United Nations

[AJS-]

What do we actually get from being a member of this organisation? It seems like another ineffectual and expensive politician's jolly at best, and quite often like an undemocratic, meddlesome nuisance who make things worse.

It made more sense in the cold war where there was a ready, multilateral forum for discussing east/west relations. And I realise most "sensible" countries are members, so don't use that as an argument on it's own. What would we actually lose out on by quitting?

[randlemarcus]

"Face" and status, as far as I can see.

Most of it is liberal wishlist politics, which is fine - it's when they try to justify their ridiculous budget spend on things like drinking water, claiming a drop of 2 billion people having acceptable water, when their definition of acceptable is "via pipe", rather than "via pipe, not from polluted sources, and actually better for you than a puddle".

Not a subscriber to the New World Order manic conspiracies, but not a convinced believer either.

[cardigankid]

You have to have some top level forum for discussion or you end up at 1914, again. What alternative would you suggest?

[TheHeretic]

All too easy for a country to veto as well.

[AJS-]

cardigankid said:

You have to have some top level forum for discussion or you end up at 1914, again. What alternative would you suggest?

This is what I'm not really convinced of. Agreements, or where necessary direct interventions, amongst the countries concerned would seem to be a better bet to me.

1914 was a very different time and I don't see that level of blind nationalistic insanity rearing it's head again, at least in Europe. If that is partly down to the UN then all well and good, but I would suggest it's more down to the horrors of how good we got at killing one another, and the general mobility and awareness of people these days compared with a century ago.

[jbi]

AJS- said:

1914 was a very different time and I don't see that level of blind nationalistic insanity rearing it's head again, at least in Europe. If that is partly down to the UN then all well and good, but I would suggest it's more down to the horrors of how good we got at killing one another, and the general mobility and awareness of people these days compared with a century ago.

The US is toothless, just like the league of nations before it.

One thing history is taught us is that the past is doomed to repeat itself. We are the same human beings that have walked this earth since records began.

Blind nationalistic insanity is just as capable of rearing it's ugly head as at any time in the past. You only need a major economic or political crash for a radical government to be elected.

[Derek Smith]

jbi said:

AJS- said:

1914 was a very different time and I don't see that level of blind nationalistic insanity rearing it's head again, at least in Europe. If that is partly down to the UN then all well and good, but I would suggest it's more down to the horrors of how good we got at killing one another, and the general mobility and awareness of people these days compared with a century ago.

The UN is toothless, just like the league of nations before it.

One thing history is taught us is that the past is doomed to repeat itself. We are the same human beings that have walked this earth since records began.

Blind nationalistic insanity is just as capable of rearing it's ugly head as at any time in the past. You only need a major economic or political crash for a radical government to be elected.

it is difficult to say whether or not the UN is a success. All we can say is that before it came into existence we had to massively destructive world wars. Some suggest the UN is nothing more than a talking shop. I wouldn't disagree, I have little evidence either way. However sometimes talking is enough. There is no doubt that the UN can be bullied. The veto has been misused time and time again and power blocs tend to vote together.

The main failure from my point of view is the peacekeeping forces. Their authority and power to act is extremely limited although this does lend them some credibility in the countries they go into.

As you say history shows that sooner or later there will be another massively destructive war. The only thing the UN can do is delay the date of it. Given the fact that there has been no re-occurrence of World War II there is every possibility that the UN's influence has been positive.

The other thing it does is the charity work. Whilst it is riddled with corruption, absolutely riddled, there are many alive today who would have died without the intervention of the UN charities.

Talking about problems is a masterly underrated method of limiting the fallout, perhaps literally. We ignore resolutions we see fit as does America and other countries. So bullying by the big powers does go on. But it's better than the alternative.

[12gauge]

Nothing. Its a load of crap. Our going into Iraq, ignoring the UN should tell you that. Same with Israel contravening dozens of UN protocols and facing no action.

If we have problems or oppurtunities with another country, we should go direct to them, not get involved with all the horse trading and politics at the NWO UN.