Is the U.N. doing a good job?

[Mike the Progressive]

It's doing such a great job. World peace, tolerance, end of hunger, poverty, disease, and so on.

Keep it up, UN. You're doing great!

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

The United Nations's only good things ever accomplished was bringing aid to the impoverished, but nothing more. Though the goal made by its founders have good intentions, the United Nations is nothing more but a hilariously failed organization from its 50-60 years of existence.

The world would just be better if the United Nations was disbanded and only the other organizations like UNESCO, WHO, World Food Organization and UNICEF. An over-arching organization interfering in political and military matters is just unworkable in our world, though nations have showed the ability overtime to cooperate perfectly on other issues such as science, trade, culture, health, but not military or political affairs.

It's not like nations have no capacity to rule over themselves to ever require a mediator big organization.

[Benuty]

It's doing such a great job. World peace, tolerance, end of hunger, poverty, disease, and so on.

Keep it up, UN. You're doing great!

I didn't know you had access to Hell?

[Ripoll]

Decent job, people just don't pay attention to what they do

[Ripoll]

The United Nations's only good things ever accomplished was bringing aid to the impoverished, but nothing more. Though the goal made by its founders have good intentions, the United Nations is nothing more but a hilariously failed organization from its 50-60 years of existence.

The world would just be better if the United Nations was disbanded and only the other organizations like UNESCO, WHO, World Food Organization and UNICEF. An over-arching organization interfering in political and military matters is just unworkable in our world, though nations have showed the ability overtime to cooperate perfectly on other issues such as science, trade, culture, health, but not military or political affairs.

It's not like nations have no capacity to rule over themselves to ever require a mediator big organization.

you're acting as if those things aren't important and contribute to as well as directly influence geopolitics and military willingness.

[Margno]

Unless you want to be driven out of NSG on a fucking rail, don't ever presume to insult someone by associating them with Judaism in my presence again. This is your first and last warning.

Lmao.

>People with delusions of power on the internet. Check.

It would seem that the nationstates community did have that power.

[Southern Fascist States of America]

Lmao.

>People with delusions of power on the internet. Check.

You're right, I have no power over you. But let's, as a thought experiment, consider what we might extrapolate, on the basis of your last few statements, on what statistically, a hypothetical person making them would probably be communicating by them, so as to better understand their meaning. Your ideas show so little intellectual depth and bear so little resemblance to the real world that the vast majority of those espousing them would presumably be people with IQ's not associated with the ability to live on one's own, nor to feed and dress oneself. Among those not intellectually incapable of coherent thought, one might expect to find some matching the profile of a person so starved for any attention due to the lack of any genuinely interesting characteristics, that they resort to making outlandish claims in public forums in the hopes of seeming edgy and intelligent. Such a profile would not, of course, be associated with the ability to actually do this. Instead, such a person would make a fool of themself in the most public possible manner, as everyone encountering them immediately recognized their bottom tenth percentile intelligence and pre-adolescent social conduct. So, unless you disagree with some aspect of my analysis, I think we can conclude that what such a person would really be communicating by his statements is, "please, look at me, and give me the social support I want, but don't ask anything of me."
I use this thought experiment to justify responding to your posts, not on their own terms, but on the terms of this implicit statement. My response is: "If you want affirmation, you have to show some maturity and respect other people's time. If you want to be perceived as intelligent, you have to do it the hard way by researching your subject. The easy way, which is what you're using, doesn't work."

[Risottia]

No, the UN sucks a lot at most of what it tries to do.
Two of the roots of those problems are the UNDHR being legally non-binding and not being enforced via, let's say, suspension or expulsion from the UN; and the veto power of the permanent members of the SC.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No, the UN sucks a lot at most of what it tries to do.
Two of the roots of those problems are the UNDHR being legally non-binding and not being enforced via, let's say, suspension or expulsion from the UN; and the veto power of the permanent members of the SC.

Well, the UNDHR is legally binding. The problem is not with the UN, but with national sovereignty as a whole. Countries can't be put on trial against their will, so as long as a nation has not given up some of their sovereignty to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, there are no internationally binding treaties. Expulsion isn't that good of a leverage either, because the rewards of UN membership are mostly abstract. Most countries will put a material gain over the abstract advantage of UN membership.

I do agree in part on the problems of the SC. The veto power in part violates the principle that no nation has binding power over another. In the SC, some countries are more important than others, which is entirely contrary to what international law is all about. The SC needs changing up, and we need some other way to ensure the support of large nations.

[Nortrom]

The U.N isn't useless but it's not big enough to solve every major problem either.

The right question should be: Do we want a U.N organization that is big enough to solve all these problems? Should all nations contribute more resources to such an organization or would it be better to keep it small?

So I have been looking around the internet and most people say the U.N. is doing a bad job at keeping the peace so my opinion:

The so-called "strongly worded messages lol" commenters we frequently see in U.N threads forget that the U.N can't simply assemble a huge army and take over ISIS or magically end ebola and world hunger. Moreover, it is primarily influenced, if not controlled entirely, by the U.S and thus may not have the world's best interests in mind.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.

[SaintB]

It seems the general consensuss from the masses of NSG so far is that since we aren't living in Utopia the UN has failed.

[Romalae]

It seems the general consensuss from the masses of NSG so far is that since we aren't living in Utopia the UN has failed.

This.

Apparently, imperfect organization = failure

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

No. They're doing about as good of a job as you'd expect from a bunch of anti-semitic dipshits.

Anti-Semitic. Well, gee, I do wonder who mandated the construction of a Jewish state in the Middle East... It couldn't possibly have been the UN, could it? Wait...

In all seriousness, how is the UN anti-Semitic?

It seems the general consensuss from the masses of NSG so far is that since we aren't living in Utopia the UN has failed.

That's generally seems to be the NSG opinion on every single subject, really.

[Divitaen]

For an international organization that deals with disparate cultures and geo-political interests, hell yeah. Many of the Conventions and initiatives organized in the GA have been extremely useful international tools. And let's be fair, people like to shit on the UN and talk about how "toothless" it is because it requires voluntary consent to GA resolutions, but really the only way to set international customs is via voluntary action and lobbying. And the fact that many of their actions on mercenaries, landmines, cluster munitions and chemical weapons has actually taken effect says quite a lot about their contributions to international security.

[SaintB]

It seems the general consensuss from the masses of NSG so far is that since we aren't living in Utopia the UN has failed.

This.

Apparently, imperfect organization = failure

I'm just as upset that I don't own a hoverboard or a car that folds up into a briefcase as the next guy but I don't think that means the UN is a total failure. Besides I DO have the robot that sweeps my floors.

[Norstal]

Yeah, well, for a topic like this I think some sources might be nice. Who says the UN is doing a bad job at peacekeeping? And where in the Middle East are there UN peacekeepers? It's nice of you to set rules for the thread but we already have rules in place and they don't need reinforcement. Not usually, that is.

I'm trying to find a page about that on the internet

So you're trying to find evidence to conclusions you already made instead of the other way around.

What a bad piece of investigation work.

Okay I found one: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/United ... E21435.htm

P.S. Look at the Con comments

That's Glassdoor. That's a website that let's you see how the employment outlook works on a particular organization. And it's 3.7 stars, which is pretty good if you've ever tried to look for a professional job.

[Divitaen]

It's doing such a great job. World peace, tolerance, end of hunger, poverty, disease, and so on.

Keep it up, UN. You're doing great!

I think that's honestly an unrealistic expectation. No government in the world has achieved those things, let alone an international organization that has to unite disparate and disagreeing national governments.

[Norstal]

It's doing such a great job. World peace, tolerance, end of hunger, poverty, disease, and so on.

Keep it up, UN. You're doing great!

I think that's honestly an unrealistic expectation. No government in the world has achieved those things, let alone an international organization that has to unite disparate and disagreeing national governments.

If realistic standards were used by NSGers, we wouldn't have anarchists in this forum.

[Independent Republic of Not My Problem]

The UN would do a better job if they could agree on what their purpose was:
Child Exploitation needs to end:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/o ... abour-2020

Or not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/?xml=/n ... udan03.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6159923.stm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le4462151/
(I guess rape and forced prostitution doesn't meet the UN definition of child labor.)

Corruption is bad:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/

Or not:
http://www.economist.com/node/4267109
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... t/2956565/
http://www.economist.com/node/10853611

Then of course, there is the use of UN vehicles by Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israelis. But that's ok because UN doesn't think Jews are real people, and does everything to condemn them at every chance they get. If the UN existed in 1944, there would be trains leaving from around the world and Hitler would be the Secretary General. The number of times the General Assembly has condemned Israel is too many to count. Then there are the preposterous arrangements where the "Human Rights Council" is populated by nations with no interest in preserving human rights. I'm sure Libya's tenure as chair of the "Human Rights Council" was fruitful.

EDIT: I answered my own question. The UN does understand it's purpose, to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, but in an urbane manner so the progressives will hop on board.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The UN would do a better job if they could agree on what their purpose was:
Child Exploitation needs to end:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/o ... abour-2020

Or not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/?xml=/n ... udan03.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6159923.stm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le4462151/
(I guess rape and forced prostitution doesn't meet the UN definition of child labor.)

Corruption is bad:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/

Or not:
http://www.economist.com/node/4267109
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... t/2956565/
http://www.economist.com/node/10853611

Then of course, there is the use of UN vehicles by Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israelis. But that's ok because UN doesn't think Jews are real people, and does everything to condemn them at every chance they get. If the UN existed in 1944, there would be trains leaving from around the world and Hitler would be the Secretary General. The number of times the General Assembly has condemned Israel is too many to count. Then there are the preposterous arrangements where the "Human Rights Council" is populated by nations with no interest in preserving human rights. I'm sure Libya's tenure as chair of the "Human Rights Council" was fruitful.

EDIT: I answered my own question. The UN does understand it's purpose, to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, but in an urbane manner so the progressives will hop on board.

24 condemnations isn't too much to count, isn't it? Anyway, Israel deserved each and every one of those condemnations, and their human rights record is appalling. That you even dare say that the UN would've joined with the Nazis is a disgrace in and of itself. What gives you the idea that they are out on a path of destruction? Aren't they 100% supportive of your ideals, and therefore they want to wipe them out?

[Divitaen]

The UN would do a better job if they could agree on what their purpose was:
Child Exploitation needs to end:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/o ... abour-2020

Or not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/?xml=/n ... udan03.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6159923.stm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le4462151/
(I guess rape and forced prostitution doesn't meet the UN definition of child labor.)

Corruption is bad:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/

Or not:
http://www.economist.com/node/4267109
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... t/2956565/
http://www.economist.com/node/10853611

Then of course, there is the use of UN vehicles by Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israelis. But that's ok because UN doesn't think Jews are real people, and does everything to condemn them at every chance they get. If the UN existed in 1944, there would be trains leaving from around the world and Hitler would be the Secretary General. The number of times the General Assembly has condemned Israel is too many to count. Then there are the preposterous arrangements where the "Human Rights Council" is populated by nations with no interest in preserving human rights. I'm sure Libya's tenure as chair of the "Human Rights Council" was fruitful.

EDIT: I answered my own question. The UN does understand it's purpose, to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, but in an urbane manner so the progressives will hop on board.

Ugh this is just like the Americans who chant the oppression of the heterosexual white male. Israel is doing very well for itself. Its massacring of innocent Palestinians and use of human shields often goes unheard by the UN because of the strong efforts of the US-Israeli lobby. For God's sake Palestine is not even a goddamn UN member state even though the UN's Parition Plan clearly intended for Palestine to have independence, and Israeli war criminals are nowhere near an ICC court. The idea of the UN persecuting is Israel is so ridiculously laughable.

[Independent Republic of Not My Problem]

24 condemnations isn't too much to count, isn't it? Anyway, Israel deserved each and every one of those condemnations, and their human rights record is appalling. That you even dare say that the UN would've joined with the Nazis is a disgrace in and of itself. What gives you the idea that they are out on a path of destruction? Aren't they 100% supportive of your ideals, and therefore they want to wipe them out?

The UN is a disgrace. But you have fun with your pedophile rapist friends.

Ugh this is just like the Americans who chant the oppression of the heterosexual white male. Israel is doing very well for itself. Its massacring of innocent Palestinians and use of human shields often goes unheard by the UN because of the strong efforts of the US-Israeli lobby. For God's sake Palestine is not even a goddamn UN member state even though the UN's Parition Plan clearly intended for Palestine to have independence, and Israeli war criminals are nowhere near an ICC court. The idea of the UN persecuting is Israel is so ridiculously laughable.

Ugh ad hominem, ad hominem. (Why does the autocorrect try to keep inserting Eminem?)

The Israelis haven't massacred the Palestinians. The Palestinians bring it on themselves, every time. If you're tired of reading about Israelis killing Palestinian children, tell your Palestinian friends to stop launching rockets from schools. The only reason to keep doing so would be to maximize one's propaganda campaign, which seems to be working. So your friends will probably keep doing so.
US-Israel lobby? Why don't you just jump the conspiracy cliff and blame it on the Zionist Conspiracy? Sure, there's influence, but there's a difference between influence and control. Especially when Israel is in a region where Christians and Jews can be executed for simply possessing a Bible or a Torah (like in Saudi Arabia). At least the Israeli Parliament is open, 10% of the Knesset are Palestinians. How many Israelis are part of the Palestinian National Authority? None, not surprising since selling to Jews is a capitol offense in Palestinian controlled areas.
Additionally, the ICC is not part of the UN, and is an independent body. The ICC will persecute the Israelis just as soon as Europe gets over feeling bad about the Holocaust.

[Rio Cana]

The UN does a fine job when the person appointed to carry out what is needed knows and cares about what he is doing while UN political appointees usually involve people who are more interested in a cushy job then actually accomplishing anything.

The UN has been overseeing the ceasefire between Israel and Syria, effectively, for around 40 years. Of course, lately some UN forces have been leaving the Israel Syria border because of what the Syrian Civil war affecting them.

The UN was involved in the Congo crisis. Some say they violated UN rules on not taking sides but they did manage to help the Congo stay together after getting involved later on in the fight.

Read this
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/un ... _congo.htm

[Norstal]

24 condemnations isn't too much to count, isn't it? Anyway, Israel deserved each and every one of those condemnations, and their human rights record is appalling. That you even dare say that the UN would've joined with the Nazis is a disgrace in and of itself. What gives you the idea that they are out on a path of destruction? Aren't they 100% supportive of your ideals, and therefore they want to wipe them out?

The UN is a disgrace. But you have fun with your pedophile rapist friends.

Ugh this is just like the Americans who chant the oppression of the heterosexual white male. Israel is doing very well for itself. Its massacring of innocent Palestinians and use of human shields often goes unheard by the UN because of the strong efforts of the US-Israeli lobby. For God's sake Palestine is not even a goddamn UN member state even though the UN's Parition Plan clearly intended for Palestine to have independence, and Israeli war criminals are nowhere near an ICC court. The idea of the UN persecuting is Israel is so ridiculously laughable.

Ugh ad hominem, ad hominem. (Why does the autocorrect try to keep inserting Eminem?)

>Calls someone's arguments an ad hominem

>Uses ad hominems as a reply to the other poster

Oh NSG.