Is the UN a Joke?
 

The latest appointment seems to indicate as such:
Some people have proposed a "League of Democracies" to try and counter UN dominance of international affairs. Should America continue to fund the UN despite its blatant corruption?

Where's a picture of Picard resting his face in his hands in shock and disappointment when you need one? Congratulations, UN. You've made the American appointment of Bolton as representitive seem well thought out and apt by comparison.

I think it's been brought up a couple of times already, but the UN can only be as powerful as member countries want and allow it to be. Clearly, the US are pretty much opposing the UN wherever they can, so the UN's incompetence is at least partly a homemade problem.

Although in this very example, pretty much everyone is opposing Zimbabwe's nomination except for a few African member countries. Good job using this as an example for "blatant corruption". I'd also like to see examples of this corruption in the UN that aren't existent in every other political body.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...7/213527.shtml
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253es.html
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...management.htm
So explain to me why anybody should front the bill for an organisation that propagates crap like placing Libya on the head seat for Human Rights and Zimbabwe for Sustained Development. Regardless of the opposition by several member states, the fact that so many of them are willing to delegitimise the whole shebang is proof enough to me that we shouldn't be tolerating their bullshit.

To be frank, the UN was a joke the moment they decided to create it without its own standing army. No nation or international organization can hope to have any real power in global politics without one (unless Costa Rica is a superpower...?), and the decision to have the UN supported by nations' armies just tips the balance of power widely in favor of the US and other powerful nations.

It also doesn't help that its real power is concentrated solely on the security council, where it is impossible to pass sanctions against the permanent members thanks to their veto power.

Any organization that is going to have the teeth to be a significant influence on *all* nations in the world without being a puppet of a select few powerful countries needs to have a more balanced and viable form of government, and needs its own standing army. Unfortunately, it's more or less impossible to reform the system, and those in power would loathe a new organization with an army that they cannot control.

The UN's here to stay, but that doesn't mean I like it. Its methods of forcing itself on other nations are ineffective at best, and that's even if you can get around the security council's 5 automatic vetoes.

Im sure they said the same about the Leauge Of Nations, right?

The point of the UN is to allow people's thoughts and nation's ideas without deligating to a military answer. The idea that the UN should have an army is like saying the Red Cross should have Gunboats.

"Red Stick Diplomacy"

That's actually the reason why a lot of ignorant people think the UN is a joke - they just don't grasp its concept. And given the circumstances, they're actually doing a decent job. If certain countries would accept the UN as the thing they're supposed to be, it would certainly suck a lot less.

I still agree that there needs to be massive reforming, though. Too bad this Korean caricature of a diplomat is incompetent as fuck. We want Kofi back!

An organisation like the United Nations is a fine idea in principle, but these recent actions do seem to suggest that it has outlived its usefulness, and should be replaced by a new organisation which would actually deliver on the stated agenda of the UN.

It happened before. Not for these reasons, but as LeHah pointed out, the League of Nations gave way to the United Nations at a time when change became necessary, and the world has changed almost immeasurably since 1945.

It's time for a change.

I really do not undersand why the US keeps funding the UN. We pull out our funding, they go in the hole, and there's really nothing bad in it for us. I don't know how much we give them, but I'd imagine it's a pretty massive portion of their funds. With stunts like this, they've basically turned themsselves into a huge practical joke. I think we are perfectly well able to provide humanitarian aid to other countries without the use of the UN.

I don't understand why Zimbabwe would be chosen to chair anything in the UN given the track record of its old ass president who would do anything to stay in power including torturing his political opponents. And this isn't some crime he committed decades ago if that's ever an excuse, it's happening now since the 2008 elections are coming.

I think even before these 'stunts' and problems the UN's reputation as being a joke had already been firmly established. The UN can pass all the resolutions (which takes weeks and weeks while the problem just gets worse and worse) they want against an aggressor country or whatever but if that country doesn't listen then what? Its a toothless tiger.

Dissolving the UN like that won't help. After all it is in the UN where we give all those small relatively insignificant countries the illusion that they have some kind of voice in the world. It also serves as tool to keep them under control, we just tell them to voice their problems at the UN where we know pretty much nothing will be done.

So do you guys who are calling out an "impotent, joke-empowered" UN really want an international body with the legal, and perhaps military, power to force your countries to do things it didn't want to do?

I could personally get behind that in the right circumstances, but I'm betting most of the users criticising the weakness of the UN would go livid over such a thing. And you'd never even coax some of our "troublesome" countries to that kind of table. Whereas the UN can get people together and occasionally do something.

Just be honest and don't call for a stonger UN; say you don't think it's worth money we could be shovelling into more practical matters.

Considering that my country is currently a sick joke, and the people who live here are the unwilling butt of that joke, I'd say that they can't possibly make us do anything worse than our own government do.

"So, what exactly does a deputy assistant secretary do?"

"I make the coffee, empty the trash bin in the conference room and, sometimes, I'm quoted in major news publications."

"Oh."

I'd say the U.S. is a little different than a practical joke. Jokes don't usually build up the same body counts that U.S. policy decisions do. As long as the U.S. continues developing the way it has for the past 100 years (which it certainly will because revolutions are a thing of the past), the rest of the world better strap in for a bumpy ride. It's a sorry state of affairs, but who's going to change it. Sorry to generalize, my lack of argumentative clout attests to how little faith I have in the pursuit of political discourse.

America is gradually progressing to socialism anyway and the willingness to fight for our own defense, let alone any future conquest that might come along our way, is all but gone. America is a nation in decline and over the next 100 years, will likely completely collapse.

Would anyone here support a so-called "League Of Democracies" or some group of developed capitalist countries? I'm curious.

I'd support a Global Forum, if not an actual legislative body, as legislative as the UN actually is.