carepov

In the 31 years preceding the UN there were ~100,000,000 deaths due to war from a population of ~2.2 Billion. In the last 31 years there have been x deaths due to war from a population of ~5.7 Billion. x is certainly too high - but way lower than 100,000,000 - and yes the UN failed to protect many victims but where has it done any harm? There is no benefit to eliminating the UN and there is a risk of repeating the insanity of a World War.

How many people were killed by nuclear bombs before the UN and since?

Yes, 1981-2012, is world peace compared to 1918-1945.

Well there is at least one worse scenario: a country USING a nuclear weapon. Do you think the possibility of this happening would increase or decrease if the UN was eliminated? I disagree as I think that the following UN organizations have to be given credit for reducing the risk of nuclear weapons being used: http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ http://www.iaea.org/ http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/index.shtml

I disagree. What you and Peeves seem to be grossly underestimating is the effort required to form and build an organization like the UN. To get the world powers to compromise it took two world wars within 30 years - there were 100,000,000 people dead and the world population was a third of what it is today.

"what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?" Well there is at least one worse scenario: a country USING a nuclear weapon. Do you think the possibility of this happening would increase or decrease if the UN was eliminated?

Sometimes 100,000 deaths is a "success" when there could have been 1,000,000 deaths - we will never know... OK, we all aim to eliminate war and suffering and to increase freedom and prosperity. My proposal is to work with the current UN and make incremental improvements (such as the new R2P). The worst case scenario is the status quo - relative to the last 200 years of history a relatively acceptable situation. If I understand you, Peeves and bush_cheney2004 correctly, you would prefer to scrap the UN entirely. Then you think that some "regional organizations", the "NDA" or other brand new world organization, or maybe powers like the US, Russia and China can manage their respective spheres of influence more effectively than the UN. Firstly, you are all unrealistic dreamers - this is completely impractical. Second, what if you are wrong, what is the worst case scenario that you can envision?

I don't understand what you are saying. If you could, would you eliminate the UN today? How do you think that that freedom and prosperity would increase with your NDA?

2011 Independence of Southern Sudan 2011 Libya 2004 Côte d’Ivoire 2003 Liberia (Round 2) 1999 East Timor 1999 Kosovo 1998-99 Sierra Leone 1991-93 Cambodia 1991 United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara Cyprus Prevention of major war between India and Pakistan Prevention of another major war in North Korea Most missions in Haiti and the rest of the Americas Again, I agree that the UN is far from perfect and there are massive failures. Your ideas on UN reform are mostly good but your statement: is what I strongly disagree with.

While there is no such thing as a perfect peacekeeping mission, some on the list surely must be considered "successful". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions Also, what about the eradication of Smallpox and control of other diseases through the WHO? Yes, an improved UN would help - but entirely scrapping the UN would be very regressive.

You are correct in pointing out the failures - the numbers of deaths are gut-wrenching. I still say that without the UN these numbers would have been highrer and there would have been more wars. Who is the "we" you are referring to?

Knee-jerk "solutions" are not unique to any party. I agree with you, the long-gun registry in response to the Ecole Polytechnique killings was a big waste.

I would argue that most missions run by the UN would not exist without the UN.

I would not be so sure. We know of all the failures of the UN - but what about the successes, i.e. the wars they helped prevent? Perhaps WWIII? I think that without the UN there would have been more killing, suffering and abuses of human rights in the last 67 years.

So in East Timor, Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Angola... the UN did not do enough to stop bloodshed - yes it failed. However, did the UN hinder "freedom and prosperity"? No. I would argue that there would have been more bloodshed in these and other places without a UN.

Yes! In other words - before trying to implement solutions - get a full understanding of the system and the problem. Today's "crime solutions" in Canada are more likely to increase crime in the long term and waste money.

The story of East Timor is complex. It does seem like the UN (and Int-com) failed to protect East Timor 1974-1999 but I cannot figure any argument that would suggest that "without the UN East Timor would be a better country today". It looks like the UN is helping the country to develop. http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/asiathepacific/timorleste/TIMOR_LESTE_2006_en.pdf

hmmm... I don't think so - but I will get back to you... In the mean time - I am curious on what kraychik would say about your source.

OK, why not start with one example of where the UN hindered freedom and prosperity?

Can you back this up with a study or data?

Would you rather be born in Harlem 1927 or Harlem 2012?

I guess that you haven't paid attention to your own rantings all day... Thesis: The UN has helped make the world safer, freer and more prosporous I have the correlation on my side, I would say that the burden of proof is on your side.

As a black person or white person?

I challenge you to pick a time and place pre-1945 and tell me that you would have been more free and prosporous then compared to now.

The UN has 4 main purposes To keep peace throughout the world; To develop friendly relations among nations; To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms; To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml Since 1945 there has been considerable progress towards each goal. The abolishment of the UN would be a giant step backwards.