Does the UN matter anymore?

[dreamz]

after the usa blatantly ignored it under bush

and whenever someone massacre's someone else they condemn it but little comes of it

the whole UN peacekeepers force is now virtually non existant

has the UN's time come and gone?

[glazbagun]

The UN has never really existed except an extention of the will of the winners of WWII. So it matters as much as it ever has in that regard. The UN was never meant to be a "peacekeeping force" as such. The Gulf War is the only time in my lifetime where it's actually been used for it purpose (preventing wars between nation states), though there's probably a lot that passed under my radar.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Yes, it matters.

Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

[dreamz]

but even international diplomacy is often shunned at the UN. if the UN did want diplomacy on so many issues they could've gotten the zimbabweans to sit down

[elster]

dreamz said:

but even international diplomacy is often shunned at the UN. if the UN did want diplomacy on so many issues they could've gotten the zimbabweans to sit down

Zimbabwe is not exactly high priority compared to other places, it just hits the media in the UK.

A lot of other countries need regular help, is it best just to leave them to massacre each other.

[Tadite]

The UN does what it designed to do. To keep communications open between the major nations even during extreme emergencies. Back in the 40's the idea was when two nations started to have disagreements they had a tendency to pull back their ambassadors. What then happens is you can have some minor skirmish and then next thing you know you are in a war. In the age of nukes small mistakes in information could have massive consequences. So if you have the UN you had a place that could always be a source of communication even during the worst problems. Kinda of like in kindergarten when you had a fight with someone you didn't want to talk to them so you passed notes through someone else... Same concept. Hence, the security council.

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

What later happened is that people started to dump all the problems that nations don't want to deal with. Refugees, disaster relief, peace keeping, ete ete. On the UN.

Much of that was because when a nation sends troops into another it is often an invasion. But if you have a nice blue helmet if is "peace keeping." Allows the world to get around the problems all nations have by having a neutral party be the filter.

But the UN never had its own power. It only can ask for help from countries who then make the choice to do it or not. It was never designed to be a government and all the secondary activities it does often gets the most press but really aren't the reason it exists. The primary reason is open communication between nations that matter.

[rypt]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes, it matters.
Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

Tadite said:

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

We had that before WW2, it was called "League of Nations", it didn't stop WW2 from happening though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Germany was part of it from '26 to '33

LoN was the UN in everything but name

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:37

[Tadite]

rypt said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes, it matters.
Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

Tadite said:

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

We had that before WW2, it was called "League of Nations", it didn't stop WW2 from happening though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Germany was part of it from '26 to '33

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:37

That's because the most important nation that mattered wasn't in it. The US. The US created the UN and so long as it, for the most part, backs it then it still works to a degree. The moment that major nations ignore the UN is the moment it is no longer relevant.

Thing is the UN isn't suppose to do things it is suppose to be a place of dialog. Nothing more.

[rypt]

Tadite said:

rypt said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes, it matters.
Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

Tadite said:

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

We had that before WW2, it was called "League of Nations", it didn't stop WW2 from happening though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Germany was part of it from '26 to '33

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:37

That's because the most important nation that mattered wasn't in it. The US. The US created the UN and so long as it, for the most part, backs it then it still works to a degree. The moment that major nations ignore the UN is the moment it is no longer relevant.

Thing is the UN isn't suppose to do things it is suppose to be a place of dialog. Nothing more.

USA was largely insignificant before WW1 and mostly so before WW2, as such them being or not being there was of no importance to the fact that we still had a huge war.

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:41

[mybrainhurts]

I shall allow the UN to continue...

On condition it disbands the IPCC.

[Tadite]

rypt said:

Tadite said:

rypt said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes, it matters.
Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

Tadite said:

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

We had that before WW2, it was called "League of Nations", it didn't stop WW2 from happening though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Germany was part of it from '26 to '33

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:37

That's because the most important nation that mattered wasn't in it. The US. The US created the UN and so long as it, for the most part, backs it then it still works to a degree. The moment that major nations ignore the UN is the moment it is no longer relevant.

Thing is the UN isn't suppose to do things it is suppose to be a place of dialog. Nothing more.

USA was largely insignificant before WW1 and mostly so before WW2, as such them being or not being there was of no importance to the fact that we still had a huge war.

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:41

US was the most powerful country in the world after WW1. The Europeans did such a good job killing each other that the transition happened sometime around 1918.

This isn't to say that WW2 wouldn't have still happened. International organizations aren't all powerful and frankly the UN isn't the key aspect towards peace. That is that at no time from 1919 till now as a nation gotten to the level that they could beat the US in a war that the US cared about. Hegemony means peace.... and the UN is just one of many organizations that only really matter because the US and its allies find it useful. But this is the same with all other international organizations, WTO, WB, IMF... All of them are in the end based upon hegemonic power and the incentives that the US created for the world.

[rypt]

Tadite said:

rypt said:

Tadite said:

rypt said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes, it matters.
Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

Tadite said:

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

We had that before WW2, it was called "League of Nations", it didn't stop WW2 from happening though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Germany was part of it from '26 to '33

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:37

That's because the most important nation that mattered wasn't in it. The US. The US created the UN and so long as it, for the most part, backs it then it still works to a degree. The moment that major nations ignore the UN is the moment it is no longer relevant.

Thing is the UN isn't suppose to do things it is suppose to be a place of dialog. Nothing more.

USA was largely insignificant before WW1 and mostly so before WW2, as such them being or not being there was of no importance to the fact that we still had a huge war.

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:41

US was the most powerful country in the world after WW1. The Europeans did such a good job killing each other that the transition happened sometime around 1918.

This isn't to say that WW2 wouldn't have still happened. International organizations aren't all powerful and frankly the UN isn't the key aspect towards peace. That is that at no time from 1919 till now as a nation gotten to the level that they could beat the US in a war that the US cared about. Hegemony means peace.... and the UN is just one of many organizations that only really matter because the US and its allies find it useful. But this is the same with all other international organizations, WTO, WB, IMF... All of them are in the end based upon hegemonic power and the incentives that the US created for the world.

I disagree, the Empire was the strongest thing around until Hitler started building up his forces

[Jimbeaux]

dreamz said:

after the usa blatantly ignored it under bush

Or under Clinton.....or does that not count?

[Jimbeaux]

rypt said:

Tadite said:

rypt said:

Tadite said:

rypt said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Yes, it matters.
Better to have a forum for international discussion and diplomacy than not to have one.

Tadite said:

That is the primary reason for the UN. To have a place that nations can go and complain about each other. A place of venting and dialog. Something it does very well...

We had that before WW2, it was called "League of Nations", it didn't stop WW2 from happening though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

Germany was part of it from '26 to '33

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:37

That's because the most important nation that mattered wasn't in it. The US. The US created the UN and so long as it, for the most part, backs it then it still works to a degree. The moment that major nations ignore the UN is the moment it is no longer relevant.

Thing is the UN isn't suppose to do things it is suppose to be a place of dialog. Nothing more.

USA was largely insignificant before WW1 and mostly so before WW2, as such them being or not being there was of no importance to the fact that we still had a huge war.

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 1st June 00:41

US was the most powerful country in the world after WW1. The Europeans did such a good job killing each other that the transition happened sometime around 1918.

This isn't to say that WW2 wouldn't have still happened. International organizations aren't all powerful and frankly the UN isn't the key aspect towards peace. That is that at no time from 1919 till now as a nation gotten to the level that they could beat the US in a war that the US cared about. Hegemony means peace.... and the UN is just one of many organizations that only really matter because the US and its allies find it useful. But this is the same with all other international organizations, WTO, WB, IMF... All of them are in the end based upon hegemonic power and the incentives that the US created for the world.

I disagree, the Empire was the strongest thing around until Hitler started building up his forces

I agree with rypt; the U.S. power that Tadite alludes did not come until WWII.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 1st June 02:43

[AJS-]

I'm not convinced it ever really mattered. It's just another forum for every country to shout it's mouth off, feel like they're on a moral high horse, and try to get their own way. As soon as it goes against a national interest it's ignored.

As for Bush, remember the US was witholding payments under Clinton - if memory serves more down to congress than Clinton himself, but you can't lay all the blame at Bush's door.

[Jimbeaux]

AJS- said:

I'm not convinced it ever really mattered. It's just another forum for every country to shout it's mouth off, feel like they're on a moral high horse, and try to get their own way. As soon as it goes against a national interest it's ignored.

As for Bush, remember the US was witholding payments under Clinton - if memory serves more down to congress than Clinton himself, but you can't lay all the blame at Bush's door.

I was referring to Clinton's Kosovo air war that the U.N. voted against.

[AJS-]

Jimbeaux said:

AJS- said:

I'm not convinced it ever really mattered. It's just another forum for every country to shout it's mouth off, feel like they're on a moral high horse, and try to get their own way. As soon as it goes against a national interest it's ignored.

As for Bush, remember the US was witholding payments under Clinton - if memory serves more down to congress than Clinton himself, but you can't lay all the blame at Bush's door.

I was referring to Clinton's Kosovo air war that the U.N. voted against.

Oh yeah. But it's ok to ignore a left wing organisation for an even more left wing cause celebre...

[Jimbeaux]

AJS- said:

Jimbeaux said:

AJS- said:

I'm not convinced it ever really mattered. It's just another forum for every country to shout it's mouth off, feel like they're on a moral high horse, and try to get their own way. As soon as it goes against a national interest it's ignored.

As for Bush, remember the US was witholding payments under Clinton - if memory serves more down to congress than Clinton himself, but you can't lay all the blame at Bush's door.

I was referring to Clinton's Kosovo air war that the U.N. voted against.

Oh yeah. But it's ok to ignore a left wing organisation for an even more left wing cause celebre...