What would be the pro's and con's of giving the UN more power.?

Question

Idle curiosity stemmed from boredom at work.. so no reason to flare up at me about NWO or something. But if you set the world up like the US used to be with the states having more power than they do now .. and the UN acted like our federal government is supposed to.. what would be the pro's and con's of that.. and if you are morally opposed to the UN then make up some other governing body.. this is just food for thought nothing more.

perhaps I didn't make myself clear.. just wanted to set up a hypothetical situation where the UN was set up like our government.. but instead of states you had nation.. representatives.. senators.. even an elected president from any nation.. so not the UN as it is now receiving more power.. and again this is out of idle boredom on my part.. it's a slow day at the office right now and it's cold as hell :)

.. ok.. I think some people don't read anything past the initial one sentence question.. wow.. how sad.

Answer 1

Not a horrible idea. But now the UN is corrupt and close to useless. How can a global govt not want to fight terrorism? They just recently went into Darfur and Afghanistan, but they didnt hurt themselves. The UN didnt do anything when Saddam refused to let them inspect. I think your idea would work, but we rebuild the UN. Allow every nation to join and to represent themselves. The UN must be much firmer and have a stronger military, instead of a police force. The problems in the world (other than the drugs) are military problems, not police ones.

Answer 2

There would be no pros, only cons. The UN is a joke. Only we have our own best interest in mind, except for our politicians. Look at the way they dictate tax and laws now. Just imagine that on a macro scale. It is hard enough being a hard working putz, the tax paying schmuck as it is already. Americans, real Americans are being ignored and obliterated by our PC boob of a government. I say real Americans because just because some idiot from a communist dictatorship or some despotic terd world nation immigrates here does not automatically make them a real American. The illegal aliens and immigrants are part of the plan to break the solidarity of the real American people to render us useless. They know that the real American is too tough a nut to crack in their push for UN control and a NWO, so they flood us with millions and millions of unbathed, uneducated, non-English speaking, third world softies who know nothing about our constitutional republic or how we got it, so that they will over whelm us. In doing so they create a population of dumb, inpovrished, who will vote for thing anti-American. They don't know our history or how we got freedomm, so they don't know how to help us keep it. That is the reason both parties are ignoring the boarder problem and allowing millions of others immigrants to enter the country when we haven't even absorbed the ones who are here. This is all very bad for American and the world. It is sure way to fall into a dictators control. When this country fails because of these things, where are we supposed to go that is better? The answer is there is no where. We are all there is and we are losing that.

Answer 3

During the Clinton administration, the United States gave the United Nations authority over our military personnel. Their contracts now read "you must fire on unarmed American civilians if ordered to do so under United Nations authority." Do you still believe America is a sovereign nation?

How gullible are you? The UN is harldy what it seems in appearances when you begin to look into the details of what it does. In fact, the United States Constitution and the document that governs the United Nations are in direct opposition to each other. Everything that is in the Bill of Rights is opposed by the United Nations. Are you still naive?

When will Americans learn? That's why my unconditional support is behind Congressman Ron Paul who is considering running for President. He's one of very few leaders who has a history of standing up for the United States Constitution regardless of either party politics or political winds.

All the other names we hear floating for the Whitehouse next year have histories of opposing the United States Constitution. These are the facts of the case and they are indisputable. The opposition will use fancy words, and dance a little sidestep, but in the end they will offer no substianted physical evidence to show that they have supported without question the United States Constitution that they swore to uphold and defend from enemies foreign and domestic.

The United Nations is an enemy of the United States of America. The best thing we could do is evacuate the building, demolition it and put up a national monument to remind us to always avoid ever putting ourselves in that position ever again.

Answer 4

There is only one big con. The UN needs to be dismantled for the should purpose that one country has absolute veto power. How can it be a true allegiance of nations if ONE nation is pulling all the strings? That means that if that ONE nation commits atrocities on humanity they cannot be tried by the Hague since they can veto the sanctions. Convenient eh?


However given the all nations had a say dependent up social an economic factors, an no nation held absolute veto power the UN should be given more power. If they UN were truly a league of nations they would be better equipped to carry out a non subjective analysis of events and intervene in a diplomatic matter.

Answer 5

CON: they don't use the power they have unless it means a buck for the people in control. Koffi Annan, an African, could have used his term as Secretary General to help Africa gain strenth and a foothold in the world economy instead of killing each other off in their constant pursuit for genocide while France, Belgium, Russia, and other countries rob them of their natural resources. Instead he was a war profiteer banking money from the Food-For-Oil program.

Answer 6

You would have the same problems you have with the US government currently. Too much bureaucracy and too much centralised power.

You would lose sovereignty of the countries and then you would have "country's rights" issues (like "states' rights" issues), and we all know what happened in the middle 19th century over states' rights.

In summation: Total ineffective chaos.

Answer 7

There are no pro's. The UN hasn't done anything for the good of the world. They have only benefited themselves.

Answer 8

Unless the UN gets massively better at handling disputes and money, there are no "pros".

Answer 9

There is no pro just bigger cons, wars or conflicts cannot be resolve by committee.

Answer 10

It would create the NWO!