Toronto Escorts

Should the U.N. be dismantled?

Should the United Nations be dismantled?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • No

    Votes: 15 71.4%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Total voters
    21

happygrump

Once more into the breach
May 21, 2004
820
0
0
Waterloo Region
Yes, dismantle it:
  1. The U.N. structure is over-administrated, expensive and ineffective.
  2. Despite all the talk of international harmony, what matters is how the policies work where the rubber hits the road. Is the world a safer place now than years ago? No way.
  3. Veto powers of the permanent members of the Security Council effectively squash anything that is not in their best interests.

No, keep it:
  1. The international moderating influence of the U.N., despite obvious flaws, provides an outlet for the resolution of conflict;
  2. Under the auspices of the U.N. are organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO and others, that do excellent work but simply don't make the papers very often. Dismantling the U.N. would mean the end of those very good programs;
  3. The U.N. provides a forum of safety for countries to meet and discuss issues ranging from conflict, poverty, science and other visionary ideas.
Thoughts?
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
I agree that the make up of the security council is outdated. However, that being said I can’t see the current permanent members agreeing to a fundamental change. Thus, unless a way can be found to convince the current permanent members to accept change, it seems to be the current set up or nothing. I can’t see nothing being better.

As far as administrative waste is concerned, yes that should be addressed and it should be possible to address it without fixing the fundamental problems with regard to the security council.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,346
113
Room 112
I voted to dismantle the U.N. in its current state. It is way too politicized and ineffective in many of its mandates and goals. It should be replaced with an organization of nations whose qualifications include at a minimum:
1) a democratic political system (or actively working towards democratic reform)
2) respect and tolerance of individual freedoms including minority groups
3) respect for the rule of international law including combating global terrorism, supporting INTERPOL, International courts etc.

I agree with the Security Council expansion to at least 20 nations representative of all global territories. I disagree with the current system of vetoing resolutions - it should be extended to requiring a minimum of 2 countries, with at least 1 being on the permanent membership (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China).
We need a new organization that has teeth.
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
Yes, dismantle.

Its most stunning example of failure was its inability to deal with the sultan. Regardless of one's stance on this issue, the UN flunked this one big time. What was the final position - pass. By ignoring the wishes of a significant sector of the community of states, those commited to action, and then not instituting a counter action, it signed its death warrant. Now, its time to go down the same road again, this time with NK and Iran.

Add to this the UN's inability to deal with NSO's. This isn't intrinsically its fault since NSO's weren't foreseen at the time of its inception. But again, the same inaction.

The real problem here is that the UN, and its predecessor LoN, were born in a period of American immaturity concerning international relations. At the time, America left an isolationist stance to do combat in two serious global conflicts - conflicts that might well have been ignored had it not been for Pearl Harbour and the Fuhrer's immediate declaration of war following this event. It is hardly surprising that America crawled into an isolationist shell after WW1, the bleak reality of Versailles had an awakening effect - America withdrew from that game when it became clear they didn't understand the rules. Little had changed at the close of WW2.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
K Douglas said:
I voted to dismantle the U.N. in its current state. It is way too politicized and ineffective in many of its mandates and goals. It should be replaced with an organization of nations whose qualifications include at a minimum:
1) a democratic political system (or actively working towards democratic reform)
2) respect and tolerance of individual freedoms including minority groups
3) respect for the rule of international law including combating global terrorism, supporting INTERPOL, International courts etc.

I agree with the Security Council expansion to at least 20 nations representative of all global territories. I disagree with the current system of vetoing resolutions - it should be extended to requiring a minimum of 2 countries, with at least 1 being on the permanent membership (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China).
We need a new organization that has teeth.
No offense, but isn’t your proposal a bit contradictory. How could China even be a member given the membership requirements you propose? In addition, your requirement that they "respect for the rule of international law" would exclude the current Americian government. Without the U.S. a member, the UN would be totally ineffective.

While I think that democracy, etc. is a good thing, as long as some/many international disputes involve nondemocratic nations, it would mean a world body that could not address/mediate many of the disputes in the world. If China was not a member, I can’t see how the UN would be more effective in addressing issues such as their dispute with Taiwan or mediating a resolution to the North Korea problem.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
As much as I despise many aspects of the UN I still think it is better than nothing - and that is what we would have if it were disbanded.

The bureaucracy should be streamlined (cut budgets by half and see if anyone can tell)

The Security Council should be reorganized (how can Japan & Germany not have permanent seats, but if you do that you have to let in Italy......, to say nothing of Latin America.)

We should move it to Toronto.

OTB
 
Y

yychobbyist

onthebottom said:
We should move it to Toronto.

OTB
Oh my God, and give them another reason to consider themselves the center of the universe?

Nah, I say, move it to Moose Jaw. Pretty hard to take things too seriously in a place called Moose Jaw.
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
yychobbyist said:
Oh my God, and give them another reason to consider themselves the center of the universe?

Nah, I say, move it to Moose Jaw. Pretty hard to take things too seriously in a place called Moose Jaw.
Good point. Pass a resolution that makes them stay there each session until 2/3 of the countries certify that the objectives of that session have been solved or made suitable progresss.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
yychobbyist said:
Oh my God, and give them another reason to consider themselves the center of the universe?

Nah, I say, move it to Moose Jaw. Pretty hard to take things too seriously in a place called Moose Jaw.
Woundn't either Come-By-Chance or Dildo be even better in that respect?
 

cyrus

New member
Jun 29, 2003
1,381
0
0
K Douglas said:
I voted to dismantle the U.N. in its current state. It is way too politicized and ineffective in many of its mandates and goals. It should be replaced with an organization of nations whose qualifications include at a minimum:
.........
3) respect for the rule of international law including combating global terrorism, .....
Heee . . . then you can forget about USA agreeing on that!
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
happygrump said:
Naaahh... Toronto would never work. Too much traffic.

There is, however, some office space available in Dildo, Newfoundland.
Good point as there is no traffic or office issue in NYC.

OTB
 

antaeus

Active member
Sep 3, 2004
1,693
7
38
There is disparity between popular knowledge of UN vs. actual real activities

re: Ban it...

ALL large organizations can be said to be "over-administrated, expensive and
ineffective", it's an unavoidable aspect of size.


re: keep it...

Regarding your point 2: yes, yes and yes. I have lived about 20 years all
over the world mostly on foreign aid projects, none UN. When in-country it
becomes obvious the UN serves a vital but invisible function. Many countries'
political, governmental, industrial and consumer supply systems function via
on-site management, economics, agricultural and industrial supply-demand
system consulting. Basic functioning of the world's complex systems
developed in the west over centuries, in 3rd world now that the west is
tempering it's resource exploitation, these developments are occuring in
decades mostly under UN tutelage.

But how often do you hear of cereal grains programs from cultivation to
manufacturing end-consumer products, floating and managing a currency,
adapting upper school curricula for international relevance. Many foreign aid
projects, whether US AID, CIDA, British, French, Swedish, Chinese or whomever,
are first identified and disseminated from the UN. BTW, these efforts of the
UN dwarf the military peace keeping activities that seem to generate most
discussion regarding the UN's place.

But there's more here that plays to my pet peeve: the media. The infamous
media would rather show a 14 year old dagga crazed black boy in camo and
ak47 and say one word - diamonds. It's an emotive story told by dramatic
pictures, no other explanation. People say where's the UN? they've failed
this boy leaving him drugged by diamond stealing rogue officers and
ministers. But ~100 km away is some UN inspired or installed desalination or
sewage treatment plant, school house, corn processor, landfill or incinerator.
But the media only shows the crazed 14 yo camo-ak47-diamonds and maybe
the reporter in his best investigative journalism says "we asked the local UN
contingent for interview but were told no..."
 
Toronto Escorts