Was creating the UN a mistake?

When most people think of the United Nations, they envision positive and beneficial qualities such as unity, dialogue, peace and progress. There is an expectation that the UN strives toward achieving peaceful and non-confrontational outcomes in its endeavours to promote human equality, freedom from oppression and the upholding of global justice. Sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Who in their right mind would oppose such an organisation? Nobody, because in theory very few people would disagree. The problem is in the implementation of the theory into practice in a world that is not ideal. Not all nations share the same priorities, culture, social norms, ideological outlook or belief system.

If the UN, in its current form, was so successful, why is disunity, conflict, war and oppression so prevalent throughout the world? One cannot expect these things to disappear completely even with an organisation like the UN, but surely the abundance of these things suggests that the current system is not working.

The key problems with the UN in its current form:
* The assumption that a global body can realistically meet the needs and desires of every country that joins it
* Enforcing a global standard of morality/ethics on individual countries
* The nature of the current VETO system
* The UN security council consisting of only a handful of states
* The nature of the financing of the organisation
* The divide between rich nations and poor nations in terms of their influence

Do you agree with the implementation of a global governmental body such as the UN? What powers should the UN possess? What suggestions do you have to improve the UN in its current form? Can a global governmental body truly meet the needs and requirements of its member states?

Was creating the UN a mistake?

Is a frogs ass water-tight?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Not after you stick a fire-cracker in it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The UN and it's predecessor The League of Nation's were intended to broker peace and prevent war, sadly neither seem's to have worked, if they did then of course the Nuclear deterrent would never have been necessary and half of there mandate's have ended up causing more conflict than they resolved, it is more of a useful public relation's stunt but it is far from the impartial body it was supposed to be and which all signatory's originally signed up for but it is not the NWO though of course very country has some UN vehicles of there own after all, all they have to do is paint them white and blue and put a big UN on them.

Do the UN need reform, YES but how do you reform an inherently corrupt mirror of a crazy and corrupt world and remember they have no real political power in any country only the power to show a vote of agreement/disagreement between the nation member states.

Soldier's in UN uniform have been involved in many crime's especially among the African union country's but also elsewhere but in the west that has not MOSTLY been the case YET so there is still hope that the UN can serve a potentially beneficial purpose and indeed they have also stopped the odd war by acting as a mediatory council but are they in danger of being taken over for neferious purpose?, perhap's they already have to a large degree?.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
When most people think of the United Nations, they envision positive and beneficial qualities such as unity, dialogue, peace and progress. There is an expectation that the UN strives toward achieving peaceful and non-confrontational outcomes in its endeavours to promote human equality, freedom from oppression and the upholding of global justice. Sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Who in their right mind would oppose such an organisation? Nobody, because in theory very few people would disagree. The problem is in the implementation of the theory into practice in a world that is not ideal. Not all nations share the same priorities, culture, social norms, ideological outlook or belief system.

If the UN, in its current form, was so successful, why is disunity, conflict, war and oppression so prevalent throughout the world? One cannot expect these things to disappear completely even with an organisation like the UN, but surely the abundance of these things suggests that the current system is not working.

The key problems with the UN in its current form:
* The assumption that a global body can realistically meet the needs and desires of every country that joins it
* Enforcing a global standard of morality/ethics on individual countries
* The nature of the current VETO system
* The UN security council consisting of only a handful of states
* The nature of the financing of the organisation
* The divide between rich nations and poor nations in terms of their influence

Do you agree with the implementation of a global governmental body such as the UN? What powers should the UN possess? What suggestions do you have to improve the UN in its current form? Can a global governmental body truly meet the needs and requirements of its member states?

The UN cannot work as a world body, and has not.
Need I remind anyone of Rwanda or the Balkan wars?
How about the infamous Oil for Food program ?

What little good was done was accomplished ( and paid for) by Western/Developed/Security Council nations.

The EU experiment shows that a supranational body of similar nations is near impossible to run efficiently.

What hope is there for the UN, with vastly dissimilar nations, a large part of which are dictatorships ?

Finally, there are no benefits to such a body and far too many risks - too much power concentration which history shows is never good.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Of course it was a mistake if you are a person that enjoys freedom.

It was a great move by the Elite as they use the organization to 'guide' the world towards a one world government and create international regulations and red tape that encroaches on sovereign nations.

a reply to: M5xaz

Agreed, when the Balkan's war was active and many nato nation's sent troop's there an aquaintance of mine, a british squaddie who suffered pts after what he had seen there told me how they were stopped at a checkpoint in there white and blue painted armoured personel carrier by men whom had just commited a massacre of men, woman and children and how despite wanting to tear into the evil B948tards they had to sit there and let these goon's check there vehicle over at there checkpoint as they were not there to interfere or bring the murder's to justice until the UN gave the go ahead.

He said all the lad's wanted to do was shoot the AK toting murderer's to pieces but of course it would have meant a court marshal for them had they done so.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Was creating the UN a mistake?

Yes. There really is nothing else that needs to be said. If someone can show me the overwhelming good, international cooperation, and reduced global war since the inception of the UN, maybe I'll reconsider.

(I'm not holding my breath, but I'll be open-minded if someone rises to the occasion)

Yes

Creating the UN was a mistake, as was creating the League of Nations, that the UN is based on. The league of nations completely collapsed, and the UN should follow it.

The ridiculous rules of the UN basically means that if you're the biggest bully on the block with the biggest stick (Russia, USA, China, France, Britain) you can veto anything that anyone else wants to do, any time, just by either (a) not voting at all or (b) voting against the other 192 members (193 total).

If ONE member of the Security Council votes against a resolution, it fails, regardless if 192 others decided to support it.

The whole idea of how the UN works is completely insane.

If you think that giving 5 members absolute control over anything that 193 members decide to do is a good idea, then the UN is for you.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The UN, the powder-blue helmet patrol is meant to be the new world police.

I expect the UN to become very active in the US soon.

I won't be welcoming them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I won't feel inclined to follow their orders or comply with their commands. They have no authority over me and I bet a lot of Americans feel the same way.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Where will they be deployed here and for what reason? and what evidence do you have this will transpire?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: DBCowboy

I won't feel inclined to follow their orders or comply with their commands. They have no authority over me and I bet a lot of Americans feel the same way.

The UN would be very unpopular in the US, not that it'll stop them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Do go on....

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

Where will they be deployed here and for what reason? and what evidence do you have this will transpire?

My opinion...They will be deployed everywhere.To disarm the American citizens using foreign troops
because U.S. soldiers might not do their dirty deeds for them.I watch,look and listen to what's going
on in the world.I threw away my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

Do go on....

If I may, a hypothetical future.

Say the US does go full blown civil war red vs blue. Who in their right mind would want WMD's in the hands of waring parties, no one. So with the US at its lowest UN Secretary council steps in and "BOOM!!!"
UN peacekeepers on every corner.

a reply to: mamabeth

I disagree with your opinion.

The panic brigade in this thread hasn't a shred of evidence this will happen. If you can provide something solid (other than opinion) to back up the fear mongering, I'm all ears.

a reply to: hillbilly4rent

Hypothetical or hysterical?