2006-09-26 00:14:39 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I can understand why you have this view, I partly agree. Time and time agin the UN has failed the international community. However I don't think there's an alternative, the world needs a place in which all countires can sit round a table and discuss the worlds problems. What the UN needs is a kick up the back side!
2006-09-26 00:19:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why Should it go away The UN isn't always effective but it was set up after WW2 to help find peaceful solutions to violant situations. Over the years it's given enough rights to people all over the world to show that even though they may not know these rights exist they have them they matter, and it given the unsuccessful few thousand years of warfare that preceeded it shouldn't be dismissed after barely a century of it being a platform where even the poorest country can say what they want because dicision that are taken affect them also.The fact that a country like America couldn't just invade Iraq without at least trying justify themselves to the world is a step forward
2006-09-26 07:34:33 · answer #2 · answered by anon4112 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I disagree. I think the UN is finally doing what it is supposed to. And, Kofi Annan is a good man with little help from us, doing the best he can. He has more vision than most, in the current catastophe(s) in the world.
2006-09-26 07:19:24 · answer #3 · answered by Ro40rd 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO WAY!! The UN REALLY needs a revamp and Kofi should F F F F F fade into obscurity but the principle still stands. The US really gave it a kicking over the WMD etc in Iraq but it is still a valid organisation.....ask those who survived Dafur.
2006-09-26 07:17:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the UN headquarters should be moved to Switzerland, a totally neutral country, or the Hague, where other world bodies are situated. And I agree with another answerer. They VETO should be done away with and have 'majority rule'. Think how our Congress would work with a 'veto' process. If nothing else, it would get rid of a lot of 'pork barrel' nonsincecal bills
2006-09-26 07:45:41 · answer #5 · answered by son of the South 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but I think we should just take away the veto ruling.
All decisions should be totally democratic, majority vote wins.
In this case, we would never have gone to war in Iraq, Isreal would have to respect the UN rulings, the US would be declared International terrorists after their inerventions in S. America, and the world would be a better place.
2006-09-26 07:25:01 · answer #6 · answered by savs 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a place for the UN.
But its got no guts at the moment.
I expect the UN to represent and protect the World opinion, not just one superpower
2006-09-26 07:28:06 · answer #7 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not - it should be made to work! It might well fail to prevent war like the League of Nations but it is infinitely better to have a framework where belligerent nations can have pressure brought to bear on them than not having it.
2006-09-26 07:45:27 · answer #8 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kofi Annan is the absolute WORST Secretary General the U.N. has ever known. It almost makes one pine for the days of Bhutros-Bhutros Gali.
2006-09-26 07:16:39 · answer #9 · answered by robertbdiver 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Abolish the UN. It is totally useless organization, just what have they ever accomplished???
2006-09-26 07:57:38 · answer #10 · answered by usaf.primebeef 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋