the U N. a toothless tiger?????

Answer 1

Yes. It always has been and always will be.

Answer 2

I thinh you guys are forgetting the point here. The UN was set up after a world war, you know serious death and destruction, much like the league of Nations, but anyway they did it so it wouldn't happen again, like a big coffee table for all the countries to chat around. It's not about the use of force it never has been, what agenda would a United Nations army have, if every nation was part of it in some way. the sad thing is (and sorry Stateside cousins) that the UN allows for legal (as in justified) actions concerning inter state conflict. But everytime you guys need something you go right ahead and twist it's arm. It's impartial there is nothing wrong with the house its the family that make it a home. Get my drift. Its all about an idea the UN ideal where World Wars are only in history books. Granted it's never been a level playing field, but at least it's trying to keep all the players between the lines.

There is stuff going on now that the UN is useless at, namely terrorism, it can only dictate to sovereign nations, not cells or groups or suicide bombers. so yeah in a way it is toothless.

Just think to yourself, though, would the world be a better place without the UN? No, would nations be working on climate change, would we even have legal human rights etc. the list goes on...

So, the UN is much bigger than conflict resolution or sanctions and so on. its fracking about the HUMANITY as one. Now think about that when you batch about stuff, think about the experience of being human shared with 6 billion others and then think about the UN being our first attempt (or second) at being humane.

Answer 3

I am distressed that you would insult a great animal, and useful too, unlike the UN. I totally lost faith in this body when the ever corruptible Kofi Anan wasn't turfed. Why the U.S. allows these turkeys the run of New York is beyond me. Oh and by the way there are some elements of the UN that seem to be doing a good job, but on the whole, the body has no relevance, and no moral mandate at all.

Answer 4

In theory it was a great idea, but in practice it ends up that it's controlled by the same corporate interests that the United States is. Government really no longer plays as much of the role we'd expect them to, they seemingly end up providing more rights for corporate interests then the workers that support them. Why? Because the corporations have the money to do such.

The general public aren't typically the ones that start wars, but the nations and the leadership class does. Go figure.

I'd imagine there would be alot less fighting if you removed the great profitability of war out of the equation.

Answer 5

I think 'toothless tiger' gives the UN too much credit.

Answer 6

Yes and it's not even a tiger; it's just toothless!

Answer 7

Actually, a toothless, paper tiger.

Answer 8

ABSOLUTELY TOOTHLESS!

They remind me of those fat things from hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

Pushing around paper.
Pushing around paper to make sure they can push around the first bit of paper, etc.

When they ever do send troops anywhere, they are told not to get involved in any fighting.

Why not send nuns instead???

Absolutely ridiculous waste of money and time.

Answer 9

The United League of Nations is as useless as it's predecessor Woodrow Wilson's failed "League of Nations"! It's high time to run them out of the United States. Let them move to some third world country and not tell us where!!

Answer 10

I completely agree that the UN is totally useless. As Hugo Chavez so firmly said, everytime someone wants something, US, Great Britain, France, and all the other big SOBs veto it because of their number of seats. Instead of calling it the United Nations, why don't they just call it the United States Puppet Show?

Answer 11

The UN is nothing more than a puppet of the US, well that was before Bush and his do it alone logic. It is toothless because we want it that way.