The United Nations, effective or not? -

[LegoTugboat]

Let us discuss this issue politely and calmly. The UN was formed after the failure of the League of Nations to actually do anything, and since then has proceeded to be relatively ineffective.

But do we want the UN to be effective? Should the UN be strengthened or weakened? Should we give the UN nuclear weapons to deal with the world's problems?

 

[millais]

The UN was fucked ever since Dag Hammerskjold was assassinated while trying to enforce the Congo ceasefire. Since then, UN Secretary Generals have been pussywhipped cucks who barely make any effort to stop wars from happening.

 

[feedtheoctopus]

World war 3 hasn't happened, so I guess it's done its job.

Only reason the UN exists is to foster communication. Its done that, imperfect as it is.

 

[RepQuest]

The UN's mission failed with the Korean War and has been a needless organization ever since.

 

[Beaniebon]

We need some kind of international thing similar to the UN most definitely, but the UN is so weak and doesn't do that much to help ease tension between countries or advocate for human rights (aren't there countries in the UN who break the UN laws of human rights lol)

 

[QI 541]

(aren't there countries in the UN who break the UN laws of human rights lol)

There's countries that are the head of their human rights council who break the UN laws of human rights.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

If you create a planet-wide bureaucracy, make it a toothless one. Nobody should want a powerful worldwide government entity. The wars necessary to inevitably get rid of such a thing would be unfathomable.

 

[Bassomatic]

The U.N has failed at everything it's tried, at best we can say they made the wars that happen NIMBY. War wasn't in Germany again, it was in Korea, Vietnam etc, where everyone played a role either lightly or by proxy leaving the brunt on America. that's not me being a grumpy American, that's just a harsh fact there were "world wars" but one country did most and it was off far away so really no one minded.

It's got so clear as of late they can't even damage control it anymore how violent and cruel many of the peace keepers are. Nations like the C.A.R. even say blue helmet rape is the same. So shakey places like that see them as just as much a threat as the war lords? Thats speaks a lot.

I can't really put into words how costly wasteful and dangerous a unit like this is.

The whole mass allied nations idea came to try to stop wars a noble cause and idea, but where did it lead us? World War. (one to be exact) So we had the L O N an idea cooked up by a man who literally cooked his brain in sickness (Wilson's long term flu is often considered how he went off deep end) Where did that send us? Another World War. So twice this idea of working together to stop wars, lead us fast track into blood shed.

I fear strike 3 and the UN is both the bat and ball in the situation.

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

Whilst I personally don't mind things like the WHO and stuff like that, in-terms of preventing armed conflict the UN has been dismal. For fucks sake, if the League of Nations couldn't agree on much who thought adding a bunch of other shit countries to the mix would make it better.

An overseeing council tabled by the Yanks, the Russians and the Chinese - and they won't agree on anything do to personal geopolitics - who'd have forseen such an event? Who could predict that notoriously oppressive regimes would endeavour to avoid setting a precedent against other oppressive regimes.

 

[Picklechu]

I think the UN is ok for what it is--a world forum. That being said, the structure of the Security Council is outdated, especially since it's based on who won WW2.

 

[Vitriol]

It has been pretty bad since at least vietnam however ban ki moon has been a particuliarly weak and ineffective secretary general. The amount of general assmbly resolutions on israel are a joke as are the nonsense studies that are produced by third world academics with a chip on theirshoulder with un funding. Two of my favourites were a woman from india who blasted the uk for being a 'sexist society' and an attempt to describe the uk's cadet forces as child soldiers. (The cadets are literally boy scouts sponsored by the military).

Since 1990 the un has failed in yugoslavia, the congo(3x), chechneya, syria, iraq(4x), rwanda, yemen, sri lanka, columbia, mexico, afghanistan, the ivory coast, liberia, the sudan, libya, the ukraine and im sure much more i cannot recall off the top of my head.

The WHO has done considerable good though and that should be recognised and applauded.

 

[SpessCaptain]

All they do now is write strongly-worded letters to countries and peacekeep in Africa. Yes they have done and are still doing amazing things, but they're too weakened to affect the world.

 

[DuskEngine]

WHO, UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, and some other programmes do very good work.

the Security Council and the General Assembly are a joke. But I don't see how a forum that gives equal footing to the US, China and Russia could be anything but.

 

[Ruin]

The U.N is actively hostile to the interests of the United States. Military/support treaties should be supported but the U.N as a whole has outlived its usefulness and now serves as a puppet of globalists and a propaganda machine for third world dictators.

On another note the U.N has absolutely no right to complain about muh soggy knees until they stop their "peacekeepers" from raping everything that moves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...peacekeepers-festers-as-reports-of-abuse-grow

 

[millais]

It has been pretty bad since at least vietnam however ban ki moon has been a particuliarly weak and ineffective secretary general. The amount of general assmbly resolutions on israel are a joke as are the nonsense studies that are produced by third world academics with a chip on theirshoulder with un funding. Two of my favourites were a woman from india who blasted the uk for being a 'sexist society' and an attempt to describe the uk's cadet forces as child soldiers. (The cadets are literally boy scouts sponsored by the military).

Since 1990 the un has failed in yugoslavia, the congo(3x), chechneya, syria, iraq(4x), rwanda, yemen, sri lanka, columbia, mexico, afghanistan, the ivory coast, liberia, the sudan, libya, the ukraine and im sure much more i cannot recall off the top of my head.

The WHO has done considerable good though and that should be recognised and applauded.

About all you can say for Ban Ki-moon is that at least he didn't embezzle millions of dollars from the UN's OIP programme, unlike his predecessor

 

[Enclave Supremacy]

The U.N is actively hostile to the interests of the United States. Military/support treaties should be supported but the U.N as a whole has outlived its usefulness and now serves as a puppet of globalists and a propaganda machine for third world dictators.

On another note the U.N has absolutely no right to complain about muh soggy knees until they stop their "peacekeepers" from raping everything that moves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...peacekeepers-festers-as-reports-of-abuse-grow

The US should probably but all that funding they give it then. I can't imagine that that doesn't buy a lot of actual UN assistance, even if we don't know about it.

The UN never had any usefulness really. It was the product of a brief sliver of enlightenment idealism amongst the Allies (whom often called themselves the United Nations) before they remembered that they were composed of three imperialist empires as-well as a communist, and a fascist, dictatorship (shortly to be two communist ones). Diametrically opposing allies of convenience, especially with the Soviets.

 

[AnOminous]

The U.N is actively hostile to the interests of the United States.

You're thinking of the General Assembly, which has literally no power and solely exists to give these other little countries the illusion of participation. Nobody gives a flying fuck about a million bullshit resolutions a year about Israel from a bunch of terrorist states and crybabies, and anything about Israel that comes before the Security Council gets vetoed, period.

The U.S., Russia and China and other permanent members of the Security Council would not pay for having the UN at all if it didn't serve our interests, and that's really what it's there for, even if it's ineffective and only, rarely, "works" when all of us agree on some shit. Then it provides the imprimatur of legitimacy to whatever military action we would have taken with or without its approval.