United Nations

[socialist]

i've been studying the history of the un and think it is the greatest entity this world has. we need a world without borders with one goverment looking out and treating all humans equally. do you guys think that we will soon have a world goverment like the un in charge.it would be great.

[Signals.Cpl]

i've been studying the history of the un and think it is the greatest entity this world has. we need a world without borders with one goverment looking out and treating all humans equally. do you guys think that we will soon have a world goverment like the un in charge.it would be great.

I think Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans and the dozens of other places the UN has failed and the millions of people who have died as a result might disagree, that is if they weren't to busy killing each other and/or dying.

[socialist]

I think Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans and the dozens of other places the UN has failed and the millions of people who have died as a result might disagree, that is if they weren't to busy killing each other and/or dying.

those werent the fault of the UN. those were problems of natinalist soverignists

[Signals.Cpl]

those werent the fault of the UN. those were problems of natinalist soverignists

The UN was created with the main Idea to prevent wars from occurring. It failed, miserably because it was designed to fail. Five nations control the final say over what happens, if it does not directly benefit them or threaten them in any way shape or form they make a half-ass effort, act late, or not at all e.g.. Rwanda.

The concept of the UN and peacekeeping are beautiful, but their execution leave a lot to be desired. Until the UN restructured to be more democratic in its business then it would become relevant.

[Moonlight Graham]

The UN was created with the main Idea to prevent wars from occurring. It failed, miserably because it was designed to fail. Five nations control the final say over what happens...

More accurately, in the wake of WWII, the UN was created with the main idea of preventing war between the great powers from happening again, to prevent another WWI or WWII. So far this has been achieved. Collective security has been shown throughout history to be an fairly effective concept at securing peace between states. Far better than the entangling security alliances that led to WWI. Or all the crazy wars between Europe powers from, say, the 17th century to the defeat of Napoleon.

The 5 permanent members of the Security Council are still, arguably, the greatest military powers in the world. The UN does need reform, but the greatest military powers also need some kind of say in order to reflect real power politics. Madagascar having an equal say in global security matters as ie: the US or China doesn't make a lot of real political sense.

Also, I don't think any international body will ever be able to prevent all civil wars, like Sudan or Libya or Somalia, from occurring. Though I do think the UN, if it had more balls, could have prevented a lot of what happened in Rwanda.

[Signals.Cpl]

More accurately, in the wake of WWII, the UN was created with the main idea of preventing war between the great powers from happening again, to prevent another WWI or WWII. So far this has been achieved. Collective security has been shown throughout history to be an fairly effective concept at securing peace between states. Far better than the entangling security alliances that led to WWI. Or all the crazy wars between Europe powers from, say, the 17th century to the defeat of Napoleon.

The 5 permanent members of the Security Council are still, arguably, the greatest military powers in the world. The UN does need reform, but the greatest military powers also need some kind of say in order to reflect real power politics. Madagascar having an equal say in global security matters as ie: the US or China doesn't make a lot of real political sense.

Also, I don't think any international body will ever be able to prevent all civil wars, like Sudan or Libya or Somalia, from occurring. Though I do think the UN, if it had more balls, could have prevented a lot of what happened in Rwanda.

I would have to say that the UN needs to restructure the SC to be more democratic, by removing veto power, expanding to include the economic superpowers rather then the military superpowers.

If the UN had its own force of Peacekeepers that are trained and equipped to the same standard and have the same ethics. Right now the UN pays $1,000 per soldier deployed thats why so many third world countries send soldiers just for the hard currency that they get from the UN. What we need in a world organization is the ability to intervene in an emergency within a small amount of time, for that they need a force of PK's that can be deployed at a very short notice with their own equipment and vehicles.

[Claudius]

The U.N. is to the modern world what the Papacy was to the old world.

It was created in a time of chaos after a long period of destructive war(s) to bring peace or at least a framework of diplomacy between nations. It worked well in the beginning.

It has become an odd mix of incredible power and incredible impotence all at once, and has sunk into a breeding ground for corruption like all political structures that hold so much power. It has to power to "sanctify" a war, all the while pretending to never become involved in any nations politics. "Human rights" is its God and under that guise it can ignore or condemn the sins of various nations.

[Claudius]

More accurately, in the wake of WWII, the UN was created with the main idea of preventing war between the great powers from happening again, to prevent another WWI or WWII.

Correct. It was never about the "little guys", it was always about the major powers. World War II was the single most destructive war in all of human history, and it came only a few years after the 3rd most destructive war, WWI (and probably the stupidest war in European history). If you consider the West* still has nightmares about the invasions of the Mongols we can see how much this will affect our history from here on in.

"When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin."

Winston Churchill

This turned out to be a very astute prediction.

*I use the original definition here; the remnants/children of the Western Roman Empire

Edited May 28, 2012 by Claudius

[Signals.Cpl]

Correct. It was never about the "little guys", it was always about the major powers. World War II was the single most destructive war in all of human history, and it came only a few years after the 3rd most destructive war, WWI (and probably the stupidest war in European history). If you consider the West* still has nightmares about the invasions of the Mongols we can see how much this will affect our history from here on in.

"When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin."

Winston Churchill

This turned out to be a very astute prediction.

*I use the original definition here; the remnants/children of the Western Roman Empire

Well, anyone will any sort of foresight could have told us that putting the power of this organization in the hands of 5 nations who fall in 2 camps that hardly ever agree. The only time the UN has worked was when one of the two sides has boycotted the SC.

[PIK]

i've been studying the history of the un and think it is the greatest entity this world has. we need a world without borders with one goverment looking out and treating all humans equally. do you guys think that we will soon have a world goverment like the un in charge.it would be great.

Study harder is it a huge waste of money and resourses. It is time for the commonwealth to take over.

[Michael Hardner]

Study harder is it a huge waste of money and resourses. It is time for the commonwealth to take over.

What commonwealth ?

[GostHacked]

What commonwealth ?

Come on dude ... the commonwealth that Canada is a part of.

UN is about as big as big government can get. Current leaders of many countries cannot get their own countries affairs in order, do you really think that a one world government would work for all of the people on this planet? Instant fail.

[fellowtraveller]

More accurately, in the wake of WWII, the UN was created with the main idea of preventing war between the great powers from happening again, to prevent another WWI or WWII. So far this has been achieved.

Disagree.

By far the main deterrence to WW3 has been the existence and cohesion of NATO, not the UN. The Warsaw Pact countries had no fear of the UN, but had no desire to get frisky with NATO.

Try as we might we are violent, tribal creatures who constantly feel the need to dominate others. The best deterrent to that is superior force, the certainty that serious misbehaviour will be met with overwhelming defeat by force if necessary.

The UN could presumably serve the same function as NATO in fielding a strong combat force, but that would involve a loss of command that many nations cannot tolerate. THat is the UNs fault, not NATOs.

[Michael Hardner]

Come on dude ... the commonwealth that Canada is a part of.

The former British Commonwealth ?!? <sarcasm>Yeah, that will work.</sarcasm>

[Argus]

i've been studying the history of the un and think it is the greatest entity this world has. we need a world without borders with one goverment looking out and treating all humans equally. do you guys think that we will soon have a world goverment like the un in charge.it would be great.

Hmm, wonder how that would work for taxes and benefits. Let's see, right now you basically pay no taxes in Canada if your income is under $18,000 or so. Since the average yearly wage in most third world countries, including China, is way, way under that, then none of them would be paying any taxes. Pretty good on them. And if the UN world government follows the same rules as Canada we'd need massive transfer payments so the poorer countries could have the same services as the richer ones. So countries like Canada would have to transfer vast sums of wealth to third world countries. Again, good for them. I can see how a one world government would be a blessing for third world countries.

It's not clear how it would help anyone in Canada, though. Perhaps you could illustrate that point?

[Guest Peeves]

Hmm, wonder how that would work for taxes and benefits. Let's see, right now you basically pay no taxes in Canada if your income is under $18,000 or so. Since the average yearly wage in most third world countries, including China, is way, way under that, then none of them would be paying any taxes. Pretty good on them. And if the UN world government follows the same rules as Canada we'd need massive transfer payments so the poorer countries could have the same services as the richer ones. So countries like Canada would have to transfer vast sums of wealth to third world countries. Again, good for them. I can see how a one world government would be a blessing for third world countries.

It's not clear how it would help anyone in Canada, though. Perhaps you could illustrate that point?

Edited May 30, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

Here I thought this was an adult board. Is school out?

[Signals.Cpl]

Disagree.

By far the main deterrence to WW3 has been the existence and cohesion of NATO, not the UN. The Warsaw Pact countries had no fear of the UN, but had no desire to get frisky with NATO.

I do think the Warsaw Pact had no desire to go to War with NATO and vice versa but the main deterrent to World War 3 was the massive nuclear arsenals both sides had. If the Nukes were not there then we would have most likely had WW3.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Signals.Cpl]

Hmm, wonder how that would work for taxes and benefits. Let's see, right now you basically pay no taxes in Canada if your income is under $18,000 or so. Since the average yearly wage in most third world countries, including China, is way, way under that, then none of them would be paying any taxes. Pretty good on them. And if the UN world government follows the same rules as Canada we'd need massive transfer payments so the poorer countries could have the same services as the richer ones. So countries like Canada would have to transfer vast sums of wealth to third world countries. Again, good for them. I can see how a one world government would be a blessing for third world countries.

It's not clear how it would help anyone in Canada, though. Perhaps you could illustrate that point?

Honestly I think the most beneficial part of the UN would be to keep the peace if it was restructured properly. It would not be so much to make the living standards equal around the world.