America does not do anything about the genocide either, but we do add to the amount of deaths due to war throughout the world, which is one thing that the U.n. does not do.
2006-12-02 10:46:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by smartass 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Do you realize that members of the UN do not all speak the same language. Everything has to be translated! Its not like you or I sitting in a meeting with several vice presidents and department heads. We all speak the same langauge! Actually the UN has done many good things. The media, however, is responsible for zeroing in on what they have NOT done, rather than what they have.
and regarding Sudan...The United States pretty much sets the agenda. So they are kind of expected to do more than the others. After all, they contribute the most money.
I would love to have seen their past agendas. as well as their agendas to come.
My guess is that what the United States wanted addressed first, came first. Then, and now.
2006-12-02 18:54:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by rare2findd 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
the united nations has done a very good job over the years.
currently there are some problems with the spending on matters of red tape . in simple there are too many paper pushers there now and that is costing a large sum of money.
the u.n. was correct in it analasis of the irac weapons and had the usa listened to the u.n. as well as reports from other countries such as canada there would not have been the war.
the u.n. is working on the development of a rapid responce military that would be dispatched at the discretion of the u.n.
the indications of a successfull deveolopment of that team are good.
there is currently a widely excepted u.n. tax that would be paid by all the wealthy nations. i was surprised to learn of that one but it does seem to be something that will pass.
the u.n. has a carefull balancing act to preform they are required not to show bias toward any one country or area of the world..
the events in darfur are terrible yes and there is not really reason that an effective responce to was not made. the reasons stated for the lack of responce to the darfur is that other events such as the war in irak diverted world attention from that problem.
each counties leadership must secure support for military action and such support is based on whether or not the media finds that the people are interested . sadly darfur occurred during a time when the people of the world were by and large interested in the middle east regions.
i myself feel the u.n. is effective not perfect but effective and that it can be made as effective as the people of the world wish it too be. each person from each country should inform there goverment of there opion of the u.n. and other matters.
having said that ofcoarse we all know that some countries leaders are not receptive to the will of the people.
i hope one day we can at least change that. sorry i am a poor speller and the spell check is not working on this for me please excuse me
2006-12-02 19:06:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Historically, they've done a good job. It was formed in 1946 in the aftermath of World War II with the goal of preventing such destructive wars in the future. The UN served as a facillitative organization during the Cold War and was vital in ensuring a tentative peace between the Soviet Union and the United States.
One reason why the UN is slow to respond is that it is the most diverse body in the world. Its members make its decisions, and they hail from all corners of the world and bring with them cultures that clash with others'. It's hard to get things done quickly in that environment. So, while the UN may be slow to act, they usually do a good job.
2006-12-02 18:47:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The UN are a bunch of hacks. It's not an accident that they have all that space in NY for their buildings and they get treated like royalty over here. Because no other country would give them the time of day. If the UN cared, we'd see a lot more of their baby-blue helmets over in Iraq.
2006-12-02 20:28:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by ArtieLange 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
the UN is run by the same corrupt terror enablers/appeasers that we end up having to fight. Iraq was on the nuclear non-proliferation committee, and sudan, china and cuba were on the human rights committees bass ackwards
2006-12-02 18:45:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The UN is worthless and corrupt.
John Bolton is trying to change it, and is standing up for the USA.
Democrats hate Bolton, and say they are going to get rid of him.
Democrats want to bow to the UN.
(Well, everyone else, too.)
2006-12-02 18:51:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The UN is fairly innactive right now because they don't want to have anything to do with the "War on Terror". Who can blame them?
2006-12-02 18:55:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Quite frankly, the UN is nothing more than a political front for the USA. yeah, it does it's job perfectly.
2006-12-02 18:45:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by cyanne2ak 7
·
1⤊
2⤋