29-04-2003 00:23									#1
	Official Poll: Does the UN suck? Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

There is a thread on whether the UN sucks and they mentionned having a poll. So I thought I would beat them to it and post the first official poll on the subject.
Let's see what the OT really thinks about the UN.

	29-04-2003 00:28									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Basicly, the UN is a good idea...but if it has no power, whats the use for it?

Spec.

	29-04-2003 00:33									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The international security and stability part of UN, i.e most notably the Security Council in its present form is a joke.

The development and co-operation part of the organization seems to be ok and improving.

I guess that amounts to a 'so-so' rating overall. United Nations matters are still boooring though.

	29-04-2003 00:45									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yup. According to its structure, it gives the likes of Russia and China too much power. It is good if it can be weakened so as to remove this potential constraint on our power.

	29-04-2003 00:51									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

also the UN has no oversight. There are still people wondering where all that money for the oil for food program went. I have a suspicion that a lot of the money is not being used the way it is intended to be used.

But I don't think the U.N. should be abolished. I guess it is good for humanitarian crises and such. But it can never be as effective at solving international military crisis because of the politics involved.

	29-04-2003 00:53									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The fact that we have the leader in the world militarily does not mean that a fine idealistic idea that UN is should be abandoned... infact it is the only hope for the future of the world that there is a place or organization to discuss the "differences" and agree about them in one way or the other if we want to avoid selfdestruction... or at least wiping off most of the population in a moment of madness...

	29-04-2003 01:09									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

As winston said, the development arm (Unicef, Who, and others) do vital work aorund the world and have greatly helped the poor of this world, whle the veto power and other constraints meant to make national soverignty pre-eminent weaken its ability to carry out collective peace actions: only when all 5 veto members agree on a course of action can it happe. The way to fix that would be to remove the Veto power.

	29-04-2003 01:30									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Humanitarian missions etc.

A one world government.

	29-04-2003 01:34									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I have the nagging feeling that the humanitarian missions breed dependance and corruption. But I don't know if USAID does any better, for instance.

	29-04-2003 01:37									#10
	Put an end to popups!

The distribution of power on security issues in the UN is the result of a specific historical situation. Past experiences in the history of established world orders has shown that they have a tendency to survive longer than the situation that was the cause of it creation. That's not enough a reason to give up on the entire project though.

	29-04-2003 01:39									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DanS I have the nagging feeling that the humanitarian missions breed dependance and corruption. But I don't know if USAID does any better, for instance.

Only if done badly (ie, how most states do it, as opposed to the UN bureacracies that handle the money themselves). Unicef and WHO have saved countless lives, and thanks to them Polio and Smallpox have been mostly removed form the world. If we would only pour in as much money to get Malaria.

	29-04-2003 01:39									#12
	Tired of ads?

The existance of the UN is a result of a specific historical situation. It wasn't created in good faith in the first place.

	29-04-2003 02:01									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The UN's suckiness is inversely proportional to it's power, within reason.

	29-04-2003 02:03									#14
	Got spare money?

This should have been a multiple-choice poll.

	29-04-2003 02:16									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I really don't have a problem with the UN in its present form. The aid agencies do as good a job as is possible given the vast geography and political landscapes that they cover.

Even the Security Council has its place. Is everyone going to agree on every conflict? No. The US has just shown that countries can proceed on their national interests without the blessing of the UN. If the UN does authorize an action, which it rarely does, then it has an effect of minimizing world polarization. Both of these abilities are good things IMHO.

Until world standards of living are more equal, then national soverignty will remain a priority for many. Equalizing these standards can only come through income growth and development (as opposed to redistribution of wealth). Here the UN can play a vital role as well by promoting free trade and providing a venue for treaty negotiation.

Will the UN always be successful? Obviously not. It can and does serve a valuable purpose in its present form. We just have to understand what that purpose is and not try to make it into something that it is not.

	29-04-2003 02:19									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The UN doesn't suck. It's some of the countries in the UN that do.

	29-04-2003 02:21									#17
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 The UN doesn't suck. It's some of the countries in the UN that do.

Paiktis, I agree...but I bet our lists are different.

	29-04-2003 02:24									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

For sure

	29-04-2003 02:28									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Of course noone can play holier than thou. Indeed, the very phrase of whether one "sucks" in the UN can only be said by someone partisan.

It's all about interests. For example it is in one country's best interest to see some other countries collapse or modernize etc etc That doesn't mean that one country sucks more than others. In the end whether one country sucks depends on the suffering it inflicts to its onw people or to peoples of other countries.

But you cannot say one country "suck" unless you're partisan about something. And if this is not democracy and human rights, it is completely irrelevant and hypocritical.

	29-04-2003 02:31									#20
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I think the UN sucks BECAUSE of the power of the member nations who suck.

	29-04-2003 02:33									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Of course noone can play holier than thou.

Why not?

	29-04-2003 02:37									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 Of course noone can play holier than thou. Indeed, the very phrase of whether one "sucks" in the UN can only be said by someone partisan. It's all about interests. For example it is in one country's best interest to see some other countries collapse or modernize etc etc That doesn't mean that one country sucks more than others. In the end whether one country sucks depends on the suffering it inflicts to its onw people or to peoples of other countries. But you cannot say one country "suck" unless you're partisan about something. And if this is not democracy and human rights, it is completely irrelevant and hypocritical.

Paiktis, Youre scaring me. I have to agree with this also.

Human rights and the right to self determination have to be two of the most fundamental "rights" that people can have. To strive for these on a world scale should be every countries goal. Unfortunately, national interest does get in the way from time to time. But this is to be expected as long as there are the inequities that currently exist in the world.

	29-04-2003 02:37									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Dunno....I think the UN needs a MAJOR restructuring. I think someone in a previous thread suggested a new council model...but I can't remember who or where I've seen it.

The UN is like public transportation: it gets you to your destination, but there's so much problems with it that you might as well find another way there.

	29-04-2003 02:39									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The security arm of the UN is pointless, because not only is the structure of it prone to abuse (vetos), but because there's no accountability. The UN is comprised of unelected bureaucrats loathe to take the blame for failed policies, usually just sticking its head in the sand and insisting its way is best, or choosing to blame member states (typically the USA) instead.

The humanitarian arms are worthwhile ventures, though.

	29-04-2003 02:44									#25
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I thought the US was the UN's security arm.

	29-04-2003 02:46									#26
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by optimus2861 The security arm of the UN is pointless, because not only is the structure of it prone to abuse (vetos), but because there's no accountability. The UN is comprised of unelected bureaucrats loathe to take the blame for failed policies, usually just sticking its head in the sand and insisting its way is best, or choosing to blame member states (typically the USA) instead. The humanitarian arms are worthwhile ventures, though.

Optimus, at some point you have to have a final authority. How can any "final authority" be accountable. The check and balance to this is the member state's ability to take action in its national interest just as the US has done. The UNSC can always evaluate the merit of these actions and vote to reverse them if the will to do so is present by the big 5.

The problem of accountability that I think you are addressing is that the big 5 don't have to be accountable to anyone. Given the balance of power in the world, I would suggest that this would be the case with or without the UN.

	29-04-2003 02:50									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

well the UN was designed to keep the peace in a world that no longer exists. the one who wants to destroy it is the US with its actions since it feels to emprisoned in it now.

The Un is supposed to uphold International Law. This is hard to do when basic members of it don't follow it.

SO there you have it.

Of course there cannot be a withdrawl of the US from it cause the US admin knows that it needs concent from many parts of the world if it is to try and push its agenda forward. And concsent means taking a few slaps on the face now and then.

	29-04-2003 02:58									#28
	Remove this text

For example the US is dissatisfied with France's position?

That was nothing big really. It could have been dissatisfied if Europe deported all american military personel, closed american bases, closed air and water passages, gave sadam nukes and personael to operate them against the US etc

and the same did the arabs.

how are you going to reach 3world country iraq if people are blocking your way?

would you go fight all of them?

impossible, you would simply withrdaw


Of course countries opposing the war escalated only to the level they saw as serving their own interests to do so.

however if the UN didnt exist, it might be more easy to engage in more radical approaches than just vetoing.


But that depends always in one country's self interests and in the matter of europe in the yet hazy supranational interests.

	29-04-2003 03:04									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 well the UN was designed to keep the peace in a world that no longer exists. the one who wants to destroy it is the US with its actions since it feels to emprisoned in it now. The Un is supposed to uphold International Law. This is hard to do when basic members of it don't follow it. SO there you have it. Of course there cannot be a withdrawl of the US from it cause the US admin knows that it needs concent from many parts of the world if it is to try and push its agenda forward. And concsent means taking a few slaps on the face now and then.

Here is the Paiktis I have come to know and love. Faulty logic and untenable positions.

I can assure you that if the US wanted to "destroy the world" that it could certainly do it. Show me where the regime is that meets your "democracy" and "human rights" tests you stated above that the US has supported sanctions or military action against.

	29-04-2003 03:12									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Gee, how is the UN supposed to uphold International Law when one of its chief members, the US, doesn't obey international law?