United Nations Poll

What a stupid poll! Lumping all UN resolutions together!

The UN has been singularly ineffective at preserving peace because the structure allows any one of the Big Five to block any action. However, it does provide a venue for countries willing to talk about their conflicts to do so out of the eyes of the press. Say, country A and country B have no diplomatic relations, and their internal politics makes talks touchy. Their UN ambassadors can meet privately. Of course, when this does avert open conflict it never reaches the news media, so we never hear about the success stories.

The biggest benefit of the UN are the agencies, not the General Assembly. Remember that it was the WHO (a UN agency) that eradicated smallpox. That alone is a spectacular achievement, and never would have happened without the UN.

 

C'mon guys, if you don't like what someone says about an issue, either ignore their post or voice your argument. No need for mean spirited talk. No need for name calling!

All this does is get us away from discussing the issues...as when you are personally insulted you tend to think only about that.

I believe that the UN or at least some form of it, is overall a beneficial thing. However, when you get that many countries involved...and all of the "horse trading" that is involved in regards to voting, you know that their results are going to be mixed.

Should they stop passing resolutions? NO

Do they need to become a stronger force so that their resolutions hold more salt? YES

Will that ever happen? Probably not, but could come about if a significant enough event occurs (like a bunch or countries nuking each other...causing some much destruction that the remaining countires had to band together to survive)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mssmith95 @ Jul 21 2006, 01:08 AM) [snapback]289824[/snapback]</div>

hmmm, I think that we would *not* band together as a global force in the case of nuclear war or something similarly devastating. I think it would be a long slow push back - and by the time we were ready (if we weren't all dead in a few years) we'd be looking at something totally different than the UN. My optimism only goes so far, I guess.

 

I can think of only one good reason to be a member of the UN, and that is because it provides a world-wide meeting place for talking to people and resolving disputes, IF anyone cares to resolve them. Its kind of a world-wide diplomatic back-channel if anyone wants to find someone on the other side to talk with. I think there is some value in that.

My problem has always been that these yahoos have developed a set of ridiculously grandiose visions of themselves as some sort of world govenment - as if we needed another level of government even further away from the people than our own homegrown yahoos. They've constructed a mega-bureaucracy that's even more constipated than even the EU could invent, and that's something to appreciate.
And once in a while they actually accomplish something, in spite of themselves. Well, actually, THEY don't accomplish anything, the members (Read mostly the hated USA) do the lifting, while the agencies take credit (WHO only monitored and combined health efforts against smallpox, THEY did not actually expend anything.) Whereupon they spend the rest of their days trumpeting it to the heavens as if it mitigated all the other wasted resources and destroyed countries they left in their wake.

Benevolent despotism on a planetary level!

But, in a perverse way, I like having them located in NY, if only for the comedic relief and so we can keep an eye on them;-)