Do you think the United Nations ( UN ) has become ineffective and irrelevant?

Question

Should NATO be the organization that we look to to police the world and bring other nations to face concequences of their actions?

Wether its the UN, Nato, League of Nations or any other Organization that is formed. I do think having a system where nations come together and discuss and debate world issues has value. Its all in how its setup, followed and enforced it will gain respect and credibility it will be taken seriously.

Answer 1

No, I think George Bush has undermined it, which is ironic, as it was something his father warned against when everyone wanted to continue into Iraq after Kuwait!

That was one of the reasons he gave!

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Too bad George didn't listen to his father!!

Answer 2

The UN has been generally ineffective for almost all of its existence. There are a number of reasons for this in my opinion. Probably the major reason is that the UN has no power to do anything to anyone. It can pass sanctions, but as we have seen with Israel and the Hezbollah, no one listens.
And I think that NATO would face the exact same problem; without any means of enforcing its will, neither NATO nor the UN have any particular value in policing the world.
About all the UN serves to do is to be a place where nations can discuss their concerns, and to address humanitarian needs. I think that the UN has done some good in humanitarian efforts. But forget about policing the world. No organization can do that.

Answer 3

Hello there ! I've always thought that (NATO) was the Organization that did the (Police The World Group) & it sure as Hell looks like George W. is doing all of the Police Work. It turns out that the United States, owe's alot of (MONEY) to the (UNITED NATIONS) & that since the Bush Administration took Office, none of the Monies had ever been Paid to the (U.N.) An Organization such as (NATO) can only comply only if,(The Rest Of Those) that do Owe NATO it's Monies then,& only then can NATO come through with it's (Obligations) to the World at large. Nato has in (FACT) been ineffective & Irrelevent because, just like any other Organization they too, have to have the (MONIES) to be a (Smooth Running Machine). It;s really (SAD) that other Countries have not (Complied) with NATO & the Monies that NATO should have to (POLICE THE WORLD) but for now, Our President Bush is (Brunting) the Tax Payers to win a War that know one wanted to begin with. rumeoui !

Answer 4

It has not become ineffective. Only that for it to do the things people want it would have to become an enfrcing world government! And then most of the people that ask for "world police" would back up and start screaming! Example: Most US citizens want the UN to be more effective and take actions. Then what would happen if the UN imposed sanctions to the US for the Cuba embargo or Iraq invasion? Who would decide whats right or wrong? The same people who right know cannot take action on Darfur or North Korea or Iran or....!

And by the way the UN is doing an incredible work in helping people at least survive in numerous places in the world!

Answer 5

Of course. The UN should be turned into a charity organization like the Red Cross -- if they can at least manage that job.

The League of Nations was something that HG Wells devised, believe it or not. When it turned into a useless agency just like the UN is now, the UN was created.

The problem is civilization. The difference between a third world nation and 2nd or first world nation is how civilized the culture is. How can you have a body like the UN when it is made up largely of uncivilized nations that refuse to become civilized? How do you gauge whether or not a person is civilized? It's easy -- look at the way they treat their children and women.

Answer 6

Its already pointless it puts worthless sanctions on countries that dont care and pisses people off more when the fighting starts think of it as bottling up just waiting for a big explosion and in the nuclear age I hope im dead before it starts

they put rules on war making it virtually ineffective

the population of Lebanon fires rockets at israel showing the Lebanon goverment does not control its country and israel is the bad one for invading the country shooting rockets at civillian targets? Personally i believe they should have flattened whole cities eventually the rockets will stop comming.

what will the UN do
get outraged and post a nasty memo and we will laugh at it on yahoo news

the UN and NATO have been dead for a long time it sends money to countries we could care less about but be damn sure that the spending in Iraq or on border protection is a big convern the US pays 31% of the UN budget since it is based on GNP

bullets change goverments far faster than words
or nasty memos use them whoever fires the last bullet wins

Answer 7

The UN is a corrupt and totally ineffective socialist organization. We should get out and charge them exorbitant rent.

Now for NATO. What is the function of "police"? To apprehend criminals after a crime has been committed. In todays world the crimes are huge, large losses of lifes are normal. Why would we want to wait until the crime is committed. Why not preemptively stop crimes. And in that case how will you get multiple nations to agree to who is about to commit a crime. Would any of them agreed that hizbullah was going to continue to try and kill innocent people and allow NATO to go into Lebanon and take them down. Would the world agree that Hamas was going to continue to kill innocent people and send NATO to stop them before they kill more?

Basically we are on our own when it comes to protecting ourselves. We know that there are people planning on killing our citizens here and abroad.

So really do we need NATO? or the UN?

Answer 8

I don't think the UN will ever be irrelevant. However, I do think that it is, or always was, ineffective. I mean just look at our (America's) foreign policy! I think that's a shame, because with Iran's "nuclear threat" we are being crazy! (If that makes sense) We all seem to be on the same page that Iran shouldn't have nuclear power, despite their claims that it would be used for civil purposes. Personally, I think this will be interesting to watch it play out. Also, I feel that Iran wouldn't ever bomb us, we wouldn't give them the chance (scary thought).

I do feel that we need a meeting of nations. However, I feel that more nations MUST be included. With nations all working for a common goal it could lessen the tension between nations. Lets face it, all governments want the people to be "happy". (Okay I'm going to stop now... I'm starting to sound like Marx... NOOOOO)

Answer 9

Absolutely not! I love that organization and the work that they perform to make this world a better place. The work of UNICEF, UNESCO, etc. are helping millions in the world not to starve & die. They are helping girls to gain access to education etc. No, the UN is not ineffective in those ways. They may be being squeezed by certain nation-states to do things that they have little capacity to do.

Answer 10

I think that it has not only become so, but has more or less always been so. Since they are a peace keeping organization, and not a peace making....they don't have the credibility to back up their resolutions...
The Security Council....even though it has revolving members, the 5 permanent seats....all have differences amongst themselves, and it only takes one to veto....it's senseless. It could be such a good tool...but it needs to be revamped if it's going to do any good at all.