I remember Kerry saying we should go to the UN for Iraq...
What have they done ? The UN? Anyone ever follow their resolutions?
Not to mention Darfur......They have a staff of people set up for things like that. But they do nothing.
Yet the Democrats think the UN is the greatest thing. Why?
2006-11-01 05:42:27 · 17 answers · asked by John 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Demorats want a world government. They have stated so many times. Personally, I think satan is using the Demorats to disarm the USA so that the Islamist terrorists can over run it. Shut down the UN and turn the building into a homeless shelter.
2006-11-01 05:46:55 · answer #1 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The primary purpose that the Allied powers (US, USSR, UK, France) set for the UN was to be a deliberative diplomatic body. By that very definition they succeed when opposing ideologies sit at the table and talk instead of go to war with one another. They were highly effective during the cold war, the Balkans civil war, and many other times since inception. Keep in mind that the UN is only as strong as it's member nations wish it to be. We have encountered problems there to be sure. It is equally accurate to point out that we have been part of the problem before.
If you are looking for a quick military response to any situation, the UN will not meet your needs. IF you wish nations would attempt to talk through their problems instead of fighting them out then the UN has been successful. Every war or conflict averted is a success.
2006-11-01 13:50:13 · answer #2 · answered by toff 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The UN is far from perfect, but imagine the world if there was no UN. Where would you go to discuss issues among countries? Even Bush acknowledges the importance of the UN by speaking there, and attempting to get legal authority for his actions. His father was more successful in getting the UN to approve the first Persian Gulf war.
But most importantly, the UN is there to prevent wars. It doesn't prevent all wars, but it has prevented some, and no one knows how many conflicts would have erupted into fighting if the UN had not been available.
2006-11-01 13:48:28 · answer #3 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually after WWII the UN was quite powerful. The world took the UN quite seriously and it aquired all the funding and supplies it needed in order to accomplish its missions.
The more time that passed after 1945 - the less interest the world had for it.
So to answer your question, The UN has not always been the lifeless and limp excuse for an organization. However it is still a lifeless and limp orgasnization in our time.
2006-11-01 13:47:13 · answer #4 · answered by gatewlkr 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The UN has not succeeded since it was taken over by socialists. It moved from a strong organization in the '40s to the weak, socialistic mess that it is today. The UN represents and is, in actuality, the creeping socialism that our fathers and grandfathers worried about.
2006-11-01 13:54:09 · answer #5 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Uh - The first Iraq war under Bush Sr was a UN operation. And it succeeded, unlike your pet war in Iraq. Stand still and lose.
2006-11-01 13:50:43 · answer #6 · answered by notme 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Never. What is the UN doing about Iran? Nothing
What about North Korea? Nothing? The Council itself doesn't agree on the sanctions
2006-11-01 13:49:22 · answer #7 · answered by "I Want to Know Your Answer 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I personally dont think its the greatest thing. I think it needs reworking. There should be an international coalition to decide on things like this. Obviously the UN is not working like it intended to. We are the most powerful country on earth yes for now, it might not always be that way. We are not the worlds police and can not afford to do everything alone. I can not justify in my head this war when here in my country there are people without jobs without a place to live and kids who do not get proper medical coverage or schooling. When we can accomplish those things, go to war with whoever you want.
2006-11-01 13:45:39 · answer #8 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well it can't exactly succeed when we never go to them or listen to them. It works when people like the president of the US support and listen to them. It doesn't when you send an ambassador to the UN who hates the UN.
2006-11-01 13:45:53 · answer #9 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'm guessing you're a hardcore Republican.
Too bad. What has George W. Bush done? Get us into a war wrecklessly that may start civil war or already has?
Go watch Fox News and just block everything else.
2006-11-01 13:45:25 · answer #10 · answered by Js_5 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋