Poll: Is The Death Of The UN A Good Thing?

[skeptic123]

Quote from 4england:




Yeah, buck it. We gave it a shot. It didn't work. Oh well. That's life.

Helping to feed the starving, saving refugees, ending apartheid, promoting human rights, catching and sentencing war criminals, preventing nuclear proliferation and promoting democracy, nice idea, guys, but it just doesn't seem to work.

- Helping to feed the starving - moderate success
- Saving refugees - moderate success
- Apartheid - success

- Promoting Human rights - total failure. Not a single country made any significant human rights improvements due to UN efforts.
- War Criminals - total failure. The only war criminal (to the best of my knowledge) was Milosevic, and it was done outside of UN, cause Russia would have vetoed it. How about Saddam?
- Preventing nuclear prolifereation - total failure. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel - they all have nukes. Iraq would have had them too if it was not for Israel in 1981 and USA in 1992.
- Promoting democracy - total failure. Not a single country became democratic due to UN. Most of democratization in the last 25 years happened due to USA policies i.e Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan (hopefully on its way), Iraq is likely next.

 

[4england]

Quote from skeptic123:



- Helping to feed the starving - moderate success
- Saving refugees - moderate success
- Apartheid - success

- Promoting Human rights - total failure. Not a single country made any significant human rights improvements due to UN efforts.
- War Criminals - total failure. The only war criminal (to the best of my knowledge) was Milosevic, and it was done outside of UN, cause Russia would have vetoed it. How about Saddam?
- Preventing nuclear prolifereation - total failure. India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel - they all have nukes. Iraq would have had them too if it was not for Israel in 1981 and USA in 1992.
- Promoting democracy - total failure. Not a single country became democratic due to UN. Most of democratization in the last 25 years happened due to USA policies i.e Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan (hopefully on its way), Iraq is likely next.

Does this mean you're not in favour of the UN?? After all, they've only had moderate success helping the starving. Better just call it a day, eh?

And sorry, my US history is a little ropey, but can you tell me exactly what part the US did play in democratising Eastern Europe?

 

[skeptic123]

Quote from 4england:


Does this mean you're not in favour of the UN?? After all, they've only had moderate success helping the starving. Better just call it a day, eh?

I voted against it. It could potentially stay as a purely humanitarian organization, even then it is extremely inefficient now and its operations would need to be streamlined significantly. But IMO it has no real use in world's politics, matters of war and peace etc.

Believe it or not I used to work for UN as part of technical staff and it was a terrible place to work. Everything is politisized and messed up, no leadership, no proper chain of command, nothing ever got done. Huge money pit. My experience was with technical department only, but I do believe it applies to other branches of UN.

Quote from 4england:


And sorry, my US history is a little ropey, but can you tell me exactly what part the US did play in democratising Eastern Europe?

You do not think the collapse of the Soviet empire had something to do with Reagan's policies, SDI (Star Wars), USA help to Afghan resistance in Soviet-Afghan war etc? You do not think that the feeble democracies of the East European countries were and are financially supported by american taxpayers until they become self-sufficient?