Should UN be taken down or remain?

Is the UN important or not?

  • Some what important.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not important, should be made into Starbucks

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Should UN be taken do

What do you think of the UN having it's own military to respond to things like Rwanda and Sudan without needing the approval of the Security Council?
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
I would agree to it. However, like Iraq, people might say that something is happening when it isn't and then UN forces move in and are seen as colonizers. I think the Security Council should be removed from the sending forces to a nation and a council of military generals independent of anyone should say who should go or not.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Should UN be taken do

I would like to see a set of criteria developed and deployment be automatic when the situation met those criteria. It would take the politics out of it and force the hand of western/northern nations that don't get involved unless their interests (usually corporate) are at stake.
 

Hard-Luck Henry

Council Member
Feb 19, 2005
2,194
0
36
Re: RE: Should UN be taken do

Reverend Blair said:
I would like to see a set of criteria developed and deployment be automatic when the situation met those criteria. It would take the politics out of it and force the hand of western/northern nations that don't get involved unless their interests (usually corporate) are at stake.

The big problem is, of course, the Security Council veto, and how to overcome it. I think the following article provides an interesting perspective on this:

The system designed in the 1940s, whose ultimate objective was to ensure that the United States remained the pre-eminent global power, appeared, until very recently, to be unchallengeable. There was no constitutional means of restraining the US: it could veto any attempt to cancel its veto. Yet this system was not sufficiently offensive to other powerful governments to force them to confront it. They knew that there was less to be lost by accepting their small share of power and supporting the status quo than by upsetting it and bringing down the wrath of the superpower. It seemed, until March 2003, that we were stuck with US hegemony.

But the men who govern the United States today are greedy. They cannot understand why they should grant concessions to anyone. They want unmediated global power, and they want it now. To obtain it, they are prepared to destroy the institutions whose purpose was to sustain their dominion. They have challenged the payments the United States must make to the IMF and the World Bank. They have threatened the survival of the World Trade Organisation, by imposing tariffs on steel and granting massive new subsidies to corporate farmers. And, to prosecute a war whose overriding purpose was to stamp their authority upon the world, they have crippled the United Nations. Much has been written over the past few weeks about how much smarter George Bush is than we permitted ourselves to believe. But it is clear that his administration has none of the refined understanding of the mechanics of power that the founders of the existing world order possessed. In no respect has he made this more evident than in his assault upon the United States’s principal instrument of international power: the Security Council.

How to Stop America
 

John Muff

EVOLUTION
No sense tossing it out..it's the only international body we have.
And it's the only one where the whole world can be represented.
The UN is "us",all of us.
I'd like to see less politicking,and I'd like to see more support of UN programmes,and I'd like to see member nations pay their UN dues on time...and I think the idea of a UN paramilitary force,ready to be deployed at any time,is a good idea....and I think the idea of an international court to which all countries are accountable,is a good idea.

The only way it can be done is by removing the financial situation of it... The US now use the UN as a tool, which often leads to desasters...

The UN is necessary, but in way differant mandates and investments... They hold a responsibility that no "body" can achieve without being impartial and accountable to all uf us.

Being a country of his own, would overcome many laws... by having an agreement, all, with that country, the UN. They are unfortunately useless, because of veto's...

John Muff
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
62
London, Ont. Canada
The idea of the UN is great, the execution of the idea is a bit flawed. I always thought that Canada should have a veto on security council. During WWII we had 3rd largest navy in the world, and beach of our own on D-day. We did as much to defeat National Socialism as any one and more than most. We invented peacekeeping. We have never lost a war. We are a truly globally thinking country and would be a rational voice of reason. Maybe we should move the UN to Canada where it would be appreciated.