silliness at the United Nations

[NASE]

but, back on topic (in the off topic forum?), the UN is nothing other than a bunch of old guys/girls sitting in a room talking about whats wrong with the world these days. They don't really accomplish anything.

and... sanctions? oh lord...

Do you prefer they don't talk and just start shooting?

[Glurin]

In some cases, yes.

[Dondrei]

silliness at the United Nations

Really ?

[PlagueBearer]

Does it bug anyone else when we dismantle physical deterrents against Iranian missiles, with the excuse of "well look, by doing that we got Russia to join us in whining and complaining!"

And look, turns out we don't even get that.

Who saw that coming, right?

[krischan]

If the UN cannot achieve anything, why is it like that? If it's veto members blocking each other on important issues, then abandon veto rights. Saying that's inacceptable is the same as refusing to give it enough power, so what is the actual complaint then?

[pancakeman]

I think it has more to do with how they never actually do anything. They issue plenty of statements and resolutions and stuff, but when it comes down to it sanctions are their worst form of punishment, and those usually take years to get into place. And what happens to the country then? They continue producing nuclear weapons, or conducting ethnic cleansing, or whatever it is. The sanctions do put the squeeze on the rogue nation, but it only means that after the leaders take what they want there is less for the people.

The very nature of the UN is the problem, I fear. They were created to try to maintain peace, and because of that they have no power should a nation like Iran or North Korea simply say "No". They're like the babysitter, and Sudan is the bratty 4 year old. The UN says to go to bed, and Sudan says the UN isn't his mom. And the UN says that they will think seriously about it, and 5 years later they tell Sudan he can't have any ice cream. But then he sneaks into the kitchen and gets it anyway.

What I'm trying to say is:
Countries have always settled disputes with war. It is sad, and tens of millions have lost their lives because of it, but it is the only thing that some countries understand. The UN was created to try to avoid wars, but seems to have succeeded only in allowing atrocities to happen, which has made the potential for a very bloody and very destructive war even higher.

[krischan]

OK, so if the UN agrees on a resolution, which means is it supposed to apply then? And which means can it actually take? And if it cannot take the means which would be appropriate, why is it like that? And what would have to be done to give them these means?

The problem is that many UN members don't want the UN to have the power to force any country in the world to act in a certain manner, including the US, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, France etc. etc. Maybe it's good that they cannot, but not being able to do that has its dosadvantage. So we have to make a decision and then stop complaining about it. If you have to choose either an apple or an orange and you take the apple, it's silly to complain that it doesn't taste like an orange.

[SonataArctica]

In my opinion, war is inevitable.

"Peace" is sort of a childish notion in the first place. Is there peace in nature? No. Are we not just animals when we boil it down? Yes. Therefore, as logic would suggest, there will always be war. I mean you could say "but Ryan, in nature there is co-existence". I would say, look in nature and point out an animal that isn't constantly fearing for its' life. Its a constant struggle for survival and dominance, so why are we surprised when its' that way for us?

We aren't as evolved as we think. War is the easy way out, and humans like instant results.

And, I may be a cynic, but I think the U.N. is just this idealistic group of leaders who MEAN well but don't have the means to change anything.

But, thats just my two cents.

[Technomancer]

The UN's lack of effectiveness can be really annoying at times, but like krischan's saying, everyone wants the UN to be able to enforce itself on everyone, except <insert country where *I* live> . Here in the US, I know NO ONE here wants the UN to be able to enforce it's will upon us. The sad fact is, the only way the UN would be able to be truly effective is if it was the actual government of the world, or at least most of it, which no one ANYWHERE wants!! Shy of that, they're only as good as the member states are willing to back it up militarily. Since we (the US) are practically the only ones willing to back anything up with force, we get pegged as the warmongers and imperialists. That's also annoying, because it's expensive as hell!! The money going into Iraq and Afghanistan could get us all healthcare (like the rest of the civilized world) and completely get us off of foreign oil within a decade, with oodles of cash to spare. I don't like the wars, but just up and bailing would be a continuation of what the world hates us for doing in the past. No win situation.

In my opinion, war is inevitable.

"Peace" is sort of a childish notion in the first place. Is there peace in nature? No. Are we not just animals when we boil it down? Yes. Therefore, as logic would suggest, there will always be war. I mean you could say "but Ryan, in nature there is co-existence". I would say, look in nature and point out an animal that isn't constantly fearing for its' life. Its a constant struggle for survival and dominance, so why are we surprised when its' that way for us?

We aren't as evolved as we think. War is the easy way out, and humans like instant results.

And, I may be a cynic, but I think the U.N. is just this idealistic group of leaders who MEAN well but don't have the means to change anything.

But, thats just my two cents.

I'm no fan of war, but your pretty much spot on. Through all the death and atrocity, much progress and growth comes from war as well. For instance, without war, there would be no computers or internet and this conversation wouldn't be taking place like this! There would be no endless Baal runs and mfing and Hammerdins... on second thought...

[Johnny]

In my opinion, war is inevitable.

"Peace" is sort of a childish notion in the first place. Is there peace in nature? No. Are we not just animals when we boil it down? Yes. Therefore, as logic would suggest, there will always be war. I mean you could say "but Ryan, in nature there is co-existence". I would say, look in nature and point out an animal that isn't constantly fearing for its' life. Its a constant struggle for survival and dominance, so why are we surprised when its' that way for us?

We aren't as evolved as we think. War is the easy way out, and humans like instant results.

And, I may be a cynic, but I think the U.N. is just this idealistic group of leaders who MEAN well but don't have the means to change anything.

But, thats just my two cents.

Time to put down the razor blade emo boy. War is not inevitable. It's a reaction. It has a cause, it can be stopped and prevented. The reason we have so many fewer wars between civilized countries today is information. If you declare war on a nation you have trouble getting your nations population behind you when you don't have a very good reason. You can't just declare war on your neighbour and proclaim them vicious animals that need to be stopped to get the population behind you.