2006-08-31 14:09:20 · 10 answers · asked by SPEAK UP WAKE UP 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
oops should read members
2006-08-31 14:13:43 · update #1
yes, there should be no vetos but that wouldn't really work. No one would give up that kind of power.
What they should do is give each country a certain number of 'votes' that can be applied to each issues. The votes can be awarded to countries through certain criteria: Population, GDP and average quality of life for it's citzens.
So a country with high population, GDP and quality of life would have more weight to influnce decisions. The US will a decently high population a strong GDP and high quality of life would have a lot of say (votes) in the UN compared to say North Korea. But it's still possible for the rest of the world to have it's say.
On another plus note, maybe government would actually care about their citizens and increase their quality of life if they get more influnce out of it
2006-08-31 14:20:28 · answer #1 · answered by Karce 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The U.N. is a useless, ineffectual organization run by corrupt politicians from second and third rate nations! They talk a lot, but never take any action, and on the rare occasion that they do, the lousy incompetents only make things worse. If they had done their job right and enforced their resolutions, the U.S. would not be in Iraq right now!
I say the U.S. should pull out of the U.N. We need to stop funding and supporting an organization that allows Communists and dictators to have authority over us.
I'm not sure I like your idea of a replacement though. What you're describing there is the League of Nations, and that didn't last very long for the very reason of no veto power. Why go backwards?
2006-08-31 21:18:51 · answer #2 · answered by bob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree we should get rid of it, but I'm not sure that members having no veto power would help at all. In fact, it might even be worse, if that is possible. A lot of the nation members are third world and dictatorships. We would always be out-voted no matter what......and even the so-called democracies seem to be soft on terror, etc. these days. I don't know what the answer is, but the UN many times, does more harm than good.
2006-08-31 21:17:23 · answer #3 · answered by Rose 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And if all the members except the US want to do something, the US will just go along because its' in the minority?
And if this organization "has more bite" does that mean the US is bound to follow any decision it makes, whether we like it or not?
I mean, how far do you think people in the US will go, if we can't even get along with our own country, and can't even hold our own government accountable for following the laws...
2006-08-31 21:18:50 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about replacing the UN with an organization made up only of nations with democratically elected leaders.
2006-08-31 21:15:32 · answer #5 · answered by TLJaguar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be great imagine if Iran and Zimbabwe had as much power as the USA, the world would be a great place
2006-08-31 22:02:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
then the world powers that have the veto power would not join the organization and they'll be free to blow up the world
2006-08-31 21:14:51 · answer #7 · answered by nuclearemperor 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i completely agree. However, no country, the U.S. especially, is willing to give up the sovereignty to allow that.
2006-08-31 21:12:38 · answer #8 · answered by Atheist81 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
away with them FOREVER
2006-08-31 21:14:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree ! ! ! ! ! !
2006-08-31 21:15:27 · answer #10 · answered by S.A.M. Gunner 7212 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋