Disband the UN!

[jedi-master]

It isn't worth staying around anyways. It doesn't seem powerful enough to me to do anything right in times of war around the world. The reason why they created the UN was to use diplomacy to end war peacefully, right?. Problem is, in Israel, those Hamas groups don't give a sh*t if the UN cries and complains to stop, and any temporary ceasefires that result, are just that, temporary. In my world history class, we read about the former League of Nations, the UN's predecessor, created after WW1 to stop global conflicts. It couldn't do anything because it had no real power. While the UN can impose economic sanctions, for example, on Iran, it doesn't seem to work because there are nations that aren't members of the UN that can trade with these rogue nations. There's a million other reasons why I think the UN should just disband, but I'll provide those reasons later. WHat are your thoughts about the UN Newgrounds?

[Ledgey]

At 1/12/09 12:42 AM, jedi-master wrote: Problem is, in Israel, those Hamas groups don't give a sh*t if the UN cries and complains to stop, and any temporary ceasefires that result, are just that, temporary.

For one, Israel are not comply with UN demands as much as Hamas. Secondly, they have prevented many wars and even sent their own armies in (something that the LoN failed to do).

In my world history class, we read about the former League of Nations, the UN's predecessor, created after WW1 to stop global conflicts. It couldn't do anything because it had no real power.

Yes, the LoN was an eventual failure (reasons behind it are debatable) but it's obvious the UN has learned from that failure. In historic cases such as the Manchuria crisis and the Abyssinian invasion, the League failed to act effieciently. The UN on the other hand have handled situations such as the Korean War and the Suez Crisis successfully and have clearly prevented any large war in the last 50 or so years.

While the UN can impose economic sanctions, for example, on Iran, it doesn't seem to work because there are nations that aren't members of the UN that can trade with these rogue nations.

Name these rogue nations. Practically every country in the world is part of the UN unless you consider Taiwan, Western Sahara or the Vatican City "rogue nations" or even good trading partners.

There's a million other reasons why I think the UN should just disband, but I'll provide those reasons later. WHat are your thoughts about the UN Newgrounds?

The UN has prevents any large escalation of War. It's a neccessity in modern diplomacy and any thought of disbanding it is pretty stupid. Other than that, it's mediation over human rights is great and the work it's done encompasses all nations. Sure it's not perfect, but I guarentee most of your "million reasons" are just nit picky bitchy things.

[pipsnip]

the UN takes sovereignty from countries and forces the people of those countries to suffer for the mistakes of others..
it takes away rights to own weapons that enable you to fight the evils that they say they are trying to destroy...

the UN is a self perpetuating organization that has one goal and one alone, to gain control of the entire world...

they will strip your rights strip your guns and strip everything else....

[yinyangman]

Are you outta your minds! The UN Can't be disbanded.

[SomeCrappyUsername]

Being to some degree an isolationist I would have to agree with you. The UN really drags countries into conflicts that are not their business, also it is possible that the existance of the UN could drag the whole world into a war, because one of their smaller nations gets attacked.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/14/09 12:04 PM, yinyangman wrote: Are you outta your minds! The UN Can't be disbanded.

"can't" refers to a possibility. The UN could damn well be disbanded. Hell, Israel blew up a UN building today. That happens a couple hundred more times and it would be.
"Shouldn't" more accurately describes the situation.
However, UN offers aid and services in non-war setting, such as working on hunger relief. If you believe that being able to eat and survive is a basic right, that people have a right to life (as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness that our constitution states they do), and the UN is a means to that end.
Plus all nuclear capable countries pretty much listen to the UN.

[Ledgey]

At 1/14/09 06:31 AM, pipsnip wrote: the UN takes sovereignty from countries and forces the people of those countries to suffer for the mistakes of others..

How does it? If anything it's given sovereignty to nations (see Kosovo).

it takes away rights to own weapons that enable you to fight the evils that they say they are trying to destroy...

That doesn't make sense... If it didn't have nuclear proliferation then surely any nation could have them and use them.

the UN is a self perpetuating organization that has one goal and one alone, to gain control of the entire world...

That's just conspiracy theorist talk. There has been no hint at turning the UN into a worldwide governing system, or at least one with extraordinary powers.

they will strip your rights strip your guns and strip everything else....

Erm, there are many nations that still allow you to have guns... Clearly they haven't and most likely won't strip gun rights.

"can't" refers to a possibility. The UN could damn well be disbanded. Hell, Israel blew up a UN building today. That happens a couple hundred more times and it would be.

Well, I'm not saying it can't, but it's an almost impossible chance it would happen. It has too much international support.

[Duffi]

I'm just going to agree with Ledgey, however;

At 1/16/09 07:13 AM, SomeCrappyUsername wrote: The UN really drags countries into conflicts that are not their business

Signing up for the UN means that your country is also ready to help for the greater good. I've rarely seen the UN make unreasonable reinforcement demands when it comes to money, weapons, or infantry.

also it is possible that the existance of the UN could drag the whole world into a war, because one of their smaller nations gets attacked.

No, it's not. In fact, a disbanded UN would make that risk even larger. I see the UN as a alliance which primarily focuses on peace and trade, be it through diplomacy or war. And frankly, it seems as though the UN is very hesitant with the latter.

[Chain3dAng3l]

Are you saying the PMCs are better than the UN peacemakers? if that is so i agree, EO totaly outperformed them in seierra leon in 03.

GO EO

[JoS]

The UN is as effective as its members want it to be. Rigth no wit serves the interests of the US and other powerful nations to have a weak UN so they can do what they please and still have a scapegoat for when things go sour.

As far as PMC being more effective then UN peacekeepers, thats not true. I actually did a paper on this topic. UN Peacekeepers are again, only as effective as the militaries they come from. Bangladesh is the number one contributer to operations, so obviously they are not as good as the USMC. There have been some who have advocated for the use of PMCs in the short run until members are able to mobilize their own forces to replace them. PMCs can mobilize a battalion on about 2 weeks notice, Member nations could take several weeks or even months. So deploy PMCs immediately and wait for the calvary.

PMCS are nto as kickass as some believe though. Most people in PMCs are Tier 3 contractors, that is made up of ex-military of developing nations or less. Tier 1 which is SEALS, SAS, JTF-2 etc. make up only a small portion of the contractors PMCs deploy (including Blackwater). Tier 2 is developed nations military, police etc or people with advance skill sets of a similar nature.

EO was mostly Tier 3 with some Tier 1 commanders for their operations in SL.

[XwaynecoltX]

it has done lots of good by giving help to areas of need, it may not get to everyone or stuff but it does help in a big way

~X~

[EKublai]

At 1/16/09 03:46 PM, XwaynecoltX wrote: it has done lots of good by giving help to areas of need, it may not get to everyone or stuff but it does help in a big way

~X~

I definitely agree with, that's why I think eliminating the UN would be very bad idea. It think their needs to be a restructuring of it though. I would much more like to see it be used as a forum so that countries can state their stance on certain issues without having to worry about the international repercussions. Especially in terms of issues like violence and corruption, the U.N is powerless to help, but I think it should be necessary to use it as a vehicle for sustaining a conversation between nations. In many ways, I see the current United Nations as a SOURCE of all the international chaos that is ensuing currently. It alienates countries when the U.N suggests that sanctions should be placed against a certain nation and thus it hinders direct diplomacy. Plus, many nations view it as an organization that aims to let the West rule the world.

[Freedomblades]

yes the UN is horrible cuz is has no power. It has alot of power in this world. Just to let u know. if your a enemy with the UN your a enemy with every member of the UN so that means the states, Russia, the UK, France, Canada, and a list of other countries.

[Tebone7]

It is a very very good concept, it's just the fact that there are too many dishonest people in the world for something like the UN to actually work. The only problem is, is that people who don't want to be a part of the UN are rebellious and don't care what the UN has to say. Even though all the major countries are a part of it, and some minor, there are still places like Iraq and Afghanistan that don't care anymore. The people there are too enraged to give a rats ass about what any person in a suit will say to them. And when you get enough people like that you can't stop them from obeying you without better reason than "let's be friends". There is too many people with conflict with another who don't have any good simple reasoning that there can be compromise.

I think the UN should stay b/c i'm sure that the meetings that happen there have prevented other wars from occurring. Places that cannot come to means with these should either keep conflicts with themselves, if they don't and they mess with anyone in the UN to be annihilated off the face of the earth in secrecy. Their names removed from every book on earth and the country burned to ashes to leave no remains. It is violent, but you cannot have threats to harmony between countries.

[Wings55]

Seriously, the UN was a good idea on paper, but how do you make sanctions on a country when it has to be a 100% vote, and that country has a person on the UN board? All of the actions that they do accomplish are too slow anyways.

[Kenzu]

Good luck on that. I wonder how your post on NG will disband the UN.

[silverman10]

Oh, you mean the united nothing? yeah, go ahead they don't actually do anything. anyway, do they?

[Wings55]

Exactly, they dont do anything thats fast enough. By the time the UN board decides on something, its already taken care of, or the circumstances have changed.

[Dawnslayer]

The UN will never be disbanded. That involves the participants willingly working together to make it happen. Instead, it will simply collapse under the weight of human arrogance and pride.