The UN needs to be disbanded

[Achilles2]

If not disbanded, then it needs to be severely reformed. Let's start with the most simple reason: It needs an army in order to do anything.

It's just a worthless figurehead. Easy to disobey, easy to abuse. War can happen without any nation receiving sanctions. Why? Because the nations that usually declare war are permanent members on the security council, and they'll obviously vote against sanctions against themselves!

Step 1 to making the UN actually worth more than dogshit: GIVE THEM AN ARMY.

Have each member on the security council give a specific amount of troops to the "United Army" (the UN's Army...I came up with the name). Permanent members must keep these troops in the United Army, temporary members may or may not take these troops out of the army once they are no longer members on the council.

Step 2 is also simple: MAKE DECISIONS MADE BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAVE A MAJORITY APPROVAL REQUIREMENT

Meaning, instead of needing universal approval for a simple sanction, have it be a majority rules situation. Or, at least, a "2/3 of the members need to approve" situation.

Implementing these two simple things will give the UN power to stop another Rwandan Genocide, to stop more pirate attacks, to stop the Darfur Genocide, etc. that it's supposed to take care of.

[Achilles2]

I should also add that if the UN becomes a power in the world, then it can give aide to other nations as opposed to putting that burden on nations that should be caring about itself (eg. the United States, European nations, etc.).

In order to prevent corruption, the UN should implement a "checks and balances" system that allows members of the principle "organs" (what the UN calls its branches) of the UN to make sure the other organs are doing their job. For example, if the Secretary-General is not doing his job, then the Security Council can vote to impeach him. etc.

[Minarchist]

At 12/3/08 03:29 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Implementing these two simple things will give the UN power to stop another Rwandan Genocide, to stop more pirate attacks, to stop the Darfur Genocide, etc. that it's supposed to take care of.

This is wrong. The UN isn't supposed to be the world government with the ability to send "police" around the world to make sure everyone plays nice. The UN was conceived to be a neutral forum for the nations of the world in the hope that violence could be prevented through diplomacy. In this way, your idea to increase the UN in size, scope, and power actually makes it no longer a neutral forum and, thus, less capable of preventing violence, since to stop a war the UN must create one.

[Achilles2]

At 12/3/08 03:47 PM, Minarchist wrote: This is wrong. The UN isn't supposed to be the world government with the ability to send "police" around the world to make sure everyone plays nice.

Then it is nothing more than a figurehead and a waste of time.

The UN was conceived to be a neutral forum for the nations of the world in the hope that violence could be prevented through diplomacy.

"Hope" without action is nothing. If the UN only "hopes" to unite nations and does nothing to do such (which it has not), then it is just a huge waste of time.

In this way, your idea to increase the UN in size, scope, and power actually makes it no longer a neutral forum and, thus, less capable of preventing violence, since to stop a war the UN must create one.

It doesn't need to create a war as opposed to defending the oppressed. In Darfur, the government won't come to their aide since it's the government who is attacking. Thus, there's a need for the UN to keep a defense force there in order to ensure that the genocide stops. I meant it more as a peace-keeping force who is authorized to use violence.

Since there would also be a system of checks and balances in my idea of the UN, then corruption in the army would not last long, if it can even stop.

[Conspiracy3]

I agree with the entire post. Without an army the UN is useless. If the UN needs unanimous approval for sanctions they won't be able to make any meaningful decisions.

However, when you say all permanent members must give troops to the United Army how many troops will that be? Without any real guideline you might end up in a situation in which each nation only gives one soldier to the UN.

[gumOnShoe]

What you are talking about is creating a world wide government that can police the entire world. That's not the U.N.'s purpose.

It is also not likely to suceed since most countries in the world can't agree on how everyone should be governed.

Additionally, corruption at that level has the capability to fuck everyone over instead of one nation.

If you want a U.S.W. then don't pretend you want a U.N.

[Minarchist]

At 12/3/08 03:51 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 12/3/08 03:47 PM, Minarchist wrote: This is wrong. The UN isn't supposed to be the world government with the ability to send "police" around the world to make sure everyone plays nice.

Then it is nothing more than a figurehead and a waste of time.

I'll take a figurehead over sacrificing the sovereignty of my nation any day.

The UN was conceived to be a neutral forum for the nations of the world in the hope that violence could be prevented through diplomacy.

"Hope" without action is nothing. If the UN only "hopes" to unite nations and does nothing to do such (which it has not), then it is just a huge waste of time.

And what makes you think the UN could be a useful government at all? Simply imposing the will of the majority onto the minority (or the powerful onto the weak) does nothing to solve differences. Instead it breeds resentment and only delays or changes the target of hostilities. Furthermore, where else can the UN get its money than from member nations? In the end, it's still just as powerless (yet more expensive) than when it didn't have a military since nations can just stop paying dues if they disagree with policy. Then what are you going to suggest? Should the UN attack a country because it won't pay its dues?

In this way, your idea to increase the UN in size, scope, and power actually makes it no longer a neutral forum and, thus, less capable of preventing violence, since to stop a war the UN must create one.

It doesn't need to create a war as opposed to defending the oppressed.

And how does it do this without war?

In Darfur, the government won't come to their aide since it's the government who is attacking. Thus, there's a need for the UN to keep a defense force there in order to ensure that the genocide stops. I meant it more as a peace-keeping force who is authorized to use violence.

Darfur is an unfortunate display of aggression, but you'll see that the Sudanese people will come up with their own solution. Government abuses will bolster the ranks of subversive groups, like the Sudan Liberation Army, which is fighting pro-government forces to create a free democratic government. Eventually the government will be forced to end its abuses or it will be overthrown. In the end, there will be a far more satisfactory solution for the Sudanese than if some non-regional body simply forces the violence to end. Once again, forcing an unvoluntary end to violence does not necessarily solve any problems.

Since there would also be a system of checks and balances in my idea of the UN, then corruption in the army would not last long, if it can even stop.

Government is government no matter its form. There's no getting around its failings.

[zephiran]

I have often contemplated if a "just" terrorist force could serve as a guarding power that would at least limit the abuse of political power and violent conflicts in the world. In other words, could terrorists do UN:s job? Maybe not, a force that would have the kind of power to overthrow governments would easily and rather rapidly turn corrupt.

But it is a fascinating thought, and I think I will ponder it some more before I give a definite conclusion on this matter.

Anyhow, back to topic. Disband the UN you say? Well maybe a reform would be in order, but disbanding the worlds largest peacekeeping organisation could really create quite a few serious troubles. What little good the UN manages to do we cannot afford to loose.

[Al6200]

At 12/3/08 03:29 PM, Achilles2 wrote: If not disbanded, then it needs to be severely reformed. Let's start with the most simple reason: It needs an army in order to do anything.

Part of the problem with this is that power is given arbitrarily within the UN representation. The permanent members of the security council have the status that they do because of their involvement in WWII, not because of their contributions to the UN, population, or anything relevant to politics today.

It's just a worthless figurehead. Easy to disobey, easy to abuse. War can happen without any nation receiving sanctions. Why? Because the nations that usually declare war are permanent members on the security council, and they'll obviously vote against sanctions against themselves!

Yeah. The veto power basically makes the UN pointless.

Step 1 to making the UN actually worth more than dogshit: GIVE THEM AN ARMY.

This is kind of absurd. Why would the US want to give the UN an army.

The only way the UN could do this was if it started pandering to certain countries, and built an army exclusively with their contributions.

Have each member on the security council give a specific amount of troops to the "United Army" (the UN's Army...I came up with the name). Permanent members must keep these troops in the United Army, temporary members may or may not take these troops out of the army once they are no longer members on the council.

Why would a nation with a very good military like the US willingly give up its military superiority to a body that it doesn't control? Furthermore, would US troops really put UN commands over their own nation's commands?

Step 2 is also simple: MAKE DECISIONS MADE BY THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAVE A MAJORITY APPROVAL REQUIREMENT

Meaning, instead of needing universal approval for a simple sanction, have it be a majority rules situation. Or, at least, a "2/3 of the members need to approve" situation.

Implementing these two simple things will give the UN power to stop another Rwandan Genocide, to stop more pirate attacks, to stop the Darfur Genocide, etc. that it's supposed to take care of.

Meh, not going to happen. An international military alliance would only work if the nation's of the world had almost entirely common interests. This isn't really the case.

[n64kid]

The UN is just a failed attempt at a one world power. Rather than give it power to enforce it's policies, I say we disband it. It's just an inefficient waste of time and money.

Oh, and this thread has been done.

[Rideo]

At 12/3/08 04:30 PM, Contipec wrote: The dream of every Neo-Nazi and of every skinhead. The dream of Bush also. To disband the UN. I say no, I say keep the UN!

That doesn't even make sense, why would neo-nazis want the UN to fail?

The UN needs to be disbanded because it's corrupt and it's nature corrupts. It gives everyone of it's employees international diplomatic immunity, these people go out and rape, murder, and steal and no one has the authority to try them. Many of the members of the UN are known thieves.(among other things)

[altanese-mistress]

The UN has been key in preventing wars all across the world. Economic and political sanctions aren't as exciting as invasion, but they're more effective in several ways, plus the permanent security council members cannot veto these sort of actions. It does need to be stronger, but it does not need an armed force. That would be an inconvenience and would give anti-UN sentements a surge in popularity.

[Sajberhippien]

Giving the UN an army is an idiotic idea.

Removing any kind of vetoes is good however, and also, voting power should be based on the number of inhabitants with voting power in the country. So the more democratic the country is, the more it has to say in the UN. Also, a country such as Liechtenstein or Monaco shouldn't have as much voting power as India, China, or even the US.

[SolInvictus]

At 12/3/08 04:30 PM, Contipec wrote: The dream of every Neo-Nazi and of every skinhead. The dream of Bush also. To disband the UN. I say no, I say keep the UN!

will you lay off with the skinhead and nazi stuff?

[Musician]

Only an uninformed moron would want to disband the UN. We're talking about an agency that coordinates just about every international effort in the world, including air trafficking (ICAO), sea travel (IMO), telecommunications (ITU), postage (UPU), and even weather forecasting in order to help reduce the impact of potential natural disasters (WMO). Not to mention the fact that the UN does a general service to the world by providing a forum for international issues. By saying "we should disband the UN", you're essentially saying we should disband all of our coordination and communications with other countries.

[yinyangman]

No it doesn't.

[homor]

also, one of the higher ups is a PETA member, who thinks meat wastes water or something stupid like that.

yeah, good job guy, lets tell people to stop eating meat instead of going after the commiters of genocide.

[Earfetish]

At 12/5/08 02:51 PM, homor wrote: also, one of the higher ups is a PETA member, who thinks meat wastes water or something stupid like that.

yeah, good job guy, lets tell people to stop eating meat instead of going after the commiters of genocide.

because it's impossible to do both

since he's a vegetarian, according to homor, he doesn't care about genocide. Or since he cares about water conservation he CAN'T care about genocide.

You should feel ashamed for making such a dumb argument.

[homor]

At 12/5/08 02:55 PM, Earfetish wrote: because it's impossible to do both

oh you know thats not what i'm saying.

[SlimeManMan]

At 12/3/08 03:51 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 12/3/08 03:47 PM, Minarchist wrote: This is wrong. The UN isn't supposed to be the world government with the ability to send "police" around the world to make sure everyone plays nice.

Then it is nothing more than a figurehead and a waste of time.

You are wanting a united world government, which probably not going to happen in our lifetime.

The UN was conceived to be a neutral forum for the nations of the world in the hope that violence could be prevented through diplomacy.

"Hope" without action is nothing. If the UN only "hopes" to unite nations and does nothing to do such (which it has not), then it is just a huge waste of time.

Hope without action is faith, and faith is not nothing. But the point is that, you don't care about freedom or peace, at least in the terms I put it.

In this way, your idea to increase the UN in size, scope, and power actually makes it no longer a neutral forum and, thus, less capable of preventing violence, since to stop a war the UN must create one.

It doesn't need to create a war as opposed to defending the oppressed. In Darfur, the government won't come to their aide since it's the government who is attacking. Thus, there's a need for the UN to keep a defense force there in order to ensure that the genocide stops. I meant it more as a peace-keeping force who is authorized to use violence.

God, you are dumb. Want another Gulf War II? Why not just nuke North Korea? Or China? Taking those "evil empires" out of the picture will improve the world, right?

Since there would also be a system of checks and balances in my idea of the UN, then corruption in the army would not last long, if it can even stop.

The US government is the most perfectly balanced and correctable democracy in resistance, and Dubya managed to screw that up in just 8 short years.
What you are imagining is a utopia, which cannot exist. You are being very naive about this, and have been proven wrong in every issue, and have proved yourself very short-sighted.
Sorry about any speeling errors.

[AKACCMIOF]

I agrees with alls of the threadings.

[D3NTATUS]

At 12/5/08 02:51 PM, homor wrote: also, one of the higher ups is a PETA member, who thinks meat wastes water or something stupid like that.

Well it does, but that's not the point.

yeah, good job guy, lets tell people to stop eating meat instead of going after the commiters of genocide.

So what are you saying? PETA cares more about animals than genocide? You can care about more than one thing. I know that Earfetish already adressed this, but this is the only way I can see your argument being construed.

Furthermore, who gives a fuck if a member is from PETA? Should people be barred from diplomatic organizations because of their ideals?

[AbstractPathologist]

At 12/5/08 02:55 PM, Earfetish wrote:
You should feel ashamed for making such a dumb argument.

Aaawww, sounds like someone's having a bad day.

[dySWN]

At 12/15/08 12:19 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: Furthermore, who gives a fuck if a member is from PETA? Should people be barred from diplomatic organizations because of their ideals?

Maybe not, but then again such associations should give those whom appoint said diplomats pause. Would a PETA member accurately represent the best interests of a country known for it's meat exports, for example? What about a holocaust denier representing a predominantly Jewish country, or a Marxist representing a country with mostly free-market ideals?