Why do we have wars after we created UN?

Answer 1

Arrogant tyrants like George W. Bush see war as a means to increase their wealth and power.

The UN, a talk shop, has undoubtedly prevented wars. But it cannot prevent the actions of tyrants who consider themselves to be above the law and/or directed by God.

Answer 2

The UN abdicated it's primary function long ago.

The purpose of the the UN was to be both carrot and stick. They were meant to come down on aggressors and international villnas with the weight of the whole world if need be. They have only actually performed this function twice, 1950 and 1991, and both times, the resulting military action was left incomplete because of concessions that had to be made to keep the coalitions of those times together.

The UN is supposed to be a warmaking body. Instead they were long ago subverted by the "nothing worth a war" crowd.

Were the UN able and willing to fulfill its role as "global big stick" ther would be fewer wars. Simply the threat of the collective might of the rest of the world would keep all but the most egregious of bad-actors in line.

The ideal is laudable, the execution has been flawed and the bureaucracy to support it now so entrenched we'll likley never be rid of it, let alone fix it.

Answer 3

The UN is merely a collaboration of countires who say that want to work together for a peaceful tomorrow.
But let us not forget there are the 3 major nuclear players and only a handful of other truly powerful nations -- and each nation seems out to best serve only there nation more times than not.

Many people like to nitpick on this ountrys aggression or that countries lack of aggression, but the bottomline is that there is no real common goal moreso than lets take care of our own and get away with whatever we can.

Heck, Russia and China always refuse to take action for the common good, even to point where early on both refused immediate sanctions against N.Korea who blatantly lied about nuclear program.

Syria has bounced back and forth with regards to IRAQ, and no one is wanting to take action against IRAN.

there are just too many different agendas, and again, its every country for themself, where youre lucky if you can get a few countries to agree with one another.

On the flip side, there are things happening that most people arent aware of or dont want to believe.
Hmm..lets see..one of the major problems IRAQ has faced is that IRAN and Syria are disrupting even funding terrorist to go into IRAQ and kill, plunder to bring about Kaos.
Well do we IRAN and SYRIA to gain control of the oil reserves that will only give them more power to join up with venezuela and have an even bigger stronghold in the oil market?

Its an ever changing game of RISK with too many considerations to draw out. But the bottom line is that the UN is nothing but speechmakers who have failed to assume the leadership role everyone hoped they would.

so, for the good of the world someone has to step up and take control. Whether America is right or wrong, someone is stepping up.

Answer 4

Cowboy nations go to war without UN authorization/resolution.

Answer 5

Even if there is the UN, they can never know the true intentions of the leaders of each nation. They will always act on their own and for the good of their respective nation.

Answer 6

Because it is a toothless dinosaur, unwilling to follow through or back up anything that it says it will do.

The UN should be relegated to providing humanitarian aid, and leave to military side of it to the professionals.

Answer 7

to make profits out of selling weapons, guns, and bullets..."war business" thing..mostly economic reasons..UN Legitimizes it..the members of the secutiry council are the countries that spearheaded previous wars..and maybe future wars...in fact, they are also the countries who are the first members of the UN.

Answer 8

So we can legalize war? when it suits the majority of them?

Answer 9

because people are idiots no matter what setting you put them in.