The UN: Beacon of hope

[HOZ]

Unaccountable!

You may have to register to read.

[Cowperson]

Well, this is one thing the USA has been right about for a decade or more - the United Nations is a cesspool of corruption, good for certain things and abysmal at the big events of the day.

But because it is accountable to no one, an international organization is never going to be good at managing large, long-term projects involving a lot of money or a lot of soldiers either. For that reason, the United Nations should never be confused with legitimately elected governments or America's historical allies. A decision to "send in the United Nations" is never going to be the full solution to any problem. And in light of what we are learning about the United Nations' appalling record in Iraq, it's pretty clear that calling upon "the United Nations" to save us in Iraq is tantamount to a cry of desperation.

The USA is far and away the largest monetary contributor to the United Nations and for many, many years withheld payments in an effort to force reforms.

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 13 2004, 02:37 PM
Well, this is one thing the USA has been right about for a decade or more - the United Nations is a cesspool of corruption, good for certain things and abysmal at the big events of the day.

But because it is accountable to no one, an international organization is never going to be good at managing large, long-term projects involving a lot of money or a lot of soldiers either. For that reason, the United Nations should never be confused with legitimately elected governments or America's historical allies. A decision to "send in the United Nations" is never going to be the full solution to any problem. And in light of what we are learning about the United Nations' appalling record in Iraq, it's pretty clear that calling upon "the United Nations" to save us in Iraq is tantamount to a cry of desperation.

The USA is far and away the largest monetary contributor to the United Nations and for many, many years withheld payments in an effort to force reforms.

Cowperson

Should we then consider that they are propping up ANOTHER corrupt gov't then?

F-------- Americans!

[sjwalter]

You mean in a way where they are called corrupt because they can basically do what they want?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 13 2004, 02:37 PM
But because it is accountable to no one, an international organization is never going to be good at managing large, long-term projects involving a lot of money or a lot of soldiers either.

Isn't the UN accountable to it's members? Can the UN take 'unilateral' action without the approval of it's member-states. In fact, does the UN even make any 'real' decisions, or does it do what it's member-states tell it to do? It does what its told.

The UN is a bureaucratic organization. It exists to facilitate the wants and needs of the world body. It takes no initiative, but receives it's orders from its bosses.

The bottom line is, if the 'UN' screws up, it's member-states have to look inwardly, instead of blaming the apparatus.

Hasn't the US been asking for UN help ever since the war began? Does that mean the US has been desperate for a while?

Edit: Also, some would argue that the IMF, Worldbank, and WTO do pretty good jobs of regulating massive international issues. The IAEA does a decent job of tracking nuclear materiale. Seems a bit extreme to say that large international organizations are somehow inherently unnable to efficiently distribute resources.

[arsenal]

Yes, the US has been asking for help with Iraq for a while now. I think alot of the countries have decided that they are not going to help beucase of 2 reasons:
1) Just to spite the US.
2) They will not recieve re-building contracts.

Now, how does this help the people of Iraq? It doesn't really. Just means that more will die in combat becuase the US & Friends will be there longer. Allowing more terrorists / inusrgents to organize, etc.

These nations may not agree with Iraq, but for the sake of the Iraqi people, they need to put their differences aside, and help out.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

The UN could be something great, but I don't think it will ever amount to anything past what it is today unless huge reforms are brought about. Countries involved in the UN will always put their own interests before global interests, and that pretty much defeats the whole purpose of the UN. Great idea, or even an ideal, but tough to turn into a feasible reality.

Also of note is the fact that the UN was orignally designed for preventing inter-country conflicts, not intra-country conflicts. Civil wars, genocides, etc, were never what the UN was designed to deal with and it has been somewhat slow in adjusting to this. It would be way more effective if it was able to handle these types of problems quicker and more efficiently, as opposed to debating what constitutes 'genocide' while people are being killed...