The biggest problems of the UN, are the lack of an army and the presence of a veto. Give them an international army that serve them to solve crisis, genocides, things like that. But put borders so they won't serve NWO.

Also the veto is the most limiting thing in the UN, exemple, china veto for NK, US veto for Israël, that kind of thing.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone

But will they attack UN Convoys if they suspect that they have weapons on them? And whats to say they will not be attacked by Hezbulla?

I guess people don't respect them. Is it normal that UN convoys would carry arms to supply one side or the other? That sounds out there. I don't think Ive ever heard of UN convoys carrying arms to re-supply anyone. There has been a small group of UN reps there for a while now right on the border of Leb-Syr-Isr in the middle of the stuff. If they were going to commit any agressions they probably would have already or attacked US,GB,Russian citizens a while ago. It wouldn't be advantageous for them to attack un troops IMO. If Israel has already stated they will attack UN convoys if they suspect anything, Id say that was a pretty agressive statement.


Pie

Then shoud it not be disolved, taken apart if it cannot even Show authority on the world.... I think it should be....

Oks they do alot of humanitarian aid around the world, but they Israel and Hesbulla have ignored un pressure for years, so whats the use of them even being here.

Would be alot less pressure on tax payers in invividual countries.

the un is becomeing just as innifective as it's prediseser the league of nations. see one of the problems is that the un as an entity has no real power (such as it's own armed forces, nor would i want it to). all it realy is, is yet one more burocracy (can't spell sorry). it is made up of individuals under orders from their home country. so if deligate "a" from country "!" even feels personaly that some resulution or law is either right or wrong chances are that he will vote the way he is told too. so what we end up with is basicaly countries argueing against each other through these middleman burocrats. do you realy expect work to be done in a timely unified decision.

the larger a government and it's burocracies are the more inifectual they become. and the un includes all these other burocracies as well. as i said earlyer the un also has no real power being subject to the whims of any country, ("no i will not send troops, i don't agree with you"). so who do they enforce anything since most of it is volinteer.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Then shoud it not be disolved, taken apart if it cannot even Show authority on the world.... I think it should be....

I don't think dissolving would be the answer. I just don't understand what the point is in having all those nations taking part and in the end only having 5 Countries either voting for or vetoing and ending up being a dead issue. If anything it should be a panel of Rotating countries that have the power to Veto or Accept resolutions on a yearly or Bi-yearly basis. I think it will keep things fair and above board without any suspicious shielding or preferential treatment. It may give some countries pause that they cannot do things and get away with it.


Pie

I think the U.N. was a noble experiment, but I lose more faith in it every day. Nations are simply not capable of working together when their interests are in conflict, and that will almost certainly always be the case. Still though, I would rather have the U.N., even if it is weak, than nothing at all.

With the united nations being weak, should It have more teeth, I.E: have more power to call on countries to contribute troop to any conflict it wants to project authority?, With past conflicts such as the yugosslave conflict they didnt even have the teeth To solve that issue wasnt until the U.S., along wth it partners in Nato got invovled for something to be done....

So if the UN is to survive, do we need it for military peacekeeping role or humanitaring role?

Or should the whole lot be disbanded.

The five that on the permanent security council should give ea way and let everyone have their say in this conflict instead of vetoing anything that comes ont he table. But I guess it is not in their interest to do so.

The problem with that is you are effectively forcing world government on everyone. That won't work. Countries will break off and fight your WG (world government) and one another because they are more concerned with looking out for their own interests than anyone elses.

It has to happen naturally... and slowly.

Gradually bringing the third world out of poverty will go a long ways toward world piece and global cooperation.