Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

[GostHacked]

"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?

The risk is the same because the factors are the same, with or without the UN.

[waldo]

not to be misconstrued as personal support for particular NATO engagements... as you continue to flog your 'regional' alternate world police force, you've never actually spoken to the practical aspects of just how your alternate might distinguish itself from, uhhh... say a NATO, for instance. You've never actually spoken to the realities of your 'regional' alternate that would, by practical extension, be missing key member world states. You could speak to those practicalities now, right?

in any case, what provides the legal foundation for NATO? What framework does NATO operate within? What provided the mandate for NATO operations in the Balkans?... in Afghanistan? Under what mandate did NATO engage in regards the Libyan 'no fly zone'? Since you took pains to highlight what you termed 'failures', most notably several UN endorsed peace-keeping initiatives, what 'regional' entity provided logistical assistance to several of those operations?

If you turned your selective reading mode off you would see I have answered those questions already.

really? Of course, most of the questions within my second paragraph could be answered with a two word organization name and/or one acronym. I expect you could answer the questions within my first paragraph in a few sentences; however, clearly brevity isn't your forte. I appreciate this line of questioning is a troublesome interruption to the flow of your 'United Nations/UN' bashing. Obviously, you would prefer your 'flow' is not interrupted with inconvenient questions, hey?

[Signals.Cpl]

really? Of course, most of the questions within my second paragraph could be answered with a two word organization name and/or one acronym. I expect you could answer the questions within my first paragraph in a few sentences; however, clearly brevity isn't your forte. I appreciate this line of questioning is a troublesome interruption to the flow of your 'United Nations/UN' bashing. Obviously, you would prefer your 'flow' is not interrupted with inconvenient questions, hey?

Again read previous posts and you will get your answer.

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

Yeah and look where that got us...to world peace right?

[Signals.Cpl]

"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?

The UN has nothing to do with a country using or not using a WMD, look at Iran, if they develop a nuclear weapon they will decide to use it or not to use it based on what the expected reply would be from say the US, China, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan etc...

[carepov]

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?

The risk is the same because the factors are the same, with or without the UN.

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

[carepov]

Yeah and look where that got us...to world peace right?

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

[Signals.Cpl]

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

How is it working in India and Pakistan?

How did it work during the cold war?

How is the UN restricting Israel from possessing Nukes?

How is the UN restricting Iran from possessing nukes?

Is sure as hell stopped North Korea from trying...right?

[Signals.Cpl]

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

1981? Kinda of an arbitrary starting point but I think people in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, FYR, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Congo, Falkland Islands, Chechnya, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burundi, Peru, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Azerbaijan... and many more might disagree, I guess the point is clear.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[carepov]

How is it working in India and Pakistan?

How did it work during the cold war?

How is the UN restricting Israel from possessing Nukes?

How is the UN restricting Iran from possessing nukes?

Is sure as hell stopped North Korea from trying...right?

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

Edited July 11, 2012 by carepov

[carepov]

1981? Kinda of an arbitrary starting point but I think people in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, FYR, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Congo, Falkland Islands, Chechnya, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burundi, Peru, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Armenia, Azerbaijan... and many more might disagree, I guess the point is clear.

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.

[Signals.Cpl]

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

If you look closely, the UN was in existance before Hiroshima and Nagasaki so the only two nuclear attacks happened when the UN was in existance and none before it.

[GostHacked]

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 much faith can you put in the UN to prevent another world war? If someone wants to pop a couple, so will others. The UN is completely useless in preventing another world war. The League of Nations was to prevent a second world war. That did not last to long. I think the modern high capacity nuclear weapons themselves are a deterrent for another world war. Every country knows that there is no surviving a nuclear war. It would be global and if it's one nuke, it's all of them. I'd say having a nuclear weapon prevents another world war more effectively than the entire UN.

But even if you leave the nukes out of it. Let's talk the big players, like on the security council. If any of the big players wanted to start a fight, what really prevents them from doing so?

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

I'm sorry, should we wait for 100,000,000 people or the proportional number compared to our population, which would mean what, 250,000,000? 300,000,000? The reason that World War 3 was averted and there are fewer casualties has nothing to do with the UN, it has everything to do with the US and the USSR having nothing to gain from a war and everything to lose therefore no war...

And when you add up some of the casualties not all of them since 1945 we get a number of over 80,000,000 I understand if that not enough deaths to convince you but they are more than enough to convince me.

I challenge you to present 10 wars and/or genocide that the UN Stopped not waited till they ended by themselves.

[Signals.Cpl]

But even if you leave the nukes out of it. Let's talk the big players, like on the security council. If any of the big players wanted to start a fight, what really prevents them from doing so?

Right now? The United States, no nation can honestly face them with an expectation of coming out a victor in a conventional war.

[carepov]

I'm sorry, should we wait for 100,000,000 people or the proportional number compared to our population, which would mean what, 250,000,000? 300,000,000? The reason that World War 3 was averted and there are fewer casualties has nothing to do with the UN, it has everything to do with the US and the USSR having nothing to gain from a war and everything to lose therefore no war...

And when you add up some of the casualties not all of them since 1945 we get a number of over 80,000,000 I understand if that not enough deaths to convince you but they are more than enough to convince me.

Wait for what? We are both arguing for immediate action and improvement - my plan is realistic and yours is unrealistic and would likely increase the number of deaths.

History has shown that it takes somewhere between 35,000,000 (1914-1918) and 100,000,000 (1914-1945) deaths for the great powers of the world to get together, compromise and form an effective international body. If we scrap the UN now what is the alternative? What do you think would realistically take the place of the UN?

I challenge you to present 10 wars and/or genocide that the UN Stopped not waited till they ended by themselves.

We've been down this road before, I provided a list of "successful" missions. You said it is a fool's game to guess at how many lives were saved by preventing war - I agree.

My earlier challenge was to name a UN mission that caused deaths or a reduction in freedom and prosperity. Yes the UN often fails to act - let's fix that - however it is not doing any harm.

***

I can't seem to understand the logic of your position. Perhaps you can refer me to an alternative credible opinion that recommends the scrapping of the UN?

I think that my opinions would be similar to those of Roméo Dallaire.

Edited July 12, 2012 by carepov

[carepov]

How much faith can you put in the UN to prevent another world war? If someone wants to pop a couple, so will others. The UN is completely useless in preventing another world war. The League of Nations was to prevent a second world war. That did not last to long. I think the modern high capacity nuclear weapons themselves are a deterrent for another world war. Every country knows that there is no surviving a nuclear war. It would be global and if it's one nuke, it's all of them. I'd say having a nuclear weapon prevents another world war more effectively than the entire UN.

But even if you leave the nukes out of it. Let's talk the big players, like on the security council. If any of the big players wanted to start a fight, what really prevents them from doing so?

Sorry if you wrote about it earlier, but what is your proposal?

[bush_cheney2004]

My earlier challenge was to name a UN mission that caused deaths or a reduction in freedom and prosperity. Yes the UN often fails to act - let's fix that - however it is not doing any harm.

Yes the UN has "done harm", from crippling sanctions to corruption and misdirected allocation of resources. The UN is compromised and corrupt by design.

[carepov]

Yes the UN has "done harm", from crippling sanctions to corruption and misdirected allocation of resources. The UN is compromised and corrupt by design.

Well thanks for sending your Yankee dollars to the UN anyways.

What is your proposal?

[Signals.Cpl]

Wait for what? We are both arguing for immediate action and improvement - my plan is realistic and yours is unrealistic and would likely increase the number of deaths.

Really? You haven't proven through any of your arguments that the UN is keeping deaths in check. The only reason that there have been lower casualties in the last 60+ years is because the wars that were fought were between 3rd rate powers or were by superpowers fighting 3rd rate powers rather than super powers and allies fighting superpower and allies. My solution is more realistic and viable because it would put pressure on nations to create a better organization or face responsibility for their action/inactions whereas now most nations hide behind the UN, take credit when the UN gets lucky and blame the UN when it fails all the while blaming the US.

Your "plan" doesn't deal with anything realistic because you want to fix the UN while you have people like waldo claiming that the UN works perfectly, people who work for the UN resisting any kind of change to the status quo and the nations themselves who once again take credit for any success while sticking all the blame on the UN. If the organization ceases to exist than reality will set in and there will either be a better organization or regional organizations will take over.

History has shown that it takes somewhere between 35,000,000 (1914-1918) and 100,000,000 (1914-1945) deaths for the great powers of the world to get together, compromise and form an effective international body. If we scrap the UN now what is the alternative? What do you think would realistically take the place of the UN?

Love your math though, so you count WW1 casualties towards creation of the League and then count them again towards the creation of the UN? Also, love how you add wounded to the casualties of World War 1 as total deaths in WW1 amount to just over 16,000,000 while taking the exact middle in World War 2 deaths we get 70.5million dead so we are already above the combined World War 1&2 deaths so its time to change.

Something better or nothing at all, either way it would be an improvement or at the worst case scenario it will be the status quo. And it took only 6,500,000 for the Congress of Vienna, should we wait for

We've been down this road before, I provided a list of "successful" missions. You said it is a fool's game to guess at how many lives were saved by preventing war - I agree.

Yeah, you provided a list of missions and I pointed out how they were not successful or if successful not due to the UN, in this case prevention of war means when war is imminent and the UN send in Peacekeepers and war was averted.

My earlier challenge was to name a UN mission that caused deaths or a reduction in freedom and prosperity. Yes the UN often fails to act - let's fix that - however it is not doing any harm.

Failing to act IS doing harm, its primary mission is to keep the peace... failing that mission means it is doing harm, and has done harm to at least 80,000,000 people.

***

I can't seem to understand the logic of your position. Perhaps you can refer me to an alternative credible opinion that recommends the scrapping of the UN?

I think that my opinions would be similar to those of Roméo Dallaire.

I don't need credible opinions because this is my opinion of how the UN should be restructured as I don't base my thinking on some "solution" that will not improve the organization just put blinders on the critics for another few decades and another few genocides.

I would like to see the General's opinion but either way it proves nothing about its possibility of success. You have failed to prove why we should keep the UN around, why we should continually fund an organization that has failed in its mission but "has done no harm"...

[GostHacked]

Right now? The United States, no nation can honestly face them with an expectation of coming out a victor in a conventional war.

Although I do not agree with you, I was not talking about conventional war. I thought I made that clear with several references to nuclear weapons.

[Signals.Cpl]

Although I do not agree with you, I was not talking about conventional war. I thought I made that clear with several references to nuclear weapons.

But even if you leave the nukes out of it. Let's talk the big players, like on the security council. If any of the big players wanted to start a fight, what really prevents them from doing so?

[carepov]

Really? You haven't proven through any of your arguments that the UN is keeping deaths in check. The only reason that there have been lower casualties in the last 60+ years is because the wars that were fought were between 3rd rate powers or were by superpowers fighting 3rd rate powers rather than super powers and allies fighting superpower and allies.

This is your opinion. My opinion is that:

1. the UN helped to prevent a war between superpowers

2. the UN helped prevent some “small wars”

3. the UN helped reduce casualties of some “small wars”

4. the UN saves countless other lives through humanitarian efforts and disease prevention

I agree with you that I have not proved this, you have not disproved this – it is my opinion against yours I suggest we leave it at that.

My solution is more realistic and viable because it would put pressure on nations to create a better organization or face responsibility for their action/inactions whereas now most nations hide behind the UN, take credit when the UN gets lucky and blame the UN when it fails all the while blaming the US.

…. If the organization ceases to exist than reality will set in and there will either be a better organization or regional organizations will take over.

Love your math though, so you count WW1 casualties towards creation of the League and then count them again towards the creation of the UN? Also, love how you add wounded to the casualties of World War 1 as total deaths in WW1 amount to just over 16,000,000 while taking the exact middle in World War 2 deaths we get 70.5million dead so we are already above the combined World War 1&2 deaths so its time to change.

Sorry I did not express by point clearly regarding my disagreement with your assumption that the world will somehow create something better than the UN:

“The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 35 million.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

This was not enough! The superpowers got together a failed miserably to prevent another World War! In fact their actions arguably made WWII inevitable.

“World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

This is what it took to create the UN!

So you think that if we disband the UN, today’s issues are enough to spur world leaders and powers into forming an organization that is more effective that what we have today? I say the chances of a WWIII are more likely than the formation of a more effective organization than the UN.

Failing to act IS doing harm, its primary mission is to keep the peace... failing that mission means it is doing harm, and has done harm to at least 80,000,000 people.

I don't need credible opinions because this is my opinion of how the UN should be restructured as I don't base my thinking on some "solution" that will not improve the organization just put blinders on the critics for another few decades and another few genocides.

I would like to see the General's opinion but either way it proves nothing about its possibility of success. You have failed to prove why we should keep the UN around, why we should continually fund an organization that has failed in its mission but "has done no harm"...

In a way you are right, the failure to act is harm. My proof to why we should keep the UN is that there is no alternative – your “solution” would result in more war and deaths.

Again, my solution is not status quo, it is to improve the UN with continued efforts like R2P and others.

[Signals.Cpl]

This is your opinion. My opinion is that:

1. the UN helped to prevent a war between superpowers

Prove it, there are plenty of examples where the superpowers came close to a war, please choose 2 that were because of the UN.

2. the UN helped prevent some “small wars”

They didn't prevent any of them, the UN never deployed peacekeepers as a preventative measure and have them succeed, most of the missions end up like Rwanda, send in the PK's, force is required and the UN cannot do force so the peacekeepers are either withdrawn or the force is bottled up where they cannot do much.

3. the UN helped reduce casualties of some “small wars”

I love how you use broad examples like that but the 80+million people who died over the last 60+ years many of whom died in "small" wars would disagree.

4. the UN saves countless other lives through humanitarian efforts and disease prevention

And then lets them die in easily preventable wars...

Helping people while letting them kill each other does nothing but keep the poor down.

I agree with you that I have not proved this, you have not disproved this – it is my opinion against yours I suggest we leave it at that.

You use vague terms to prove a naive point, that the UN has done many good things that I cannot prove but it has not done any "bad" things...

The UN is broken, trying to fix the UN from the inside will not work, and to add to that, right now most African nations have little to no trust in the UN and know the UN weakness which is fear of sustaining casualties. Most of the regions in need of peacekeepers know that if you kill preferably 10-20 Western Peacekeepers their government will promptly withdraw them essentially eliminating the most capable of the PK's.

Sorry I did not express by point clearly regarding my disagreement with your assumption that the world will somehow create something better than the UN:

“The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 35 million.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

casualties !=dead... casualties includes Dead, Wounded and mission.

From your source:

The total number of deaths includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 6.0 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4.0 million.

This was not enough! The superpowers got together a failed miserably to prevent another World War! In fact their actions arguably made WWII inevitable.

The Treaty of Versailles is much more to blame then a failed League of nations.

“World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

This is what it took to create the UN!

So should we wait for World War 3 to scratch off the UN and get some competent organization to work?

So you think that if we disband the UN, today’s issues are enough to spur world leaders and powers into forming an organization that is more effective that what we have today?

No necessarily but at the same time, we would have regional organizations that actually do something to stop/prevent/end wars.

I say the chances of a WWIII are more likely than the formation of a more effective organization than the UN.

Yeah I agree with that, I know that the UN will not be reorganized until such a time as it becomes a major necessity through a major war or a natural disaster, but the UN has never had, does not have and never will have any bearing on wether or not there is World War III. A Global War is likely with or without the UN.

In a way you are right, the failure to act is harm. My proof to why we should keep the UN is that there is no alternative – your “solution” would result in more war and deaths.

Judging from history I don't see how that is likely, its not like Africans are shaking in their boots out of fear of the UN.

Again, my solution is not status quo, it is to improve the UN with continued efforts like R2P and others.

So you want to enact change by trying to get the 5 veto powers to agree to give up their special powers, force the US to give their special powers while being singlehandedly the biggest contributor to the UN all the while having many UN members hiding behind the UN, blaming the UN and tripping the UN at every opportunity. Add to that the fact that all those bureaucrats are entrenched in their organizations and will resist and sabotage change at EVERY opportunity to protect their little fiefdoms.

[carepov]

...

Thank you for pointing out my mistake about WWI casualties/deaths. Just to keep the "fact score" even, unlike your earlier statement, the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, after the atomic bombings in Japan.

From you last post it looks like we more or less understand each other's position and disagree. For now, I have nothing further to add. Thank you for the discussion - I learned a lot from it and I admire your "sympathy" for all the victims of war.