U.N Discussion

Jersay
#1
I have discussed the United Nations in several threads and there are a few good discussion and some people here support it and some don't which is okay.

Well I support the U.N and I will explain why and we can discuss.

First, the United Nations is a World Body that deals with Trade, Health, UNICEF, Human Rights, Refugees, and other issues.

It passed the most important document every that is going to be passed in World History. And that was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United Nations some believe should spread democracy, and I agree. However, the United Nations isn't for a select few this is through voice and debate as well as before spreading democracy its a Humanitarian Organization, with guns when necessary. Humantarianism is the number one priority of the United Nations, then it follows democracy. Which I believe is a fair deal.

Second, it needs reform. No doubt.

But first with the Oil for Food Scandal that cost untold billions, it was to benefit the dying Iraqi civilians who were suffering under a dictator and under harsh U.S sanctions. What was the U.N suppose to do let people die needlessly??

Second Sexual abuse occur in U.N mission and several dozen soldiers and diplomats have been dealth with.

However, 1,000,000 people have worn the U.N uniform, it has a regular staff (non-troop) of 30,000 5,000 of which are Canadians, and 150,000 of the 1,000,000 soldiers are Canadians. With a lost of 2,400, including 119 Canadians.

It needs change, it needs reform however it I think is the best organization so far this world has come up with and will probably ever come up with.
 
Jersay
#2
Anyone.
 
Finder
#3
I'm a big supporter of the U.N. and it's beliefs. I think the main thing which needs to be reformed is the security council. Of course the right wing would love to replace the security council with less vetoing members but keep the USA with a VETO. I think the veto is usless and un-democratic and hampers the UN's job. I believe the General assembly should have overwhemling power and that a new way to chose the Security council should be found. I'm not Anti-American but I do not think any UN nation should be a veto member or always on the council The right wing would and will say this is anti-american but it is not. To ask for a far deal is not to be anti-american. My opinion on this is just as in the USA itself in the 1950's during the civil rights movement. They called white people who supported blacks often to be anti-white or even black people who supported equality. The U.N. needs to be set up so all nations are equal. Currently the 5 perma members of the security council rule the U.N. Basically and the only reason the U.N works sometimes democratically is they barely ever agree.

However thats another problem since the 5 nations rarely agree we often get the U.N. resolutions nerfed and powerless.
 
Jersay
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Finder

I'm a big supporter of the U.N. and it's beliefs. I think the main thing which needs to be reformed is the security council. Of course the right wing would love to replace the security council with less vetoing members but keep the USA with a VETO. I think the veto is usless and un-democratic and hampers the UN's job. I believe the General assembly should have overwhemling power and that a new way to chose the Security council should be found. I'm not Anti-American but I do not think any UN nation should be a veto member or always on the council The right wing would and will say this is anti-american but it is not. To ask for a far deal is not to be anti-american. My opinion on this is just as in the USA itself in the 1950's during the civil rights movement. They called white people who supported blacks often to be anti-white or even black people who supported equality. The U.N. needs to be set up so all nations are equal. Currently the 5 perma members of the security council rule the U.N. Basically and the only reason the U.N works sometimes democratically is they barely ever agree.

However thats another problem since the 5 nations rarely agree we often get the U.N. resolutions nerfed and powerless.

Agreed.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#5
This is a political discussion and therefore belonds in the International Politics forum. Moved.
 
Finder
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

This is a political discussion and therefore belonds in the International Politics forum. Moved.


Are you going to hurt Jersay a lot because of the mistake? *hopeful*
 
dekhqonbacha
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

...

Second, it needs reform. No doubt.

...

It does need a reform. Especially, in vetoing. Where 5 permanent members where the winners of WWII. The world has changed since WWII, but UN still protects the interest of victors WWII.
 
Finder
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

...

Second, it needs reform. No doubt.

...

It does need a reform. Especially, in vetoing. Where 5 permanent members where the winners of WWII. The world has changed since WWII, but UN still protects the interest of victors WWII.

Hear, hear. As I said in my post, the Perma members of the security council/veto members need to be changed and the security council itself heavily reformed.
 
Jersay
#9
I agree with both of you. I wish they had never come up with that stupid veto idea that has caused so much problems in the U.N. Its sad with that and the 5 big powers will never give it up now, and that is the main reason why somethings never get done or are watered down.
 
dekhqonbacha
#10
Well, now they are under the pressure. Maybe they will accept changes.
 
Jersay
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

Well, now they are under the pressure. Maybe they will accept changes.

Just a few watered down changes and then blame the U.N or another 5 power member for not alot of changes.
 
aeon
#12
UN need to be reform, or just abolish, like it is right now, it is useless, the 5 permanent members is a fraud, the situation of iraq with the 1990's sanction , rwanda , the situation with israel support this claim
 
Jersay
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

UN need to be reform, or just abolish, like it is right now, it is useless, the 5 permanent members is a fraud, the situation of iraq with the 1990's sanction , rwanda , the situation with israel support this claim

The U.N doesn't need to be abolished. Even with all its fault it ensures the U.S can't be a world power totally. It goes against the U.S as much as it supports it.
 
aeon
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

UN need to be reform, or just abolish, like it is right now, it is useless, the 5 permanent members is a fraud, the situation of iraq with the 1990's sanction , rwanda , the situation with israel support this claim

The U.N doesn't need to be abolished. Even with all its fault it ensures the U.S can't be a world power totally. It goes against the U.S as much as it supports it.

No one at the UN did anything to usa, when the war in iraq started, no sanction, no resolution , nothing at all, only a few words,this was from people who has been discredited easily all over the us media, annan, blix. In reverse, what we see is the bush administration twisting some definition of 1441 UN resolution, and make it appear the war was supported by the United nations resolutions to americans.
 
dekhqonbacha
#15
aeon
if UN is abolished, then Quebec will not be able to have the right to vote at UNESCO.
 

Similar Threads

1087
Catholic Discussion
by sanctus | 3 weeks ago
6
Sikh discussion
by snfu73 | Mar 9th, 2007
7
Hindu Discussion
by snfu73 | Mar 9th, 2007
9
Buddhist discussion
by snfu73 | Mar 9th, 2007
18
No discussion of X
by Karlin | Apr 25th, 2006