Has the UN Failed?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

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"...

I don't think you comprehend what the UN is. It is not just the Security Council. also you'll find that all the Security Council members have the right to veto.

[Keronika]

The UN Security Council has failed, but the UN in general does some good. And the UN is not the pawn of the U.S.

[Ethel mermania]

about as effective as the world assembly i would say.

[Wirbel]

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...)

YEAH NATIONALISTIC FLAME WARZ!!!! US ROCKZ WE KILL EVERYONE ELSE AND OWN THE WORLD!!! YEAH!!!!!



I think that the US is doing all of the work and that the UN just likes to take credit for it.

[Altito Asmoro]

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"...

It's all for the good of the Syria...

[Wirbel]

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"...

Why do China and Russia get all the power? The US has the big expensive military that does all of the work...

[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"...

Why do China and Russia get all the power? The US has the big expensive military that does all of the work...

They don't

[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"...

I don't think you comprehend what the UN is. It is not just the Security Council. also you'll find that all the Security Council members have the right to veto.

Yeah true, but the Russians and Chinese have a special veto that can kill any bill or resolution if they vote together. Meaning sending aid or allowing a international joint effort to stop Bashar Assad of Syria.

[North California]

Definitely.

[North California]

The UN Security Council has failed, but the UN in general does some good. And the UN is not the pawn of the U.S.

But the US is turning into a pawn of the UN.

[The UK in Exile]

Why do China and Russia get all the power? The US has the big expensive military that does all of the work...

They don't

and it doesn't.

its not even in the top ten UN troop contributing nations.

[Dracoria]

I wouldn't say the UN has failed. That would indicate the failure has completed; it's more of an ongoing thing.

[Noobubersland]

I don't think you comprehend what the UN is. It is not just the Security Council. also you'll find that all the Security Council members have the right to veto.

Yeah true, but the Russians and Chinese have a special veto that can kill any bill or resolution if they vote together. Meaning sending aid or allowing a international joint effort to stop Bashar Assad of Syria.

So does the United Kingdon, France, and the US. The US has does this shit as well

[Noobubersland]

The UN Security Council has failed, but the UN in general does some good. And the UN is not the pawn of the U.S.

But the US is turning into a pawn of the UN.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I don't think you comprehend what the UN is. It is not just the Security Council. also you'll find that all the Security Council members have the right to veto.

Yeah true, but the Russians and Chinese have a special veto that can kill any bill or resolution if they vote together. Meaning sending aid or allowing a international joint effort to stop Bashar Assad of Syria.

Any sitting member on the Security Council can veto any resolution they want. They do not need to club together to vote. Look up the definition of veto. Please.

And while you're at it - how the Security Council works might not be a bad thing to learn as well.

[Cruciland]

Does it bring forth freedom and equality, as planned? Yes. Does it try to spread democracy? Yes. Is it doing its job okay? Yes.

Is the world fucked up, now? Yes.

[GTCJ]

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.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't think you comprehend what the UN is. It is not just the Security Council. also you'll find that all the Security Council members have the right to veto.

Yeah true, but the Russians and Chinese have a special veto that can kill any bill or resolution if they vote together. Meaning sending aid or allowing a international joint effort to stop Bashar Assad of Syria.

no, only the 5 permanent members of the council have the veto power.

edited for clarity.

[The Ben Boys]

Yes, they have failed. "Condemning" nations by sanctions is kinda effective, but they didn't do anything until Resolution 1441. And they didn't even get that right:

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Which somebody seemed to have backtracked later on, I wonder who (or how many) did?

[Noobubersland]

Yes, they have failed. "Condemning" nations by sanctions is kinda effective, but they didn't do anything until Resolution 1441. And they didn't even get that right:

Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

Which somebody seemed to have backtracked later on, I wonder who (or how many) did?

And did he have those weapons? No? So they were right to not do serious shit

[Irgaecell]

The age of wars against major nations has ended due to the UN.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Yeah true, but the Russians and Chinese have a special veto that can kill any bill or resolution if they vote together. Meaning sending aid or allowing a international joint effort to stop Bashar Assad of Syria.

no, only the 5 permanent members of the council have the veto power.

edited for clarity.

Yeah...brain fart. Yer right it's only the Permanent Members.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The age of wars against major nations has ended due to the UN.

No, the age of wars between major powers has ended due to nuclear weapons. The UN is just how we all pretend to be nice to each other.

[New Sapienta]

The security council is a terrible idea.

It serves no real purpose today.

[The Ben Boys]

Yes, they have failed. "Condemning" nations by sanctions is kinda effective, but they didn't do anything until Resolution 1441. And they didn't even get that right:



Which somebody seemed to have backtracked later on, I wonder who (or how many) did?

And did he have those weapons? No? So they were right to not do serious shit

Resolutions 1483 along with 1500, 1723, and 1790 had supported or acknowledged support for the Coalition in Iraq. 1500 recognized the US and UK as occupying powers, and removed sanctions after that. 1723 and 1790 simply "extended" their recognition. I think you kinda agreed (the fact that "they didn't even do that right") but I disagreed with the "not do serious shit". Which they kinda did and they kinda didn't.