It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why have a UN?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Whats the point of having a 'United Nations' when countries like America are blatantly running the show. The UN are supposed to be there to control and prevent history from repeating itself by stopping things like genocide and illegal wars. Yet its countries like America who get to decide when and with whom they will start a war and who gets to have a nuclear program?? Why cant the UN force countries like America to help out and stop the genocide in countries such as Sudan? Is it as simple as no profit no war?




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Everyone knows the UN is a joke, even our leaders know this. It is a stage for nations to pretend they have the world in their interest, when in reality the UN is simply a platform by which individual nations can further their own interests.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Is it just America running the show at the UN? With the right of veto, the major powers have the ability to run the show.

Of course, the UK is unlikely to go against the US but just think of the times that Russia and China have vetoed something the Americans wanted to pass.

And is the UN all bad?

And what would you replace it with?

We need a global body where countries can talk



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Why? So that we can legitimize taking sovereignty from nations we don't approve of. And because the idea sounds nice before you realize how useless it is.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by g60kg
Whats the point of having a 'United Nations' when countries like America are blatantly running the show. The UN are supposed to be there to control and prevent history from repeating itself by stopping things like genocide and illegal wars. Yet its countries like America who get to decide when and with whom they will start a war and who gets to have a nuclear program?? Why cant the UN force countries like America to help out and stop the genocide in countries such as Sudan? Is it as simple as no profit no war?



The U.S. doesn't control the UN; there are four other countries with veto power and ten other countries without. The UN doesn't decide who can and can't have nukes. That's the NPT which says no one can have nukes except the original five nuclear powers. The UN doesn't start wars. If any military action is taken it's peace keeeping operations or approval for some of the nations (usually headed by US) to declare war on somebody.

I agree that the UN is impotent, but to say it's useless is naive. Countries have to have a place to come together and talk and there has to be some way to legalize international agreements with something more than 'if you break the deal we'll invade you'.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


you clearly don't understand how the UN works...
just look at the charter and one of the main points is EQUAL SOVEREIGNTY... no country can be imposed upon



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Johnmike, could you please supply us with an example of actions taken by the U.N. that would support your statements. 'taking sovereignty' is a bit vague...



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The UN is a forum for global debate. It is still quite new and is going to make mistakes. I do wish it would stick to its charter of mutual self-defense, and had invaded Iraq in 1991, people would have been more accepting in that situation.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
i must admit, the UN isn't perfect and the entire security council system needs to be reworked, but abandoning the entire concept is just giving up on our future



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Well in its current format there is no need for the UN because it is such a useless organisation. The UN should be an organisation that is effective at spreading and maintaining democracy , freedom , human rights. To do this the UN needs more teeth.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Why have a UN? Because a world government needs a global beurocracy.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Well in its current format there is no need for the UN because it is such a useless organisation. The UN should be an organisation that is effective at spreading and maintaining democracy , freedom , human rights. To do this the UN needs more teeth.


the UN actually does do quite a bit. vaccination programs, food programs, and all that sort of good stuff.

however... spreading democracy can't be a mission of the UN... it's primary clause indicates that all countries are equally sovereign and thus the UN can't just randomly meddle in a country's affairs for the sake of spreading democracy.
another thing... why spread democracy to countries where there isn't an educational system to support a well informed electorate?


Originally posted by resistor
Why have a UN? Because a world government needs a global beurocracy.


as i mentioned above... no infringing on sovereignty, thus you have no clue what you're talking about if that's what you think



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
however... spreading democracy can't be a mission of the UN... it's primary clause indicates that all countries are equally sovereign and thus the UN can't just randomly meddle in a country's affairs for the sake of spreading democracy.


So the UN should do nothing in Darfur because the leaders of Sudan wont take any action ?
Current measures certainly don't seem to be working.


another thing... why spread democracy to countries where there isn't an educational system to support a well informed electorate?


Nation building is a gradual process.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
So the UN should do nothing in Darfur because the leaders of Sudan wont take any action ?
Current measures certainly don't seem to be working.


well... i never said that. however, i think the UN is more suited for a role of preventing such problems from arising.
sure, they need to do something, but the UN doesn't have any teeth.



Nation building is a gradual process.


fair enough



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Madness I have a question for you.

Since the UN in its current state doesn't have any teeth how is that body spouse to stop the likes of human rights abuses in Sudan ?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


by getting some teeth.
however, some would oppose this idea because of an irrational fear of one world government ensuing.



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
OK then but you still have the problem of giving the UN more teeth with your notion that they should respect a countries sovereignty above all else.
Giving the UN more power to enforce trade sanctions would be a good starting point. Foreign Aid also needs to be revamp its has long out lived its original purpose of helping to re build Europe post WW2.

For more on my UN views see this post . So the UN should take the role of spreading freedom as well as I what described in the post I linked to.

Small steps would be the way to go the UN should at first move to crack down on those who don't support human rights and then look at spreading democracy and freedom eventually all those things should come to the fore front.

[edit on 22-11-2007 by xpert11]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join