Has the UN Failed?

[Fishyland]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

[Noobubersland]

What's your opinion?

[Farnhamia]

What's your opinion?

You know, I was wondering the same thing.

[TaQud]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

Sorry but I don't think the mods will tolerate flame wars. Plus we need your opinion

[Meowfoundland]

No, it's done a lot of good things. It may not be super efficient or amazingly effective, but it's better than nothing.

Auch, your opinion bitte.

[Tanovart]

I think the UN is a good idea, but in practice it's an epic fail (just like communism!) It seems to be the US' pawn.


Oh, and their flag sucks.

[Icoservmot]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

Other way around in my opinion, but who cares. I say let UN die. It'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[Blakk Metal]

YOU MENTIONED THE ORGANIZATION THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED!

[Takaram]

It was never going to instantly create world peace, but in general I would say that it generally has made the world better than it would be without it.

[Silent Majority]

It certainly does at least one thing well, and that is keeping independent websites from using their name and logo without their permission.

[Creative Vikings]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

No, I do not believe it is the pawn of the US, what I do believe it's close to being set on the track to become a second 'League of Nations'.

[The UK in Exile]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

it was meant to stop the US and the USSR going to war with each other.

so far its been a smashing success.

[Fishyland]

My opinion is that ultimately the UN has failed. And all in all its just US's pawn.

[The Republic of Lanos]

My opinion is that ultimately the UN has failed. And all in all its just US's pawn.

Really? The US can't get the shit in Syria to stop thanks to Russia and China. If it was the pawn of the United States, we'd be running the world by now.

*checks* Nope.

[Altito Asmoro]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

Peace? UN failed to made peace!!! Look at Somalia, they never have peace. What I think, is that UN is not US pawn, but UN is the Western's pawn.

[Tanovart]

Well, has it? Is the UN really that global force for peace and equality that it was meant to be? Or is it just The United States' pawn? Or is it just a general laughing stock?
Let's go nationstates! Let's see some good arguments! (And possibly nationalistic flame wars...)

it was meant to stop the US and the USSR going to war with each other.

so far its been a smashing success.

If that was its only goal, then it succeeded. It serves no purpose currently, then.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

My opinion is that ultimately the UN has failed. And all in all its just US's pawn.

Failed how? Do you mean the Security Council? The World Health Organisation? UNICEF? UNESCO? etc etc etc

Bugger it - here is a list of the orgs from wiki

1 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
2 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
3 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
4 International Labour Organization (ILO)
5 International Maritime Organization (IMO)
6 International Monetary Fund (IMF)
7 International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
8 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
9 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
10 Universal Postal Union (UPU)
11 World Bank Group

11.1 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
11.2 International Finance Corporation (IFC)
11.3 International Development Association (IDA)

12 World Health Organization (WHO)
13 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
14 World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
15 World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
16 Former specialized agencies
17 Related and comparable organizations

17.1 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
17.2 World Trade Organization (WTO)
17.3 Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
17.4 CTBTO Preparatory Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ed_Nations

How have they failed?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

My opinion is that ultimately the UN has failed. And all in all its just US's pawn.

If the UN is just the US' pawn, why does it constantly condemn Israel, an ally of the US?

Rather, I would say that the UN is a failure because it is not any one nation's (or a group of nation's) pawn. Nobody can get anything done because there are too many conflicting agendas in play, particularly by the security council members.

Some aspects of the UN work, of course. UNESCO and the World Heritage Site deal are moth worthy endeavors which are not complete failures.

[The UK in Exile]

it was meant to stop the US and the USSR going to war with each other.

so far its been a smashing success.

If that was its only goal, then it succeeded. It serves no purpose currently, then.

its current purpose is to stop the US and the Russian Federation going to war.

[Fradonia]

I don't believe its failed as much as I just believe it to be unnecessary.

[Gaveo]

Yes, the UN has failed. Mainly cause the UN gave China and Russia powers that the US doesn't have (not that the US needs it) like they can single handedly veto votes, most recent example is the action with Syria... Now thanks to those idiotic power giving the Syrian people have been killed by a ruthless so called "President"...

[The UK in Exile]

Yes, the UN has failed. Mainly cause the UN gave China and Russia powers that the US doesn't have (not that the US needs it) like they can single handedly veto votes, most recent example is the action with Syria... Now thanks to those idiotic power giving the Syrian people have been killed by a ruthless so called "President"...

the US has veto power too. indeed it may still hold the record for using it.

[Blakk Metal]

Its the Anti-Christ.

I KNEW IT! KERRY KING SECRETLY CONTROLS THE UN!

[Meowfoundland]

Yes, the UN has failed. Mainly cause the UN gave China and Russia powers that the US doesn't have (not that the US needs it) like they can single handedly veto votes, most recent example is the action with Syria... Now thanks to those idiotic power giving the Syrian people have been killed by a ruthless so called "President"...

The US also has that power, along with Britain and France.

[Noobubersland]

Yes, the UN has failed. Mainly cause the UN gave China and Russia powers that the US doesn't have (not that the US needs it) like they can single handedly veto votes, most recent example is the action with Syria... Now thanks to those idiotic power giving the Syrian people have been killed by a ruthless so called "President"...

The US has a Veto and place on the security council same as RUssia and China