Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Should the UN be Disbanded?

UN

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

Poll: Should the UN be Disbanded? (0 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the UN be Disbanded?

  1. The UN should be disbanded and replaced with something else (8 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

  2. The UN should not be disbanded but there must be changes (32 votes [66.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 66.67%

  3. The UN is fine just the way it is (4 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

  4. I don't care or undecided (4 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 05 February 2003 - 05:21 PM

Have at it! Posted Image

Edited by Cait, 24 September 2012 - 02:03 PM.

Han

#2 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 02:05 AM

But then we'd all be in trouble. †:Oo:

IMO, the more checks and balances there are in the world, the better. It isn't easy living under the feet of superpowers. †;)

Per aspera ad astra

#3 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 01:47 AM

I can't vote because you didn't include the option "The UN should be either completely ignored or dissolved, and NOT replaced."

#4 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 01:15 AM

Should the US be disbanded? Or Australia? Sheesh... †??? †:hehe:
Per aspera ad astra

#5 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 03:16 AM

The UN is needed, but it has to have it's own teeth. The fact that it can't make the tough decisions and make them stickw as there undoing in Kosovo, where the UN was essentially murdered.

It hjas just taken a long time to start falling down

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#6 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 03:33 AM

I think one good start to a restructured UN is getting rid of veto power on the Security Council. And having all resolutions submitted to the SC needing an overwhelming majority to pass. Second, would be a dedicated and independent UN military and limitations on member nations' militaries and military spending.
Third, kick out those nations that do not honor UN resolutions.

Han

#7 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 10:13 AM

Kevin Street, on Feb. 06 2003,07:05, said:

It isn't easy living under the feet of superpowers.
But there's NEVER any getting rid of superpowers. The UN is just an attempt to make another one to live under the feet of.

#8 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 February 2003 - 06:37 PM

Delvo, on Feb. 06 2003,15:13, said:

But there's NEVER any getting rid of superpowers. The UN is just an attempt to make another one to live under the feet of.
One that has no other powers to restrain it....
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#9 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 07 February 2003 - 12:47 AM

Actually there are some parts of the UN that are benifical to the world. WHO that has made great strides in wiping out a number of deases. When the UN keeps out of politics it's a very good and useful organization.

So That is why Changes need to be made.  I think it needs to be a forum for discourse but not an impediment that protects the monsters of the world. But hey I favor handing war criminals into the hands of their victims.
The Chinese said it best Sometimes Vegence is Justice.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#10 Christopher

Christopher
  • Demigod
  • 32,404 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 04:31 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb. 06 2003,18:37, said:

One that has no other powers to restrain it....
As I see it, the point of the UN is to give all its member nations the power to restrain each other, to balance each other's power.  Instead of one or two nations forcing the rest of the world to go along with their wishes, all the major nations have a voice in their own future.  How much sense would it make for, say, New York or California to dictate policy for all 50 states?  The only fair system is one where every state has a say through its representatives.

What the UN needs is more ability to carry out its policies.  We need a solid framework of international law and the means to enforce it, if we're ever going to have any hope for global security.  And hell yes, that means that if the US violates international law we should be penalized for it.  Thinking that our power should exempt us from the rules everyone else has to follow is the mentality of a bully, and bullies are weak, cowardly, contemptible creatures.  Also it's hypocritical to claim to believe in equality and then demand special treatment.  America should be better than that, so for our own sake we should agree to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

"You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right." -- xkcd

"The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas." -- "H. G. Wells," Time After Time

Written Worlds -- My homepage and blog
Facebook Author Page

#11 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 05:18 PM

Christopher, while i agree with you in theory, America looks ready to prove why the UN doesn't work anymore.

It has said over and over again, that unless the UN gives it the resolution it wants, it will summarily ignore the UN. Which means that one nation is calling all the shots, which means he will at a stroke also make the UN completely irrelevant.

After all, if it won't throw it's support behind the UN now, why should anyone believe it next time.

the UN needs teeth. it's needs an army of it's own, that isn't run by any one country. At the moment, to enforce it's rules, the UN needs US military support, which means at the same time that the US doesn't actually have to listen to the UN, because what can they possibly do to stop it.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#12 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 09 February 2003 - 09:38 PM

Quote

Godeskian: Which means that one nation is calling all the shots, which means he will at a stroke also make the UN completely irrelevant.

One nation is calling the shots?  As it has been said over and over again the US has a fairly significant coalition on its side.  It was at least eight members of this coalition in the forms of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary,, Poland, and Denmark along with the Czech President that issued joint statements saying the UN must act now or be irrelevant.  It should be noted that the US wasnít even part of the letter.  


Quote

At the moment, to enforce it's rules, the UN needs US military support, which means at the same time that the US doesn't actually have to listen to the UN, because what can they possibly do to stop it.

This military force would do what and be employed by who?  Any of the permanent Security Council Members could veto it or the Security Council itself.  So you would still have an ineffective and useless UN sitting around doing nothing because the UN canít ever even decide what to do.  It doesnít matter if the UN has a military or not because the member nations can easily raise a military force if they did decide to actÖ    

I mean I suppose you could put it under the command of the Human Rights Commission.  Any organization with Quadaffi in a key elected position of leadership should control the International ArmyÖ   To me that says how much the policies of the UN should be respected and allowed to continue.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#13 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 12 February 2003 - 04:51 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb. 10 2003,03:38, said:

This military force would do what and be employed by who? †
and that is the basic problem right there.

As long as there is a veto, this can't ever work, if there isn't a veto, the countires that actually provide the troops (the US being the prime candidate here) have no reason to use their troops for countries thyey don't care about

i'm afraid i don't have any good answers CJ, i wish i did, i'd love to have a little Nobel statue on my desk

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#14 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 February 2003 - 10:37 PM

Actually, there was a reason why the US was kicked out of the Human Rights Commission that people seem to keep forgetting.

Possible New UN Antagonism Against the US

Quote

The U.N. votes may signal a new antagonism within the world body against a new U.S. administration, which so far has shown a preference to leading unilaterally rather than by compromising with other nations on international issues.

Quote

The U.S. has also opposed international agreements including a treaty to abolish land mines and another that would create an international criminal court. -- CNN.com

Quote

Possible explanations for the United States being ousted from the commission and the board are both parliamentary and issue-oriented.

Some observers believed Washington was being punished by Western European nations disappointed with the Bush administration's rejection of a treaty reached in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto treaty aimed at reducing gases that contribute to global warming. Other analysts said nations avenged what they perceived as the United States' international preaching about human rights while it remained one of the few countries still advocating the death penalty.

Western European leaders may be unsettled by recent unilateral moves by the Bush administration, such as its intention to pursue a national missile defense program, which some in Europe fear might spark a new arms race.

In addition, the United States continues to owe hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid U.N. contributions.

House will vote to punish UN over Human Rights seat

Annan urges Congress not to punish UN over seats

Quote

Critics of the Bush administration, as well as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have portrayed the votes as a reaction against unilateral U.S. moves on issues such as missile defense and global climate change.

Others suggested the U.S. refusal to join agreements establishing a permanent war crimes tribunal and banning anti-personnel mines and its back U.N. dues contributed to the decision.


Quote

Annan told CNN that the anti-U.S. vote was taken by the 54-nation Economic and Social Council, not among all 189 member states of the U.N.

"To extend their frustration beyond that and punish the entire organization would be wrong, and I think it would be counterproductive," Annan said.

"I'm confident that next year they will be able to get onto the commission and this situation will be corrected," Annan added. "I think they should work towards next year rather than wanting to punish the membership at large."

This all happened prior to 9-11. The US regained its seat in April 2002.

So basically, the US was kicked out because the UN got pissed off with the Bush administration's policies. So blame shouldn't be on the UN's "incompetence" or "irrelevancy". It was rather more like the UN giving the finger to Bush's US foreign policies. †:eh:

Han

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 12 February 2003 - 11:00 PM

Quote

Hankuang: Actually, there was a reason why the US was kicked out of the Human Rights Commission that people seem to keep forgetting.

Libya is the shinning example to the world of how a nation should behave?  If the election of Quadaffi to the head of the Human Rights Commission is viewed as a suitable replacement by the rest of the world then Bush is on the right track.  I'd say as much unilateral action and only acting with our true allies is the best option for the US then cooperating with a UN that is going down that track.  An organization that is so corrupt or senile to elect a country with the track record of Libya on Human Rights deserves to be considered irrelevant.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#16 Han

Han

    When all else fails, use fire.

  • Islander
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 February 2003 - 11:23 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb. 13 2003,05:00, said:

Libya is the shinning example to the world of how a nation should behave? †If the election of Quadaffi to the head of the Human Rights Commission is viewed as a suitable replacement by the rest of the world then Bush is on the right track. †I'd say as much unilateral action and only acting with our true allies is the best option for the US then cooperating with a UN that is going down that track. †An organization that is so corrupt or senile to elect a country with the track record of Libya on Human Rights deserves to be considered irrelevant.
I think in this case, it wasn't about Libya being the shining example to the world. It was more about the UN getting a backbone and saying to the US, "you're really pissing us off" and "Hey! Since you already think we're irrelevant, then who cares who becomes the head? We'll just pick the stinkiest kid on the block and have him be leader and you can go *&!#@ yourself."  Petty? You bet. But there it is..

And similiarily, the US could be like the rich kid who no one likes and who wants to be the leader of the team: "If I can't be leader, then I'm taking my toys and going home."

Seriously though, did the US deserve to be kicked off the commission? No. But am I surprised that it was? Nope. Not because the UN is stupid, but rather because the US went too far. As for the US cutting funding afterwards, I think it was petty on their part as well. Pettiness all around.

Han

#17 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 13 February 2003 - 12:30 AM

Let's keep one thing in mind here.  If the UN were a democratic organization made up of fellow democracies, chances are that it's actions would be a lot more in keeping with the spirit of the UN.  The problem is that this is not the case.  In fact, the UN has a number of members who are outright dictatorships.  

When it comes to human-rights abuses, looking at the US and saying, "you're just like them" because the US has the death penalty or some tensions is a horrendous error in scale.  It's an error that people trying to cover up their own atrocities love to propagate.  As much as I oppose it, the death penalty is carried out with due deliberation and vast numbers of automatic appeals and considerations.  There's obviously effort being taken to be even handed and just about the process.  This is significantly different than places like Iraq or North Korea where you disappear for mouthing dissent against the state and wind up dead.  

People tend to forget that the US was a prime motivator, if not *the* prime motivator in creating the UN.  The US didn't need the UN.  All it needed was NATO.  The US has invested time, energy and lives into the organization to help it towards it's goal.  Now, that the UN has all but become a tool to slap back at the US administration, I can see how we'd be a little bitter at that.  It's clear that the goals of the UN are not being uniformly supported by it's constituents, and if the US has ceased to support that program, then perhaps it's well past time that we did.  

What's troubling to me as a US citizen about Libya leading the Human Rights Commission is not that they're an enemy of the US, but that this is a human rights offender who has been allowed to remain on the Commission when the US has not, specifically to deliver a "message" to the US.  If they had merely been "cleaning house", certainly Libya should have followed the US into exile from the commission.  

The fact is that the UN's purpose, global cooperation, is a goal that still seems to be well before it's time.  For one thing, no one derives any benefits from the UN that can be seen.  All it appears to be is another level of government that has no independent power and grants few advantages.  Any group without power or benefits to offer is simply not workable, most especially when many of its constituents maintain philosophies that are fundementally opposed to global cooperation.  

It might seem to many that the US is being stubborn and bully-like when it comes to acting unilaterally.  I am also uncomfortable with this.  But I'm *not* uncomfortable with it because I feel the UN has some sort of mandate to decide this issue.  To me, it's simply a matter of bad PR for the government to be quite as unilateral.  

Still, it's becoming clear that between Russia, France and Germany's desire to collect the debts owed them by Iraq and France and Germany's schemeing to control the EU that perhaps the motives of the US aren't the only ones that should be scrutinized very closely.  After all, does anyone *really* think Saddam Hussein has no chemical or biological weapons?  I mean, come on... really now.  

:sarcasm:

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#18 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 February 2003 - 02:39 AM

no, i believe he has them

but so do many other countries run by brutal dictatorships that don't have a quarter of a million troops heading their way

so what makes Iraq special over those countries

and again it comes down to resources, oil, fresh water and possibly personal motivations.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#19 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 13 February 2003 - 04:28 AM

Godeskian, on Feb. 13 2003,03:39, said:

so what makes Iraq special over those countries

1.) He denies he has them.
2.) He has impeded independent efforts to prove he doesn't have them for ten years or more
3.) He has *used* these weapons, both on Iran and his own people.  Most, if not every other country on the planet that has these weapons has not used them in a conflict ever.  Certainly, this has not happened in terms of true chemical warfare since WWI and nuclear weapons have only been used in anger twice.  Not even North Korea has this distinction.
3a.) Iraq's motivations have been those of conquest and suppression.  There is not even the excuse of defending territory from attack like as could be said of one of the sides in WWI.  
4.) In doing all of the above, Iraq has evaded or outright ignored international law and/or conditions that it agreed to after the end of the Gulf War which were phrased as UN Security Council resolutions.

That's how Saddam is special.  Tell me what other brutal dictator has done any of this in recent memory.  Not even Hitler used these weapons on the battlefield (although chemicals were used in concentration camps, of course) and he did have them available.  

Quote

and again it comes down to resources, oil, fresh water and possibly personal motivations.

As for oil, can someone explain to me how precisely the US is going to benefit from "controlling" the oil in Iraq?  Do you think that the US government is stupid enough to try turn Iraq into a colony, real or virtual?  We already know colonialism doesn't work.  So, what possible benefit does this *really* give the US in the long run?  Seriously pissing off the Arab states seems to be the only effect I can see of pursuing a policy like that.  I guaruntee you that if the US even tried to give contracts only to US companies or predominantly US companies that there would be an incredible backlash, and the administration knows that.  

Like in Afghanistan, the US' interest is to oust the dictator and help the people take care of themselves so that we don't have to.  That means that the US makes sure that warlords don't start wars over oil in the country after the war ends.  Keep in mind, Iraq is a member of OPEC, though not currently a very active producer.  The US couldn't remove Iraq from OPEC and I can't imagine an Iraqi government that would agree to that.  Indeed, there are US allies that are OPEC members who would become extremely irritated with the US for even thinking of that sort of move.

As for fresh water... for who?  Kuwait?  Saudi Arabia?  Would the US really fight a war over that?  All of those countries have scads of money to build de-salinization plants, if they really need them.  Sure, trucking in water from Iraq would be much cheaper, but Saudi doesn't seem to want a war over it and it's pretty obvious why the Gulf States support the US, they're small and the US is big and willing to protect them.  

Finally personal motivations.  No one can deny that defeating Saddam would not be a tasty treat for GW, both finishing up his dad's unfinished business and getting back at Saddam for the assasination attempt on dear old Dad.  Still, it's an extremely flimsy reason to fight a war.  Honestly, I can't imagine that being enough to even get out of a White House staff meeting, let alone through Congress.  Even the Republican Congressmen wouldn't go for that, let alone the Democrats.

Will the US benefit from changing the regime in Iraq?  Certainly there are potential benefits to it.  There would have to be some.  But the greatest benefit derived is the one that is on the table.  Saddam Hussein is a menace.  Not "could be" or "might be" a menace, but *is a menace*.  Not only that, but his successors are just as psychotic as he is, maybe more so.  In any event, Iraq would not tolerate chafing under UN sanctions much longer, and there is every indication that certain countries that oppose the war now would be just as willing to give up the sanctions altogether than enforce them.  We already saw a move towards that before the talk of war began.  If it's not already too late to act, that time is fast approaching.  

The UN has zero credibility if the resolutions are allowed to be evaded.  Any dictator or ruler clever enough to see the UN back down from Iraq just because it was able to hide their most preciously guarded weapons from detection is likely to take the following lesson to heart:

1.) The UN is weak and its resolutions can be evaded with a minimum of effort for an extended period of time.  After all, it's not like these weapons wouldn't be secured anyway....

2.) The UN will have the dual advantage of restraining anyone powerful enough to act where the UN fails to.  UN membership will become wildly popular with dictators after this.  All the dictator has to do is owe some Security Council members some money.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#20 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 13 February 2003 - 06:50 PM

Quote

It was more about the UN getting a backbone and saying to the US, "you're really pissing us off" and "Hey! Since you already think we're irrelevant, then who cares who becomes the head?

If the UN is so petty to go after the US for the disagreements it had with it then it justifies every single argument for getting rid of it now.  The UN will fail to grow a backbone and fails to standup to blatant violations by countries such as Iraq, Libya, and North Korea but take every single chance to jab at the US.  That says something about the usefulness of the UN and the true motivations of it.  If any other country took those actions the UN wouldnít have batted an eye at them but when it comes to the US they jump up and down screaming.  

Look at how many countries are cowering away from North Korea; now that it had threatened that UN sanctions are tantamount to war.  Itís France and Germany who are trying to push the US to act "unilaterally" and have one on one negotiation with North Korea.  Funny how their opinion of the US acting apart from the UN changes when they have a country with a leader that they donít have a vested economic interest in keeping in power.

Quote

Hankuang: And similiarily, the US could be like the rich kid who no one likes and who wants to be the leader of the team: "If I can't be leader, then I'm taking my toys and going home."

No one likes?  Ironic then that the governments of Italy, Portugal, Australia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the UK among others have agreed with the US and said that the UN cannot shrink away from itís duty.    

Quote

Uncle Sid: After all, does anyone *really* think Saddam Hussein has no chemical or biological weapons?  I mean, come on... really now.  

Oh Saddam got caught with his hands in the cookie jar today and this time by inspectors.  Letís see Germany and France dig a deeper hole over this one.  
Iraq inspectors find banned missile system


Quote

Godeskian: and again it comes down to resources, oil, fresh water and possibly personal motivations.

1) Resources: What resources other than oil and water does Iraq have that we canít attain from other countries cheaper than going to war?

2) Oil:  Just to add on top of what Sid says. If oil was the sole ambition of US foreign policy in the Middle East as many like to claim than a major part of a foreign policy makes no logical sense.  We would have canned and stabbed Israel in the back a long time ago if that was our ambition.  Israel has been the source of a lot of friction between the US and oil producing countries of the region yet has no oil to offer herself.  

The others I think Sid covers quite well.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: UN

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users