[fluff]

As plenty of people here feel the UN is either toothless or useless how would you like to see the UN structured?

For example:
Should veto's be abolished?
Should the UN enforce all resolutions by force?
Should the UN have ultimate global authority?
Should the UN have a full-time military under independent command?

No preconceptions, no restrictions, what would you do?

 

[BurlyShirley]

disband it completely.

 

[RhinofromWA]

As plenty of people here feel the UN is either toothless or useless how would you like to see the UN structured?

For example:
Should veto's be abolished?
Should the UN enforce all resolutions by force?
Should the UN have ultimate global authority?
Should the UN have a full-time military under independent command?

No preconceptions, no restrictions, what would you do?

If the UN is the worlds watch dog than they should act as such. If they are to help ensure people like hitler don't rise again....act that way. They did a half assed job handling Saddam thinking he would reform. When you flat out invade a country to keep as your own.....what right do you have to continue leading these days?

If the UN isn't abolished what is left? A collection of well meaning individuals that can't do anything that will deter another Hitler from rising. As nice and fuzzy warm as the idea of the UN is....they are toothless. You can't stop an attacker with a gun, if the attacker knows the gun isn't loaded. Resolutions are nothing to people like Saddam UNLESS you have some way of enforcing it. Should they enforce them by force? They should try. Talking to a country that couldn't care less about you and your resolutions doesn't work. You can't enforce rules/resolutions if you don't have some pull (especially when the other side sees you as of little concequence.).....Saddam was allowed to stay in power when he was all but defeated, by signing agreeing to a worthless resolution he did not plan on following anyway. Heck, can't blame him for getting in on that sweet deal! Stay in power, all he had to do was agree to a *snicker* "resolution", after invading a country to take it as his own and being beat back to all but his front door......yeah Saddam received a decade delay on the inevidable. Should the UN enforce all resolutions by force? Watch the "all" bit But yes they should be able to...right now, they can't/will not.

The UN is a large slice of the worlds country's looking to get along...mostly. They have a military force (these joint forces you hear about.....yet spearheaded by the mass of the US military) Independent from their own countries command? No. Joint? Yes.

The UN works to band together to address problems......but do they have the "ultimate authority" again watch what you write Ultimate? no. Authority? How about heavy influence to their own country?

Why was the UN created? Not, "what is their mission statement now?"

 

[BurlyShirley]

...or you know what...maybe not disband it completely, but at least get those goons some new ear pieces. G-zus those things are so tacky and 1994ish. You cant tell me the best the UN can afford are those stupid looking ear things....

WTF are those anyway...little links to some translator monkey boy off in a box somewhere or what?

 

[LordOpie]

I don't mind the UN. In fact, I like how they and everyone else was seriously listening to Brahimi, who was the UNs choice to moderate the whole selection of the new gov't. And I do think they were doing a good enough job at keeping Iraq in check.

 

[SebringMGB]

I know this is way out there, but it seems to me it should be more of a world governing body, that has more power in upper tier type things. one that nations have to aswer to, not like a social club for countries. but.... fat chance.

 

[ummbikes]

When you flat out invade a country to keep as your own.....what right do you have to continue leading these days?

It's a 3-3 ball game, Ummbikes up to bat, Rhino rears back and hangs a 2-0 curveball over the plate. Ummbikes shows restraint and the count goes to 3-0. The crowd wonders, what will Rhino throw next?
:evil:

 

[RhinofromWA]

It's a 3-3 ball game, Ummbikes up to bat, Rhino rears back and hangs a 2-0 curveball over the plate. Ummbikes shows restraint and the count goes to 3-0. The crowd wonders, what will Rhino throw next?
:evil:

I said "these days".........

So you think the UN is doing a smash up job, Baseball Boy?

~~~~~~

Ummbikes sheepishly searches for a hole in what Rhino is throwing at him....and finds a sliver of hope that he can challenge. Only to find out he has already struckout.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I don't mind the UN. In fact, I like how they and everyone else was seriously listening to Brahimi, who was the UNs choice to moderate the whole selection of the new gov't. And I do think they were doing a good enough job at keeping Iraq in check.

Really, how so?

Sanctions? Sanctions hurt his people, and he didn't care about them anyway. He kept himself fed.

When Saddam challenged them....they had nothing for it, but a "stearn request" to comply.

 

[ummbikes]

So you think the UN is doing a smash up job, Baseball Boy?

I think they should be allowed to exhaust every option diplomacy has to offer before the bombing raids begin. Honestly, if diplomacy fails, the UN must go in and make regime change.

It shouldn't just be the US.

 

[LordOpie]

Really, how so?

Sanctions? Sanctions hurt his people, and he didn't care about them anyway. He kept himself fed.

When Saddam challenged them....they had nothing for it, but a "stearn request" to comply.

well, I don't think anyone really cares about the Iraqi people

But what I meant was in specific regards to WMDs. It was working, sort of. And sanctions worked against Lybia.

The problem I have is that I bet no country fears the UN. The whole toothless thing.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I think they should be allowed to exhaust every option diplomacy has to offer before the bombing raids begin. Honestly, if diplomacy fails, the UN must go in and make regime change.

It shouldn't just be the US.

The UN did(or didn't depends how you look at it) for a decade.....

When Saddam pushed they stood there shocked such a man would resist the "Mighty UN". Well yeah the UN won't do anything....why would he bow to them. They had Saddam to talk to because the UN (majority of them US) muscle pushed him back into Iraq. Force opened up "diplomatic solutions" but no force left those same solutions powerless to be enforced.

More than 10yrs were spent on Saddam....I guess the UN just hoped he would die and fade away.....

How long should diplomatic route take. I don't expect 6mos.....but more than a decade....repeat DECADE had passed and still Saddam was not cooperating.

It shouldn't have been jsut the US (ignoring the few who backed us) but the UN wouldn't/couldn't. That is the problem. When push came to shove the UN ended up on their collective arse.

 

[LordOpie]

I think they should be allowed to exhaust every option diplomacy has to offer before the bombing raids begin. Honestly, if diplomacy fails, the UN must go in and make regime change.

It shouldn't just be the US.

but if the UN can't or won't use force... shouldn't someone step up to the plate and do what needst o be done?

 

[Slugman]

Don't forget that the UN has failed to protect people in Africa too...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3652521.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/04/07/congo.chronology.reut/index.html
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/134peac2.htm

These people, who do have great intentions, are useless. They have turned a good concept into a glorified high school debate team.

And lets not forget that they have allowed the "human rights" section of the UN to be populated, and run by nations that in the past have been target by that same commission for violations!

The task is too big - If we can't even get the Dems and Repubs to work together, how is someone going to get every nation to agree?

 

[ummbikes]

but if the UN can't or won't use force... shouldn't someone step up to the plate and do what needst o be done?

Are your framing that question in the context of Iraq, or is it a general question?

In the context of Iraq, no we should not have gone in to liberate the Iraqis. We are supposed to be engaged in a "War on Terror" and should have probably been busy busting up Al Qadea and the Taliban. (Yes we are still trying to do these things) What about the Iraq invasion has made us safer from terror?

If your question is looking at the issue in a broad sense then you will have to be more specific. Are we talking about defending national borders, or simply saying we think this leader is shady so were kicking butt?

 

[fluff]

Can we move away from the Iraq situation for a while?

The UN is toothless because its members are too afraid to empower it (specifically the permanent members of the security council.

Any UN commanded force is by its very nature under joint command because the UN is multinational.

The basic dilemma is that if the UN is armed and empowered all members must respect majority rule. The big powers are too afraid of the rest of the world...

Anyone care to argue with the above? If not what should the UN look like.

I'm half inclined to agree with BS except that the UN is better than nothing, but nothing like as useful as it should be.

 

[LordOpie]

The UN is toothless because its members are too afraid to empower it (specifically the permanent members of the security council.

Any UN commanded force is by its very nature under joint command because the UN is multinational.

The basic dilemma is that if the UN is armed and empowered all members must respect majority rule. The big powers are too afraid of the rest of the world...

Good point, but the UN military will still be made up primarily of citizens of those big countries and you won't get them to act against their home, so the big countries will still be allowed to do what they want.

 

[fluff]

Good point, but the UN military will still be made up primarily of citizens of those big countries and you won't get them to act against their home, so the big countries will still be allowed to do what they want.

Well, if the UN drew 10,000 troops from each member state and each member state had no permanent army (as would not be necessary) the UN could choose which troops to use and would have little to fight against.

(The UN would have all the nukes too...)

I know that's unrealistic and will never happen but it is only the same as the individual states within the union, eh?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Well, if the UN drew 10,000 troops from each member state and each member state had no permanent army (as would not be necessary) the UN could choose which troops to use and would have little to fight against.

(The UN would have all the nukes too...)

I know that's unrealistic and will never happen but it is only the same as the individual states within the union, eh?

I guess one fear is that the UN will become to powerfull or autonomous in it's own right and that could create a problem too. *shrug*

It would be StarWars (the movie series) all over again. Empire (UN like) good, then empire bad (rebels break off after power corrupts and breaks the Empire....oh the humanity!

That is why I think the UN should be influencial but as far as having it's own independent army.....or all the nukes. No. Where would be the UN's checks and balances? Just Da Horn babbling again.......

Rhino

*sorry for the Starwars bit....I thought it was funny. I just need to know more about the starwars "saga" to make a better example.*

 

[fluff]

I guess one fear is that the UN will become to powerfull or autonomous in it's own right and that could create a problem too. *shrug*

It would be StarWars (the movie series) all over again. Empire (UN like) good, then empire bad (rebels break off after power corrupts and breaks the Empire....oh the humanity!

That is why I think the UN should be influencial but as far as having it's own independent army.....or all the nukes. No. Where would be the UN's checks and balances? Just Da Horn babbling again.......

Rhino

*sorry for the Starwars bit....I thought it was funny. I just need to know more about the starwars "saga" to make a better example.*

I think you just encapsulated many peoples' fears of the USA. It is a natural fear in any situation where there is a single preeminent power.

Consider this:

Logically an organisation of all states that has no territory, citizens, military or finance outside of that drawn from its members has far more checks and balances than the USA. It would be global democracy (must remove tongue from cheek...)

 

[RhinofromWA]

I think you just encapsulated many peoples' fears of the USA. It is a natural fear in any situation where there is a single preeminent power.

Consider this:

Logically an organisation of all states that has no territory, citizens, military or finance outside of that drawn from its members has far more checks and balances than the USA. It would be global democracy (must remove tongue from cheek...)

But has the world given up control to the US? No.

If the world gave all their governing power to the US then the US would have that possibility. Not so much right now. If the US did did have autonamous power, we wouldn't care so much what others felt. The US is it own nation seperate from the world. They do not have preeminent power in the world. Put the US and the majority of the rest of the world under a more direct control of a type of UN and that is much more dangerous....especially if the countries don't have a say outside of NATO. I have said before the UN should have more influence towards getting everyone to work together, but not control over their respective members country. How does that happen? I don't know. Maybe having officials in the UN that have the respect of their government and care what they have to say....I am just throwing out ideas.

I am not sure if I followed your example organization correctly, so I appologize before hand if I murder it. : It sounds like what the UN wants to be... A collective of independant nations. The USA is a collection of States that has no real territory, citizens, military (Ok they re federally controlled but exist from the states making it up), or finiance (um...money flying all over the place with a global economy) outside itself.

Problem with the UN is that the representative collective (as a whole) don't have the fortitude to act if the need arises. Laws (resolutions) are empty if there is no risk of enforcement. If the UN insists on attempting to police/control situations like Iraq and elsewhere. If they allow someone like Saddam to stay in power they should be ready to finish the job if the "deal" falls through.

Once again, I appologize if I read your post wrong.

Rhino