Useless UN

[Ellopian]

So was Saddam still in power after the Gulf war?

What is the other choice?

Yeah, you've watched too much state propaganda on TV, and haven't bothered to try to back it up with facts.

The UN is a haven for tyrants and mass murderers. They have no ability to get anything substantial done, and are definately not worth the money. They should stick to humanitarian issues, and they don't need any tyrants to do that job.

THE GOOD THING ABOUT "OLD EUROPE" IS THAT THERE IS NO STATE PROPAGANDA ON TV. LIKE FOX NEWS 4 EXAMPLE.

[Confed999]

THE GOOD THING ABOUT "OLD EUROPE" IS THAT THERE IS NO STATE PROPAGANDA ON TV.

Don't yell at me. If there isn't any, then where are you getting all of your information?

LIKE FOX NEWS 4 EXAMPLE.

If there is no state propaganda on TV there at all, how do you know who to vote for in elections?

[HistoricalDavid]

THE GOOD THING ABOUT "OLD EUROPE" IS THAT THERE IS NO STATE PROPAGANDA ON TV. LIKE FOX NEWS 4 EXAMPLE.

Fox is state-owned? News to me.

Completely unlike the BBC, for example.

[smilingassassin]

What a stupid idea to say that the UN are useless. But i understrand, since it's a pro-US idea. You wan't to be the only one to command the world, you'd like to erase the other attempts to make it more equal (UE, UN ...).

Nope, its a universal idea that seems to be gaining steam with each and every failure of the UN to resolve important issues. Don't blame the U.S., they are the biggest banker for the UN as it is. How long would you pay large sums of money for a lemon before you decide it isn't worth it?

[dalem]

What is goin on here? I have the impression you consider that the UN are useless since they do not promote or defend the exclusive interests of the US.. There are A LOT of cases where the UN have been of great use to promote peace around the world.
Finnaly i insist, this idea is dangerous, and its a G.W.BUSH-EXPANSIONIST inspired point of view.

Read my post. It's quite clear what I think are the relevant factors.

And even if the UN does "promote peace", how is that a positive thing when peace is the problem?

Insist all you want, it is the UN which is dangerous.

-dale

[dalem]

It's a very "naif" point of view, even if it is right and fair, because its highly risked to exclude dictatorships, with whom are you going to negociate then? Half the globe (not even in fact). You see that is the paradox of the UN, it is respected as an institution even by hard dictatorships. It's a bridge of conversation.
YYYYou connot

Why discuss anything with a dictator at all? Why not just fire a Predator-mounted Hellfire at his SUV and be done with him?

-dale

[dalem]

"ARE U WITH US OR AGAINST US ?" (BUSH said that).

Actually Bush said that in the War on Terror "...you are either with us (referencing the free nations involved in the fight against terrorism) or you are with the terrorists."

Maybe in Spanish it got translated into "Eat sweaty monkey balls, ook ook!", but that's not what he said, genius.

-dale

[smilingassassin]

It's simply amazing how Bush haters always twist his words, I clearly heard in Bush's speach "your either with us or with the terrorists". If you can't translate that message then you shouldn't be engaging in grown up discussions about politics due to your blatently obvious lack of comunication/listening skills.

[huh_what]

If UN is useless, what is the alternative? OR is there a need for one?

[Gautam]

If UN is useless, what is the alternative? OR is there a need for one?

We r better off without one ;)

[Confed999]

If UN is useless, what is the alternative?

An alliance of free nations, each giving of itself to set others free...

[huh_what]

The UN charter was intended to give all nations a say in world affairs.
Of course it has strayed from that course, what organization has not over time?

Answer: None.

"Free Nations" would be a limiting, exclusionarry term.

Maybe before the Nuclear age, an organization like the UN was unwarrented.

Now it is needed.

[Parihaka]

"Free Nations" would be a limiting, exclusionarry term.

That's the idea

[Bluesman]

Exactly.

I see no point to the UN. NONE.

The point is, ALL nations - even the ones that do not share our goals nor our ideals - have the same voice. And that is a recipe for a state worse than mere deadlock.

I got this from another source, but I think it fits the UN perffectly:
If you miss excrement and ice cream together, will it taste more like the former or the latter?

And when you mix illegitimate regimes with free nations, what do you suppose THAT will be like? Like the UN in its modern form.

No thanks. I'll just have regular ice cream, please.

[Tronic]

lol... i dunno what to say... these statements of urs mean that some nations in the world are more "privelaged" then others... the UN is only a good force when it is working for u, but it becomes useless when working against u, right blue?