UN, NATO Has done far more in education rebuilding, feeding a population than the UN ever has done. even if and when the UN takes credit for it it was the NATO Nations that supplied and actually did anything...
But the UN really has no Power cause it is a vacuum of good intentioned BS...
For the last 20 years the UN is really a fake product that the power holders sedate the rest of the world with.

HEAR, HEAR!!!!

I agree totally....OR I totally agree! :1orglaugh: :1orglaugh:
...and why can't I issue any Rep?

[Taurino]

fuck the UN.

Plain and simple.

[DC Thug]

fuck the UN.

Plain and simple.

lol this is the first thing that came into my mind when i read this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/N.W.A.StraightOuttaComptonalbumcover.jpg

[breaker19]

The U.N. is useless and proved it in 2003 when the U.S. attacked Iraq. Most of the war protesters seem to forget that it was the U.N. that issued mandate after mandate against Saddam's regime. Before the war started the U.N. kept telling Saddam over and over to let in inspectors, but Saddam kept thumbing his nose at them. The U.N. responded by issuing resolutions with deadlines. When the deadlines passed the U.N. simply passed another resolution with another deadline. Saddam quickly figured out that the U.N. was a paper tiger and presented no threat.
Iran is proving the same point today. The regime there is blatantly threatening the peace in the middle east and the U.N. is ignoring the threat.

I am enraged that my tax dollars are funding such a corrupt and useless organization and wish the U.S. would pull out.

[DC Thug]

The U.N. is useless and proved it in 2003 when the U.S. attacked Iraq. Most of the war protesters seem to forget that it was the U.N. that issued mandate after mandate against Saddam's regime. Before the war started the U.N. kept telling Saddam over and over to let in inspectors, but Saddam kept thumbing his nose at them. The U.N. responded by issuing resolutions with deadlines. When the deadlines passed the U.N. simply passed another resolution with another deadline. Saddam quickly figured out that the U.N. was a paper tiger and presented no threat.
Iran is proving the same point today. The regime there is blatantly threatening the peace in the middle east and the U.N. is ignoring the threat.

I am enraged that my tax dollars are funding such a corrupt and useless organization and wish the U.S. would pull out.

What are you talking about? The US has NEVER paid it's UN dues. EVER. No tax dollars are going to the UN.

[breaker19]

What are you talking about? The US has NEVER paid it's UN dues. EVER. No tax dollars are going to the UN.

Missed the whole point!:rolleyes2:

[puggyd1417]

No we dont pay dues, we host the conclave, provide 80% of its military might at our own expense, provide the muscle to back its spineless authority. The Un threatens agressors with OUR MILITARY! The Russians and the French are useless and The chinese are hiding behind the veil of ignorance thus leaving the UK and The US as the only ones willing to act on the resolutions passed.

The UN needs to be abolished. It is a corrupt feudal system where the king(sec gen)
can direct whatever he wants. And I don't buy the humanitarian aid thing, because even hitler tried to feed his own impoverished. That does not mean that hitler is absolved of his own crimes.

There is no way that the french and russians who have profited from the UN deadlock and corruption should still have the political control they have.


It is time that the US and The UK leave the UN. IT is time that we no longer let our own sovereignty be placed in jeopardy so that the french and russians can hack more oil for food scams.

[DoMo]

the US-militery isnt better. Its controled just by a handfull of men...and those you prolly not even know o_O

fuck it all. World gonna change when China gets in 30-5o years the Worldpower anyways.

[Raidenator]

the US-militery isnt better. Its controled just by a handfull of men...and those you prolly not even know o_O

fuck it all. World gonna change when China gets in 30-5o years the Worldpower anyways.

God, I didn't even want to read through that abortion of a post. Yet, here I am.

[Big Dave]

the US-militery isnt better. Its controled just by a handfull of men...and those you prolly not even know o_O

fuck it all. World gonna change when China gets in 30-5o years the Worldpower anyways.


Wait... What? What military isn't ran by a couple of Big Dogs? Its called chain of command.

Well I guess you better start learning Chinese so that once they're in charge you can properlly talk shit to them on a forum. Might I suggest Rosetta Stone? It really works.

[Tilly]

the US-militery isnt better. Its controled just by a handfull of men...and those you prolly not even know o_O

fuck it all. World gonna change when China gets in 30-5o years the Worldpower anyways.

What? :wth: Is the military supposed to be a democracy or something? I don't get it...

[DoMo]

sorry, i forgot to add that the us-army got prolly more power than the us-grovement itself

[MontysDouble]

sorry, i forgot to add that the us-army got prolly more power than the us-grovement itself:rofl:

Riiiiight. :rolleyes2:

Anyway, insulting a dumb post isn't why I bump this thread- this is:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ambassador_stages_coup_at_un

:D

[Nanabunga]

Holy shit!

Big Dave posted in this thread!

:omg: