Approval of the United Nations-The Enlightenment League

[Luciratus]

The point of this thread is fairly simple: What do you think of the job the U.N. does? There are many factors to consider, such as: maintainance of peace, economics, authoritarian governments, human rights, amount of power, ect. The poll is a bit weak, and thus, it is important to clarify your position. Also, if you have any questions about this thread or any suggestions, please, do not hesitate to make them known.

---

Here is my position: The U.N. is admirable in most of their efforts. However, they are woefully incompetent as a whole. Either they over-reach their power over member states or they do not take decisive action in dealing with authoritarianism and violations of human rights. Examples of U.N.'s failings include: the multitude of genocides occurring in Africa, the threats and human rights violations of North Korea, the human rights violations and threats of Iran, their occasional pretensious delusions of having power over the whole world(outside of their individual countries), and the fact that they have failed to create a unified global community(although this is not completely their fault). They have succeeded in some things, however, such as: eliminating certain diseases and controlling the spread of others, creating a more unified world(in various aspects), and the fact that their has not been another world war.

What are your opinions?

[Nullarni]

Great post. However, this is not the place for it. I suggest getting the MODs to move it to "General"... This is the "General Assembly", of the WA forum.

[Luciratus]

Great post. However, this is not the place for it. I suggest getting the MODs to move it to "General"... This is the "General Assembly", of the WA forum.

I think I will do that. I only saw the "General" in General Assembly.

[Nullarni]

No worries. It happens every now and then.

[Scarsaw]

Honestly, the UN is a good idea in theory and has worked in advancing and keeping the world safe; however, lately it has become somewhat of a joke. Peacekeeping does nothing but give soldiers PTSD, as it is hard to sit on your ass as children are being slaughtered just because YOU are not the one attacked, and their actions against countries are nothing more than an annoying wagging finger.

The breaking straw(s) of the UN, what proved that it is growing ineffective, is the corrupted food for oil program and how the UN's condemnation against America entering Iraq didn't do squat.

[Click and Stand]

It would be nice if the U.N was given some teeth beyond "sit there and watch genocide occur". Maybe if the peacekeepers were able to, oh I don't know, KEEP THE PEACE! There is no doubt a lot of oversight would be necessary to avoid the few big countries using these forces to put down smaller countries, essentially turning it to a Delian League, but I think the idea could work.

As is, the U.N is largely ineffective at any goal they try to acheive.

[Scarsaw]

It would be nice if the U.N was given some teeth beyond "sit there and watch genocide occur". Maybe if the peacekeepers were able to, oh I don't know, KEEP THE PEACE! There is no doubt a lot of oversight would be necessary to avoid the few big countries using these forces to put down smaller countries, essentially turning it to a Delian League, but I think the idea could work.

As is, the U.N is largely ineffective at any goal they try to acheive.

The problem isn't that the peacekeepers are not keeping he peace but the fact that they often have their hand-tied behind their backs because of the UN's Rules of Engagement; that was a major problem with Rwanda...even if Romeo Dallaire wanted to act sooner, break his ROEs, and start keeping the peace...the UN did not give him enough men or bullets to do anything.

Peacekeeping =/= Peacemaking...what we should be doing is peacemaking; however, the UN seems bent on peacekeeping and giving the soldiers nothing but PTSD.

[Buffett and Colbert]

People are always too hard on the United Nations and that's always because they don't understand its purpose. The point of the UN isn't to outright and definitively stop human atrocities, disease, economic disasters, environmental predicaments, etc, etc. It's supposed to try to solve as many as these issues as possible THROUGH international cooperation (i.e. dialogue between nations). It's also unfair because the people who one day say the UN doesn't do anything and is useless are also the people who the next day say that it's an authoritarian world government overreaching its boundaries. This organisation can never win. I will go out to say that the core purpose of the UN isn't about solving international problems but rather about promoting peaceful dialogue between nations. Improvements to the world are secondary due to that.

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

The only things I'd change in the UN are mostly procedural issues, the main one being taking away veto power from the five permanent members of the UNSC.

[Mediterreania]

The UN is effective at stopping disease, ineffective at just about every single other thing.
In the words of Max Barry,

Also, I do support the UN. I mean, sure, it’s about as functional as a cat with 192 heads, and a lot of those heads are corrupt. But at least they’re trying.

[Scarsaw]

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

What they can do is make the standard ROEs for peacekeeping include the use of force to say the lives of non-combatants. To have it only limited to self-defense, in an effort to keep it neutral, the UN often restricts soldiers from doing nothing but watching while holding a less than full mag.

The UN should never have their own military as, like you said, it is against their charter. In addition, who knows what a UN army could do as it could be turned against other nations or become a scary, unlimited force. All I think is the UN needs to allow soldiers to do their jobs and give them ROEs that will allow them to prevent massicures.

Heck, idealy the ROEs should be more like a father's law...the next fucker to shoot the others gets fucked by the UN. Least then we'll help prevent the deaths of non-combatants while 'encouragning' the oppisate forces to stop fighting. Better than what we're currently doing.

[Buffett and Colbert]

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

What they can do is make the standard ROEs for peacekeeping include the use of force to say the lives of non-combatants. To have it only limited to self-defense, in an effort to keep it neutral, the UN often restricts soldiers from doing nothing but watching while holding a less than full mag.

The UN should never have their own military as, like you said, it is against their charter. In addition, who knows what a UN army could do as it could be turned against other nations or become a scary, unlimited force. All I think is the UN needs to allow soldiers to do their jobs and give them ROEs that will allow them to prevent massicures.

Heck, idealy the ROEs should be more like a father's law...the next fucker to shoot the others gets fucked by the UN. Least then we'll help prevent the deaths of non-combatants while 'encouragning' the oppisate forces to stop fighting. Better than what we're currently doing.

Doing what you suggest would effectively give the UN an army, which again, is contrary to its Charter and overall purpose.

[Scarsaw]

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

What they can do is make the standard ROEs for peacekeeping include the use of force to say the lives of non-combatants. To have it only limited to self-defense, in an effort to keep it neutral, the UN often restricts soldiers from doing nothing but watching while holding a less than full mag.

The UN should never have their own military as, like you said, it is against their charter. In addition, who knows what a UN army could do as it could be turned against other nations or become a scary, unlimited force. All I think is the UN needs to allow soldiers to do their jobs and give them ROEs that will allow them to prevent massicures.

Heck, idealy the ROEs should be more like a father's law...the next fucker to shoot the others gets fucked by the UN. Least then we'll help prevent the deaths of non-combatants while 'encouragning' the oppisate forces to stop fighting. Better than what we're currently doing.

Doing what you suggest would effectively give the UN an army, which again, is contrary to its Charter and overall purpose.

It is not giving the UN a military as the forces are still derived from, and are restricted to the laws of, other countries. Those laws and interests of those countries, is what keeps the forces UN uses in check. Why having their own military is against the character is because it doesn't make the force accountable to any one nation and that can easily get out of control. People can use that force for their own advances. As it is now, and how it would be with stronger ROEs, if one nation tries to use the forces that UN has on their own for their own gain...the other nations that contribute to that force can pull out and prevent that action.

[Lackadaisical2]

Honestly, the UN is a good idea in theory and has worked in advancing and keeping the world safe; however, lately it has become somewhat of a joke. Peacekeeping does nothing but give soldiers PTSD, as it is hard to sit on your ass as children are being slaughtered just because YOU are not the one attacked, and their actions against countries are nothing more than an annoying wagging finger.

damn... that does sound really depressing now that you say it like that.

I think overall the UN is doing a good job, does anyone think the world would be better off without it?

[Scarsaw]

Honestly, the UN is a good idea in theory and has worked in advancing and keeping the world safe; however, lately it has become somewhat of a joke. Peacekeeping does nothing but give soldiers PTSD, as it is hard to sit on your ass as children are being slaughtered just because YOU are not the one attacked, and their actions against countries are nothing more than an annoying wagging finger.

damn... that does sound really depressing now that you say it like that.

I think overall the UN is doing a good job, does anyone think the world would be better off without it?

As much as I don't like the UN, I don't think it should be disbanded as better communication between world leaders isn't a bad thing. It can't make the world worse. I just think it is no where as effective as it should/could be in this day and age, and would love to see some changes (like a change in the ROEs as a start as that's an easy fix in my mind).

[Lackadaisical2]

The only things I'd change in the UN are mostly procedural issues, the main one being taking away veto power from the five permanent members of the UNSC.

I don't think that would ever happen, all five would probably throw a hissy fit and pull out.

[Luciratus]

People are always too hard on the United Nations and that's always because they don't understand its purpose. The point of the UN isn't to outright and definitively stop human atrocities, disease, economic disasters, environmental predicaments, etc, etc. It's supposed to try to solve as many as these issues as possible THROUGH international cooperation (i.e. dialogue between nations). It's also unfair because the people who one day say the UN doesn't do anything and is useless are also the people who the next day say that it's an authoritarian world government overreaching its boundaries. This organisation can never win. I will go out to say that the core purpose of the UN isn't about solving international problems but rather about promoting peaceful dialogue between nations. Improvements to the world are secondary due to that.

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

The only things I'd change in the UN are mostly procedural issues, the main one being taking away veto power from the five permanent members of the UNSC.

You may have a point there. However, the U.N. is at least morally responsible for trying its best to stop abuses of human rights and solving other international issues. In many cases the U.N. clings to diplomacy far too much. North Korea and Iran are good examples of this. The U.N.'s member states can use peace-keeping forces more aggressively and can declare war on governments that abuse their power. At current the U.N. would probably condemn an invasion of Iran or North Korea(or come close to it, since the U.S. has veto powers). This is morally irresponsible. Both of these countries(and many in Africa) are filled with people who want a chance to live normal, peaceful lives. You can't play politics and diplomacy when lives are at stake. Thus putting world improvement behind diplomacy is wrong.

[Buffett and Colbert]

The only things I'd change in the UN are mostly procedural issues, the main one being taking away veto power from the five permanent members of the UNSC.

I don't think that would ever happen, all five would probably throw a hissy fit and pull out.

Yeah, I know... Suppose they even couldn't pull out. To change that system the UNSC would have to pass a resolution changing it... Like that'd happen.

[Buffett and Colbert]

People are always too hard on the United Nations and that's always because they don't understand its purpose. The point of the UN isn't to outright and definitively stop human atrocities, disease, economic disasters, environmental predicaments, etc, etc. It's supposed to try to solve as many as these issues as possible THROUGH international cooperation (i.e. dialogue between nations). It's also unfair because the people who one day say the UN doesn't do anything and is useless are also the people who the next day say that it's an authoritarian world government overreaching its boundaries. This organisation can never win. I will go out to say that the core purpose of the UN isn't about solving international problems but rather about promoting peaceful dialogue between nations. Improvements to the world are secondary due to that.

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

The only things I'd change in the UN are mostly procedural issues, the main one being taking away veto power from the five permanent members of the UNSC.

You may have a point there. However, the U.N. is at least morally responsible for trying its best to stop abuses of human rights and solving other international issues. In many cases the U.N. clings to diplomacy far too much. North Korea and Iran are good examples of this. The U.N.'s member states can use peace-keeping forces more aggressively and can declare war on governments that abuse their power. At current the U.N. would probably condemn an invasion of Iran or North Korea(or come close to it, since the U.S. has veto powers). This is morally irresponsible. Both of these countries(and many in Africa) are filled with people who want a chance to live normal, peaceful lives. You can't play politics and diplomacy when lives are at stake. Thus putting world improvement behind diplomacy is wrong.

The point of the United Nations is diplomacy. That's what so many people can't get into their heads. The point is not to have people with guns around the world. The point is not to sanction nations into oblivion. The point is to foster diplomacy between the nations of the world in the hopes that mutual agreement can be met. An invasion of Iran or North Korea SHOULD be condemned by the United Nations (unless one of those nations struck the nation invading first, or if they struck an ally of the nation invading and that ally requested help in its retaliation).

[Luciratus]

People are always too hard on the United Nations and that's always because they don't understand its purpose. The point of the UN isn't to outright and definitively stop human atrocities, disease, economic disasters, environmental predicaments, etc, etc. It's supposed to try to solve as many as these issues as possible THROUGH international cooperation (i.e. dialogue between nations). It's also unfair because the people who one day say the UN doesn't do anything and is useless are also the people who the next day say that it's an authoritarian world government overreaching its boundaries. This organisation can never win. I will go out to say that the core purpose of the UN isn't about solving international problems but rather about promoting peaceful dialogue between nations. Improvements to the world are secondary due to that.

People often talk about giving "teeth" to the UN. But what can they do short of having a real military? Having one would defeat the purpose of the United Nations and contradict its Charter.

The only things I'd change in the UN are mostly procedural issues, the main one being taking away veto power from the five permanent members of the UNSC.

You may have a point there. However, the U.N. is at least morally responsible for trying its best to stop abuses of human rights and solving other international issues. In many cases the U.N. clings to diplomacy far too much. North Korea and Iran are good examples of this. The U.N.'s member states can use peace-keeping forces more aggressively and can declare war on governments that abuse their power. At current the U.N. would probably condemn an invasion of Iran or North Korea(or come close to it, since the U.S. has veto powers). This is morally irresponsible. Both of these countries(and many in Africa) are filled with people who want a chance to live normal, peaceful lives. You can't play politics and diplomacy when lives are at stake. Thus putting world improvement behind diplomacy is wrong.

The point of the United Nations is diplomacy. That's what so many people can't get into their heads. The point is not to have people with guns around the world. The point is not to sanction nations into oblivion. The point is to foster diplomacy between the nations of the world in the hopes that mutual agreement can be met. An invasion of Iran or North Korea SHOULD be condemned by the United Nations (unless one of those nations struck the nation invading first, or if they struck an ally of the nation invading and that ally requested help in its retaliation).

However, it seems hypocritical of the U.N. to point out human rights abuses and take no action against them. North Korea and Iran have both continually threatened world peace and violated human rights. I am pointing out that the U.N. in the past has done more than just engage in diplomacy. It has made demands, placed economic sanctions, and launched invasions(through its member states). To say all the U.N. can do is engage in diplomacy is ludicrous. They can and should do more. Instead of legislating on things like who the world's happiest people are or climate change(which they should do), they should deal with immediate violations in international conduct. The point is that diplomacy has largely failed in these areas. Africa is no less genocidal than it was fifty years ago. The U.N. has taken action before and should take action now to make the world a better place. If they concentrated on countries that actually violate moral standards, instead of jumping on the U.S. and Israel(which do sometimes commit errors, though they are not as bad), they could do alot to help people who need it.

[Virabia]

If they could start working on getting that global vegan diet to be a reality... I think that'll be just lovely....

Overall though, they don't accomplish nearly enough

[Conoga]

The UN has bad peace keepers.

[Risottia]

they are woefully incompetent as a whole.

This. And also: the Security Council is one of the most antidemocratic institutions in the world (permanent members with veto power, wtf); the General Assembly hold basically no power; and the people who work for the UN are overpaid and given too many bonuses (I remember that the standard UNESCO worker in Senegal earned 6000 €/month, plus "fringe benefits" as 5-star hotel, SUV with gas paid for, etc - when at the same time a Senegalese teacher earned 30 €/month).

Basically, the UN is a good idea but it needs to be reformed almost completely.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

The purpose of the UN was to prevent global thermonuclear war. So far, so good.

[Tergnitz]

Where is the 'UN is useless and should not exist as it a bureaucratic mess which sucks valuable funding dollars from other projects' option in the poll?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The UN should be dismantled and re-established as 'The International Health and Education Fund' or something like that. They can turn that big building in New York into a good sized hospital. As it is, the only reason it exists is to give world leaders a forum to rant on and a bunch of people a lot of pointless jobs, besides the aforementioned health and education bits.