UN isn't all its cracked up to be.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SlyHunter, May 4, 2004.

  1. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
    A group that would allow Sudan a membership on the Human rights committed. A group that would allow Iraq with President Saddam Hussein to become the chairman of the Disarmament committee. A group that would make Egypt and Syria co chairs in the Human rights committee. Is a group America should not be a part of.
    Someone overlooked the fact that we prosecute our criminals. That unlike allot of others we police our own.

    They allow Sudan in Human rights committee and have the gall to condemn the US or Israel for human rights violations. Get real.
     
  2. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #2
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=210
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    Although not directly related to the issue posted, I have never liked the UN...I love the idea, and perhaps in the future it might be reworked to be more effective...but for now, I have these problems:
    1) The fact that the UN goes after consensus decision-making, makes the process very slow in its' response to the problems at hand...if there was a dangerous development going on in the world, the time it took to decide on a couse of action, could already make any decision too late to have any real relevance/effectiveness
    2) As related to 1), most decisions, to gain consensus are compromise positions which further water-down the potential effectiveness of any action/policy
    3) As related to both above, the veto power that the permanent members of the security council enjoy, can often ruin any effective policy decisions in one stroke...
    The UN process seems somewhat analgous to the methods employed by a split Congress...arguing down party lines, stonewalling, back-room favors, fillibusters and contention over inconsequential details...at least the Congress is all from one country...The UN includes and must recogognize and appease the concerns of many...I somewhat worry about the EU in this respect, also...
    I apologize if I have been somewhat incomplete here, but you get the idea...
     
  4. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #4
    I think its because the UN wasn't originally created to be a World Government but simply a forum for the Governments of the world.

    I don't think it can be reworked because you have to get past the veto's of, I believe 5 different countries with 5 different philosophy's on life. It would be better to recreate it from scratch even if it meant having two world governments because nobody could agree on just one.
     
  5. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=903


    I think I'm going to add this to my normal daily news sites that I visit.
    http://www.unisevil.com/temp213.htm
     
  6. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    I think we tried that already. It was called the Cold War.
     
  8. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #8
    Most of your criticisms stem from the fact that the UN is not a "world government" - never has been and was never meant to be such a structure. Has it been invaluable in the last 50 years as a place for nations to discuss their concerns and to provide resources for such things as conflict resolution, peacekeeping, health education, disaster relief, and so on? Absolutely. It does not have any more power than what sovereign nations give it and as such it is limited in its ability to "enforce" many things we would like to see as standards throughout the world. In short, your criticisms are unfair because the expectation is unrealistic from such a world body. If you want to advocate a world governmental body then I can understand your points, but I would point out that the likelihood of nations ceding such authority to a United Nations of that type are practically nil.
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    Point taken Sahey...I did not mean to imply that the UN has not/does not provide valuble service(s) to the world community...I guess I just wonder about their continued relevancy at a time when nations take or leave their advice...and how many people might be similarily misinformed as to the use/role of the UN in the 21st century. Regardless, thankyou for correcting my ignorance...that is one of the reasons why I like posting here...
     
  10. SlyHunter thread starter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #10
    I havn't read about it yet on the internet but I heard on tv that Kofi Anan has issued letters to folks saying not to turn in any information about the oil for food fiasco without first passing it by him. Seems like they are trying to cover up their illegal dealings.
     

Share This Page