Which is preferable - law of the jungle, or developing the UN?

Question

With "pre-emptive strikes", ignoring international law, sequestering America from international court, G. Bush effectively votes for jungle in which USA is the biggest boy (for now). He has lots of support. Many dismiss UN as corrupt and ineffectual. Humanitarian work through UNESCO seems widely unvalued or criticised. General Assembly has no way of enforcing resolutions without US support, and they are frequently blocked in so-called Security Council anyway. So where from here? Choice is first; action or inaction follow. Do we just go with the flow?

Answer 1

The UN is a jungle. Look at the corruption there. Remember the Food for Oil scandal? What about peacekeepers raping young African girls?

Answer 2

The UN can not be saved. I see no value to this organization what so ever. The US and various charities do more effective work than UNESCO. A few points on your opening comments. Every nation has the right of preemption. A nation is not required to sit and wait until it is attacked before responding. Concerning international law, the US Constitution preempts international law every single day regardless of who the president is, if you are talking about the Geneva Convention, we had never ignored it and in fact are one of the few nations that obeys it. We are also one of the few nations that actually enforces international law. We have always sequestered ourselves from the international court as there are way too many nations that wish to try the US soldiers for war crimes. It is a kangaroo court. Bush was not the first and won't be the last.

Now, what do we do? We do what we have always done, the right thing. It would be nice of the other UN members would do the same even occasionally. Speaking of law of the jungle, the UN was certainly at its finest in the jungles of Rwanda.

Answer 3

It takes a strong people to handle the money of other people if the money is distributed by committee. Any time there is an open door, even if open just a mere slit, there will be someone who tries to slip the money through that tiny slot.

The UN needs to be staffed by strong and honest Representatives, not close relatives of each country's ruler. The idea behind the United Nations was a good one but the practice of the UN is a total failure.

Yes, It is time to dissolve the present UN and start over with new people. Other wise it will continue to be a nest of corrupt representatives enjoying their luxury homes and their diplomatic immunity from arrest..

Someone said that New York City could almost meet its budget if it could collect the fines on UN parking tickets.

Answer 4

Law of the jungle works fine if you adopt a purely whoever is stronger is better paradigm. I think, though, for people in the developed world that we have to adhere to a higher, more impartial judge who is able to see things on a wider scale than those directly involved. The UN is an example of a judge who tries to see things bigger picture, where law of the jungle is purely small scale- this is what I want and I will get it, even if I have to kill to get it. How is that civilised? How does that truly benefit anyone? And who has the right to decide who gets killed and who kills? There will always be one stronger, faster, better..so in the end we'll all be dead. We need to be fair to everyone. An eye for an eye will never work, is never ethical and is never fair.

Answer 5

Little one.
Do you know who is the Landlord and who is the strangers who just came and passing -by on planet earth?
Try and decode this lyrics "I will follow Him"
The law of the jungle-The UN or our creator with the creation of peace on earth goodwill to men vital for the survival of living human kind being overlook on planet earth.

Answer 6

Even if you disagree with Bush, if the UN is our only alternative, we're toast.

Answer 7

U.N. = Useless Nations.