Thread: The UN And Dangerous People/Its Own Resolutions

Originally Posted by Neruo

Use your own arguments against yourself for a change. Do some self-reflection. Why should the UN go the the countries that have no uneconomical interest for you, thus you don't care about them (dictators in Africa)? And why should the UN help clearing up the mess YOU made?

And why, if the US doesn't have to invade Darfur, why did they need to invade Iraq? Anyone with eyes and a mind, something you both have lost thanks to wide-spread (not just fox news) bad media and gullible, emotionally unstable post-9/11 puppets, could see that Iraq even if they had 1000 nukes, was not in any way a treat to America, or any country for that matter.

It is America's fault for starting a pointless way, that was not thought out in the slightest of ways, and thanks to that utter lack of preparation and rational thought you have plunged Iraq into an anarchistic state of chaos.

It wasn't Just the mistake of invading Iraq, the mistakes in no way started there. The last 6 years have been a cascade of mistakes, bad judgement and vile political games for the American government, and by lack of stong rational criticism, of the American people as a whole.

Enough shit talk about America. We are the great evil. We are the cause of every single problem in the world....bla bla bla. Enough with it.

This is about the inaction of all other nations, including your own. Why should you be involved in a mess we created? Because we've gotten involved in the messes you've created! Not to mention the fact that the UN is supposed to be a peacekeeping organization. With the power of every country in it, the UN should be in every single conflict ridden area of the globe, no matter of who's fault it is. Instead, your nations stand by and do nothing.

Do you agree with me that the UN is a huge waste?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Do you agree with me that the UN is a huge waste?

The UN has GREAT potential. And the idea behind it is a great one, that certainly will have to be, and will be realised for a more peaceful world. However, it has not lived up to it's potential. The world isn't far enough yet. I think that in 50 years, the UN or an organisation quite like it, will work more like the UN is supposed to now. And maybe after even more time the UN will do exactly what the idea behind it is.

Still, just because the UN can't live up to the utopistic, great, peaceful ideology, doesn't mean it was a mistake to invest in trying to create such a thing that stands for an unification for a more peaceful, better world.

I know the UN doesn't do all it is supposed to do. and it is famous for its "inaction"

But maybe it would help if we could pin point the problem. Why didn't the UN do anything during the Rwanda?

What cog in teh beauratic machine causes it to do nothing?

Can we pin point specifically what is responsible for the inaction?

Is it lack of interest by member nations?

Really what's going on here?