Is the UN dead?

I say it is dead.

They didn't stand up against Bush* when he gave them the finger and went on his quest for vengeance and cheap glory.

It's as alive as the US and Britain want it to be.

And right now that means dead.



However, if we had a real leader with a firm grasp on world politics it would be quite alive and vibrant.

A real leader respects the advice and opinions of the world community. A redneck does not.

That post made me laugh.

Okay, the UN is definitely in a coma, neither did it strike back when the lies and duplicity were uncovered.

But. "However, if we had a real leader with a firm grasp on world politics it would be quite alive and vibrant."

If the US had a real leader?

Or if the UN had a real leader?

The UN simply cannot stand by and let loose cannon rogue "leaders" wreak havoc over the world. They were wrong for not retaliating or doing more to stop bush*.

The UN should have done more after 9/11 to remind the world of its authority.

To some extent, both sides are at fault.

But the US, when you think about all the details, is as much of a superpower as an earthquake-proof building is sturdy when its foundation is on quicksand. If the countries of the world boycotted us, we'd be toast. If the oil collecting nations stopped selling to us, we'd be toast. I'd read something about the oil collecting countries wanting to trade in terms of the euro instead of the dollar. That's got to be a wake-up slap in the US's face, if nothing else... If the housing bubble and other economic factors burst, we're toast. The US is on the verge of teetering and bushco* can't resort to troops whenever he wants. And if he used nukes against all who oppose him, he'd be doing the world a favor - the world would die off quickly, but he would in turn die slowly in his bunker.

Bush should have went through the UN. But instead, he went on his own war-mongering way.

I do think that the U.N. has lost its single most influential member, but they'll get a handle on things. We're basically alone without them and the continuing decline of the dollar versus the euro suggests that our power is waning as theirs waxes. It's going to be an interesting couple of decades...

The U.N. is as good as the counties that support it. The U.S. would like to see the U.N. go by the way side.

Yes, the Security Council lets the major powers have more sway, but the rest means dictators like Mugabe hold as much power as peaceful leaders in Switzerland. And the blocs of Arab and Muslim states -- most of which are far from free -- hold massive power.

Are you saying that, much as we may dislike their tactics, that by extension the vote of anyone who disagrees with our values should be given less than a full vote.

Take your logic down to the individual and see how well it flies. I abhor PAt Robertson (among many others) but I'll damned sure fight to assure that his vote is equal to mine. Anything less is not democracy in action.

on edit: Sorry, muddle, but your comment really got me. It's akin to saying that fat prople and skinny people have different values attached to their votes. Do Methodists get a larger or smaller voting weight than Catholics? I could go on, but I'm ranting. I do not mean to insult your intelligence. Having seen many of your comments over the past few months, I just cannot believe that you posted that.

We don't always agree, but you're usually very fair and equitable in your comments. You shocked me with this one.

does not equal one person one vote. It's ludicrous that a nation like Luxemburg gets as much voting power as Brazil. It is simply injustice that dictatorships like North Korea get respect and a public forum while a democracy like Tiawan is shut out.

Is the U.N. dead? Not quite yet, but the sooner the better.

each state got the same number of electoral votes?

We hear complaints on these boards, legitimate complaints that Wyoming gets 1/15th as many e votes as California, and that greatly overestimates Wyoming's population. How would we like it if Wyoming got the same number of electoral votes as California.

I bet Bush wouldn't mind.

But then, the electoral college is inaccurate.

Each nation must be considered ad equal to the others. We may not like their leaders, but that's the best of the poor options available.

If we were to work on population alone, China would control 20% (roughly) of the vote. Combine China with India and with very little assistance form other countries UN control would be entirely in their hands.

Let's see; who currently hates the US enough to combine their votes with others, regardless of goals and leadership, to seize control of the "World Government", effectively rendering the US and its closest allies impotent?

Point, game, set, match - we're toast.

Let's be hypothetical:

I have 6 kids, you have two kids, Billy Bob has no kids. Whose vote is worth more at the polls?

If it worked that way I'd want Ma and Pa Kettle on my side.

in your opinion it's fair and right that Micronesia and India have the same voting influence in the UN, even though Indians outnumber Micronesians by about 6,600 to 1? Do you think that it's right that, having the same number of votes, India pays much, much more in dues than Micronesia?

That some nations are not equal to others. Yes. Dictators and thugs should not hold sway in a world body. Yet they do. How can we fix it? We can't.

No it is not akin to saying that fat prople and skinny people have different values attached to their votes. What it is akin to is that the governments of many nations in the world do not represent the best interests of their people and many are positively dangerous. Should North Korea have a vote on world peace? Should Syria be on the Security Council?

But, like I said, I don't see how it can be fixed.

I don't see it as being "fixable".

The responses to my post did give mea bit of insight into other viewpoints though.

I genuinely used to embrace the "Star Trek" future where all mankind had one government. I no longer do. I don't see how we can't get past our differences and various hatreds. Even if we faced an external enemy, I still don't think everyone would be on the same side.

.

Just a thought. Look where most of the money to support it comes from.

Also, the US is not alone in thumbing its nose at the Generall Assembly.Iraq, Iran, Somalia, USSR, Bosnia, the list is nearly endless.

It has no teeth. It needs to be revamped or put out of its misery.

It would take a military coalition of several of our "allies" or all of our enemies. Even then, the Bush GOPNAC Cabal would bomb them all into oblivion.

the UN is not dead, but it is helpless against Bush's Murkan military might.

believe it may be dead, that you must FIRST wonder WHY the bush regime wants the UN to be dead.

Think about it. Who, above all else, has the ONLY power OVER the bush regime?

And remember, it was because of HITLER that the UN was begun.

Before you write off the UN, read the Declaration for Human Rights. Then you decide if you want to turn it to dust.

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Should these words DIE?

I don't THINK so.

for peace and prosperity in the world if it represented the attitudes and desires of the people in the individual nations. Unfortunately, much of the world is ruled by dictatorial powers and their representatives to the UN only further promote the stranglehold on their oppressed subjects.

Sadly, the UN Declaration for Human Rights is ignored by the majority of the member nations.

It's DOA and I'm glad of it.

The UN will never stand up to the United States in any meaningful way. It will never happen. If the US left the UN, the entire thing would fall apart. The US has so much power and influence that if it actually ever did withdraw, over time America would be able to convince enough allies and friendly nations looking for rewards to do the same, resulting in the end of the UN as anything relevent in the world. If America wanted to, it could withdraw from the UN tomorrow, set up its own version of the world body, and invite its "real friends in the war against terror" to join the new more responsible organization. Don't be fooled into thinking many nations wouldn't go along because plenty would. Many nations depend on the US for their security, and those whom do will do virtually anything to remain under that security umbrella.

The UN can not seriously project power or back up its resolutions without the United States. Without the ability to threaten some credible use of force, the UN is a screaming pygmy whom everyone the world over will just ignore over time.

The fantasy that the UN would "stand up" to Bush is just plain ridiculous.

There is no substitute for raw military power and the ability to project it. The US can do this by itself, the UN can't.

And the notion that the rest of the world would form an alliance against the US is also incredibly naive. It is just not going to happen. America can do almost whatever it wants because we have the biggest, most powerful military the world has ever seen. When another nation can rival America, things might change. Until then, America can spit at the UN anytime it wishes and can expect no credible threatening reaction.

Imajika

dead. People are just waking up to how badly they are needed. Thank goodness they were 100% right in their containment of Saddam which entirely defanged him.

The UN is just another (completely undemocratic) tool of the imperialist powers. UN or no UN, imperialism reigns.

was a bit unfortunate for the UN and the reason why I voted for the 'it's snuffed it' option.

It started out as an organization designed to rubber-stamp US foreign policies. When it stopped toeing the line on all issues, we suddenly started hearing about how it was irrelevant, or should go away, or whatever.

I don't really know what you do with an organization like the UN at this point. It obviously needs restructuring if it's going to have any teeth at all.

I don't ever see the UN acting as a counterbalance to US power. The EU, perhaps. But not the UN.

Argued that here.

R.I.P.

this is not news