Do YOU support the United Nations?

[Doc Awesome]

Inspiration of this thread came from DiscoGary

Ive done a few reports and speeches on the United Nations, and ive liked them even less each time.

Ive leaf my explanations for when people engage in debate

[usnspecialist]

having worked indirectly with some UN military personnel here and briefed some of them, i can say that (at least from the military side) they are trying to do the best they can. They are just terribly hamstrung by politics and the body itself is woefully ineffective for the most part.

[Green Lantern]

I'd compare them sorta to communism....Ideal in theory, unrealistic in practice.

Sure world peace and cooperation is good and desirable in the objective sense, but given not all nations agree to participate, and enforcement infrequently works properly given different member wants, the UN can't really function as it should.

[phantomtofu]

An international governing body is absolutely necessary with today's growing international economy, not to mention a threat like N. Korea- that said, the UN is finding that it's hard to balance effective enforcement of international policy while respecting each county's rights as sovereign states. I realize that's an incredibly general statement, but it all comes down to picking the issues that matter and focusing, rather than ineffectively having big meetings that decide there are tings that need to be addressed and leaving it at that.

[the architect]

i love the idea of it

[Davy Jones]

On the whole, yes.

[Equinox2100]

having worked indirectly with some UN military personnel here and briefed some of them, i can say that (at least from the military side) they are trying to do the best they can. They are just terribly hamstrung by politics and the body itself is woefully ineffective for the most part.

This.

Except for the part about working with them (yet!)

[Doc Awesome]

Well here are my problems

1. the problems surrounding its peace-keeping force. (ie: The sitation with the Belgian soldiers caught torturing Somali(?) civilians)

2. my reservations about globalization as a whole. Idk how the UN wont attempt to do the same thing the EU did to Europe if it had the oppertunity.

yes, broad statements, but will work in explanation and evidence when challenged

[chubs]

The UN may try really hard, but when it comes down to it they don't accomplish much, and what they do succeed in often has little impact. When the UN takes down some dictators I'll be impressed.

[Davy Jones]

Well here are my problems

1. the problems surrounding its peace-keeping force. (ie: The sitation with the Belgian soldiers caught torturing Somali(?) civilians)

2. my reservations about globalization as a whole. Idk how the UN wont attempt to do the same thing the EU did to Europe if it had the oppertunity.

yes, broad statements, but will work in explanation and evidence when challenged

1. That's a problem because those troops are human, and can be prone to doing things like that. Doesn't mean the peace-keepers aren't needed. I mean, what's worse? A dictator torturing millions or a few peace-keepers torturing a few people.

2. I don't think the UN wants to try and do that to the rest of the world because they know it would NEVER work. You think the US is willing to become anywhere close to equals with everyone else? Globalization only works if you get some superpowers to go along with it (i.e. US, China, UK, etc). It'll NEVER happen.

[DiscoGary]

The UN may try really hard, but when it comes down to it they don't accomplish much, and what they do succeed in often has little impact. When the UN takes down some dictators I'll be impressed.

The UN won't be taking down any dictators. The UN's charter is to promote peace between countries (let's forget about how effective they are right now), not to promote peace within countries. The UN treats all countries the same regardless of how oppressive the government is. That's why you see all those goons like Chavez speaking at the UN.

1. That's a problem because those troops are human, and can be prone to doing things like that. Doesn't mean the peace-keepers aren't needed. I mean, what's worse? A dictator torturing millions or a few peace-keepers torturing a few people.

It's good to see someone making the case for Abu Graib and Club Gitmo.

2. I don't think the UN wants to try and do that to the rest of the world because they know it would NEVER work. You think the US is willing to become anywhere close to equals with everyone else? Globalization only works if you get some superpowers to go along with it (i.e. US, China, UK, etc). It'll NEVER happen.

The UN wants to do exactly that. If you want an example of powerful countries giving up their sovereignty, then look no further than Europe. Why would Germany or England join a collective, when they were doing fine without it? The answer is... they thought they could use it to get control over all the other member countries.

It could happen here.

[Davy Jones]

The UN wants to do exactly that. If you want an example of powerful countries giving up their sovereignty, then look no further than Europe. Why would Germany or England join a collective, when they were doing fine without it? The answer is... they thought they could use it to get control over all the other member countries.

It could happen here.

I think you're overlooking just how more liberal they are in Germany and England. What percentage of the people in the US you think would be in favor of that?

5%? 10% at the VERY MOST.

How often do politicians in this country do something that only 10% of the people want?

Will never happen here. We are too Conservative for stuff like that.

[mainesouthxcdad]

In my opinion, Doc's and Gary's fears about globalization and the UN trying to do to the world what the EU did to Europe are unfounded. The fact is that the EU didn't "do" anything to Europe. The EU is Europe. If the European member countries didn't want to form and join the EU, they wouldn't have. I don't believe Germany and England joined the EU because "they thought they could use it to get control over all the other member countries," as claimed by Gary. The debates each country had about whether or not to join the EU were very public. Without going back to review all of the articles and archives, my recollection is that the driving force behind formation of the EU was economic turmoil in Europe, not secret ambitions in London and Bonn to control other European nations.

Furthermore, the UN is nothing like the EU. It was a natural for the European nations to form the EU, kind of like Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, et al. forming the Big Ten Conference. They are close geographically and have common economic and political interests. The member states of the UN have none of that. You have republics, kingdoms and dictators. Countries based on capitalism, socialism and nepotism. Countries that are closely aligned and countries that want to wipe each other off the face of the earth. The UN, as a group, is not going to try to "do" anything like what Europe did in forming the EU.

The UN, for all of its costs and corruption, still plays a valuable role in modern geopolitics. Yes, it can be used or manipulated, like when the U.S. (it pains me to say) misled its allies and the world about WMD in Iraq, or whenever Iran's Ahmadinejad addresses the body. But, it provides a safe place for every country in the world to present its side of any dispute to all of the other countries in the world. It is quite amazing when you think about it.

I can understand criticism of the UN for being too expensive, too corrupt and/or too ineffective. But, to criticize it for leading the US towards globalization is just plain wrong in my opinion. Doc, if you have a good argument to the contrary, I'd love to read it.

[Doc Awesome]

In my opinion, Doc's and Gary's fears about globalization and the UN trying to do to the world what the EU did to Europe are unfounded. The fact is that the EU didn't "do" anything to Europe. The EU is Europe. If the European member countries didn't want to form and join the EU, they wouldn't have. I don't believe Germany and England joined the EU because "they thought they could use it to get control over all the other member countries," as claimed by Gary. The debates each country had about whether or not to join the EU were very public. Without going back to review all of the articles and archives, my recollection is that the driving force behind formation of the EU was economic turmoil in Europe, not secret ambitions in London and Bonn to control other European nations.

Furthermore, the UN is nothing like the EU. It was a natural for the European nations to form the EU, kind of like Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, et al. forming the Big Ten Conference. They are close geographically and have common economic and political interests. The member states of the UN have none of that. You have republics, kingdoms and dictators. Countries based on capitalism, socialism and nepotism. Countries that are closely aligned and countries that want to wipe each other off the face of the earth. The UN, as a group, is not going to try to "do" anything like what Europe did in forming the EU.

The UN, for all of its costs and corruption, still plays a valuable role in modern geopolitics. Yes, it can be used or manipulated, like when the U.S. (it pains me to say) misled its allies and the world about WMD in Iraq, or whenever Iran's Ahmadinejad addresses the body. But, it provides a safe place for every country in the world to present its side of any dispute to all of the other countries in the world. It is quite amazing when you think about it.

I can understand criticism of the UN for being too expensive, too corrupt and/or too ineffective. But, to criticize it for leading the US towards globalization is just plain wrong in my opinion. Doc, if you have a good argument to the contrary, I'd love to read it.
after reading your FIRST SENTANCE I found your flaw. The ONLY country in ALL of Europe that was allowed to even have a referendum on the Lisbon charter was Ireland, and they VOTED IT DOWN! The European public had almost no say in the EU constitution! Isnt that scary to anyone? And to make matters worse, Sarkoszy made Ireland vote again! The main reason why Ireland didnt want the constitution passed was because their needs would be marginilized to the percentage of their representation in the EU, which is miniscule! And yet, after repeated attempts to strong-arm the public and the Irish govt, the EU scum won the second referendum! Can anyone say rigged?