Has the UN Failed?

[Galla-]

Not at all? They do a hell of a lot of good work in terms of international health, welfare and equality, and they provide a mechanism for international legitimisation of various activities. They're like the Red Cross, but for everything instead of just medical care.

Even with regards to failed international interventions it's not the UN that fails, it's the triple spectres of the US, Russia and China as seen in the Security Council.

Are you that's due to the Multinational Conspiracy, or just the UN's bumbling incompetence? There's rly only one thing the UN has done right, and that's keeping the world superpowers from fighting each other to the death, and arguably that's less due to the UN and more to nuclear weapons and globalization.

[New Sapienta]

Not at all? They do a hell of a lot of good work in terms of international health, welfare and equality, and they provide a mechanism for international legitimisation of various activities. They're like the Red Cross, but for everything instead of just medical care.

Even with regards to failed international interventions it's not the UN that fails, it's the triple spectres of the US, Russia and China as seen in the Security Council.

Are you that's due to the Multinational Conspiracy, or just the UN's bumbling incompetence?

Do you know what the security council is?

[Galla-]

Are you that's due to the Multinational Conspiracy, or just the UN's bumbling incompetence?

Do you know what the security council is?

Do you have proof that if we removed the majority of the UN's funding and diplomatic clout it would be arbitrarily more efficient to be able to accomplish its stated goals?

Yes, the Russians, Americans, and Chinese are conspiring to make the UN terrible at peacekeeping.

[New Sapienta]

Do you know what the security council is?

Do you have proof that if we removed the majority of the UN's funding and diplomatic clout it would be arbitrarily more efficient to be able to accomplish its stated goals?

Nope.

I kind of think it's a broken system with and without it.

[Galla-]

Do you have proof that if we removed the majority of the UN's funding and diplomatic clout it would be arbitrarily more efficient to be able to accomplish its stated goals?

Nope.

I kind of think it's a broken system with and without it.

It's better to try and fail than not try at all.

[New Sapienta]

Nope.

I kind of think it's a broken system with and without it.

It's better to try and fail than not try at all.

Not if failing means suffering severe consuquences.

[Galla-]

It's better to try and fail than not try at all.

Not if failing means suffering severe consuquences.

consequences.

And do you have proof that if the UN never existed, the world would be better off? No, you don't, but there is quite a large amount of evidence that the world is better off with the UN.

[Sovietta]

I believe the UN is a failure sorta. One reason is that they supported a genocidal regime in Cambodia and that is a huge violation of the UN policy.

[New Sapienta]

Not if failing means suffering severe consuquences.

consequences.

And do you have proof that if the UN never existed, the world would be better off?

Nope.

That would require alternate world gogles, which I am in short supply.

[Galla-]

consequences.

And do you have proof that if the UN never existed, the world would be better off?

Nope.

That would require alternate world gogles, which I am in short supply.

That would actually require looking at what the UN has accomplished.

Like eradication of smallpox, for one, and cutting the global death toll from TB by 40% from 1990-2010.

[New Sapienta]

Nope.

That would require alternate world gogles, which I am in short supply.

That would actually require looking at what the UN has accomplished.

Like eradication of smallpox, for one.

I've never said it hasn't been useful.

I just think the international diplomacy is broken. (Except duing the Cold War)

[Tubbsalot]

Not at all? They do a hell of a lot of good work in terms of international health, welfare and equality, and they provide a mechanism for international legitimisation of various activities. They're like the Red Cross, but for everything instead of just medical care.

Even with regards to failed international interventions it's not the UN that fails, it's the triple spectres of the US, Russia and China as seen in the Security Council.

Are you that's due to the Multinational Conspiracy, or just the UN's bumbling incompetence? There's rly only one thing the UN has done right, and that's keeping the world superpowers from fighting each other to the death, and arguably that's less due to the UN and more to nuclear weapons and globalization.

If I mentioned that a fire hydrant near my house had burst, would you laugh at me for my backwards redneck belief that the Fire Hydrant Illuminati were behind the event?

I said that the failure of the UN to effectively respond to military crises is often attributable to obstruction by either the US, Russia or China, as we see in Syria currently. Not that the US, Russia and China were all twirling their evil little moustaches as they scurried through the shadows, pulling strings and sending blackmail to ensure that nothing good could ever happen.

[Norstal]

Yes it has. It has failed more epicly than anything else. Its killed millions, spread capitalism throughout the world, set up countless democracies which have been unstable and ended in genocide, given millions in foriegn aid which mostly went into the hands of dictators. I hate the UN, the UN is a terrible terrible thing.

What news have you been watching?

[Ovisterra]

Define "failed" in this case, then I'll answer.

[Ovisterra]

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.

When the US defy the UN, it's a "failed system with no real power". When the US roll with the UN, they're "becoming pawns".

Seems legit.

[Norstal]

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

When the US defy the UN, it's a "failed system with no real power". When the US roll with the UN, they're "becoming pawns".

Seems legit.

There is no appeasing extremist.

[Ovisterra]

When the US defy the UN, it's a "failed system with no real power". When the US roll with the UN, they're "becoming pawns".

Seems legit.

There is no appeasing extremist.

T'would seem.

[Cromarty]

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.

Ha. No.

[Trotskylvania]

Um...you guys have an awfully rosy picture of the UN's actual purpose.

The UN was conceived as 1) a means for the victorious Allies of the Second World War to provide a structure to assert their hegemonic influence in the post-war world and 2) a institution to mediate between the differences of the five victors and thus avoid a Third World War.

On the first count it was quite successful. The most dominant countries, economically, militarily and politically, are still the 5 veto powers of the UN Security Council, and through the UN, these countries continue to hit above their weight class even with the decline of their fortunes. But the record on the second count is more mixed. But there wasn't a direct armed confrontation between the US and Soviet Union, so I'd consider that a victory. It did provide a means of mediating the ideological clash.

[Gravlen]

Failed? Hardly.

Not an unmitigated success-story? Sure.

[Ethel mermania]

Not if failing means suffering severe consuquences.

consequences.

And do you have proof that if the UN never existed, the world would be better off? No, you don't, but there is quite a large amount of evidence that the world is better off with the UN.

Proof the world would be better off without the un?
Syria.
Rwanda.
Iran

Proof the world is better off with the un
Ccitt,
Laws of navigation.

[Disserbia]

In part most definitely, I think in order for it to work their can't be alliances that push an agenda that only benefits those states primarily. I think that is a disgusting abuse of the law. In order for it to be effective, things like NATO must be disbanded or at least not be able to have de facto control over international affairs.

[Disserbia]

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.

Ha. No.

I think its got to be unanimous, so their veto would do it, but it doesn't have to be both, it just has to be one and everyone in the security council can do it. They're not special. US can do it to, they do all the time with Israel.

[Cromarty]

Ha. No.

I think its got to be unanimous, so their veto would do it, but it doesn't have to be both, it just has to be one and everyone in the security council can do it. They're not special. US can do it to, they do all the time with Israel.

Oh of course, I agree with you entirely. My 'no' was to the idea that China and Russia have some kind of 'special veto' that the other 3 permanent members of the UNSC don't have, which is ludicrous.

[Gravlen]

consequences.

And do you have proof that if the UN never existed, the world would be better off? No, you don't, but there is quite a large amount of evidence that the world is better off with the UN.

Proof the world would be better off without the un?
Syria.
Rwanda.
Iran

How are those countries proof of anything?