Why is the UN considered ineffective? Is it tons of red tape and/or unwillingness to displease anyone? Has it done the world enough good since it's inception to outweigh any costs in both human and monetary value?
>>1169737
In high school and college we had a UN club, and it was incredibly popular. We talked about things such as the Syrian Civil War, Iranian nuclear facilities, etc. Every person was assigned to present the case of a relevant country on the issue, with about 70 people/countries being represented, everyone usually took their role seriously as well as being detached from their personal feelings to the matter. The main problem that we seemed to encounter that continued to occur was ideological "factions". What basically happened was the discussion turned into a shitfest with the western Europeans dominating the conversation, and the actual Iranian delegates being constantly being put into hot water for shit they didn't do; with only a couple of gulf oil states coming in to Irans rescue. People didnt look at things from their opponenets perspective, and basically just wanted reparations for everything. Literally, our constructed solution for the Russian-Crimean ordeal was "Russia was to pay Ukraine 20 Billion or so dollars a year or be faced with even more embargoes"
Also, most of the problems people were to pussy to confront, and they basically just would agree to write a letter with their dearest condolences to the war-torn Ukrainians in Donbass.
t. dedicated Egypt delegate
>>1169737
They turn the other cheek when the issue seems unimportant to the more influential western seats.
>>1169737
Case and point of the UN being useless as tits on a bull
>Rwanda Genocide
>Bosnian genocide/ Srebenica massacre
>Failed interventions in middle eastern countries due to veto powers of Russia and China
>failure to help third world countries in Africa through means of state capitalism, which could've helped improve certain countries in Africa from being absolute shit holes.
giving the permanent members of the security council veto power means that nothing can be done with UN approval that doesn't benefit America, Britain, France, China, AND Russia.
Try figuring out anything that falls under that category
>>1169982
Don't forget all the temporary members.
>>1169982
The "Big Five" system is completely broken, I would rather have separate UN type organizations for each continent, thus allowing local issues to take president rather than indecisive diplomatic garbage. Also, A UN organization in South America, with Brazil, Argentina, and Peru as its primary members, and smaller nations such as Ecuador being secondary members. Also Central America and the Caribbean would fall under the "South American Federation" or something
thoughts?
>>1169982
Hence, why African countries will take a LOT of time to develop.
>>1170005
I'd have the UN located in the Middle East so they can actually witness the barbarity of it all and actually pull their finger out and do something about and not act like a bunch of self righteous faggots who take their time to listen Anita Sarkeesian
>>1169737
The UN's primary purpose is to prevent another major global conflict. It has largely succeeded in this, all this other stuff the UN is supposed to be doing is an example of idiotic feature creep.
>>1170019
>global conflict
Judging by the tensions caused with the spread of Islamism, we may have one on our hands VERY soon.
>>1170019
The UN was already going to war in 1950.
The real mistake was letting undemocratic countries hold veto power on the security council
>>1170019
Because the cold war wasn't a major global conflict, right? :^)
>>1169994
Temporary members don't have veto power
>>1170005
You mean like OAS?
Security council nations with vast ideological and cultural differences have veto power.
People don't actually like sending (and paying for) soldiers to die for random nobodies.
People are afraid to change the status quo so they just write strongly worded speeches to despots asking them to cut it out (even if they're a stabalizing force in the region).
Some people with power think a "one world government" is evil and actively work against the UN.
>>1170025
>The real mistake was letting undemocratic countries hold veto power on the security council
If the USSR (and subsequently Russia) didn't have veto power they would have just withdrawn from the UN defeating the entire purpose and becoming a League of Nations 2.0
Gave veto power to China and Russia was it biggest failure
>>1170263
>is the enemy with 2 of the largest countries on earth
>lets not give them any outlet to peacefully resolve issues or settle diplomacy
>being THIS retarded
>>1170050
No it wasn't, it was a serious of proxy wars that weren't even a tenth as destructive as an actual ww3 would have been.
>>1170020
Pisslamics are nothing in comparison to the havoc that a war between actual major powers would cause. ISIS will just be bombed and bombed again, syria will get divided between various regional powers and that will be that.
>>1170025
The korean war was nothing in comparison to the wars that preceded it.
>>1170302
>>a serious
Gaahhh
>a series
fixed.
>>1170193
That's why you nuke them, to forcefully bring them into the fold before they developed advanced nuclear weapons.
There should not have been more than 100 industrial centers to nuke, it should have been a trivially easy conquest.
>>1169737
Who else will meet the aliens?
>>1170166
>Some people with power think a "one world government" is evil and actively work against the UN.
Yeah, i think that too, fucko. So you can shove your globalism, i favour sovereignty.
>>1170019
>It has largely succeeded in this
And how we would we know whether it would have happened otherwise if history played out without the UN?
>>1170302
>it was a serious of proxy wars that weren't even a tenth as destructive as an actual ww3 would have been.
How destructive it would have been was irrelevant. The countries involved found other ways to undermine, sabotage, and ultimately fight each other. What changed were the methods involved and moreso due to the MAD doctrine than any UN resolution.
>>1170302
>Pisslamics are nothing in comparison to the havoc that a war between actual major powers would cause.
Your immaturity in wordplay aside, you missed the point of what that poster was trying to get across. He was not comparing islamist insurgencies and terrorism (both products of UN failure by the way) with a superpower but their possibilty of causing one between superpowers of which tensions have never been higher e.g. Russian jets shot down by a NATO member Turkey, Russian ''annexation'' of The Crimea, the shooting down of the passenger plane over The Ukraine etc.)
>The korean war was nothing in comparison to the wars that preceded it.
Again irrelevant. It happened.
>>1172658
>not recognizing a human in an encounter suit
Ultrapleb
>>1172778
Well, we can't really "know" in an absolute sense, but all one needs to make an educated guess is to look at the systems that preceded it. The alliance system of the late 19th century ended with a world war, the league of nations ineffectiveness as a forum for talks between nations led in part to ww2, and now we have nuclear weapon armed nation states glaring angrily at each other after the end of ww2 and the start of the cold war. Part of the reason why the cold war never went hot is nuclear arms and MAD theory, the other part is the existence of an inclusive global forum for negotiations between powers.
>>1172645
>Just nuke before they get nukes, bro.
Yes, I'm sure that would work fine and the US high command never considered that.
>>1172756
>I favour this particular organization lording over me than this bigger organization lording over me.
Full pleb.
>>1172851
Yes Mugabe knows how to run NYC just as much as Bloomberg and so he should have an even amount of say.
>>1173148
That makes no sense
>>1173154
We have decentralized and localized political systems because generally people in that region are better at governing themselves than faceless bureaucrats half the world away.
In his book Hastings writes that the Korean War was the only time UN actually sent its forces and was a side in a war.
I know this book was written a while ago and I've been wondering if it's still true. Is the situation during Korean War different than later UN-authorised operation such as the one in Afghanistan?
>>1169960
Are you from that American school in Cairo? You guys fucking rock, you won every single best delegate award in Bucharest (except 2 which were won by our guys).
>>1173229
Yes, Korea was the last time the UN deployed a fullfledeged army, because the USSR and China walked out of the room. Since then, Russia and China nor any other veto member has left the negotiating room, ever. If it were to happen again it would mean shit is REALLY going down.
>>1172851
Its called being a patriot and loving ones nation, comrade. Or do you belive it is 'stupid' or simply do not know what that is in this, the [current year]?
>>1173324
Small nitpick. At the time, the representative for China was the RoC, known as Taiwan. They, obviously, supported the "police action." It was only later that the PRC officially became China.
>>1173229
UN did not authorize Afghanistan 2001.
>>1169737
Only the UN Security Council matters. The rest are just their to complain about shit. Recently they do invite 1 nation from each continent to Co represent themselves for 1 year.
>>1169979
also khmer rouge
