UN is like a wolf in lamb's clothing. Under the pretext of peace, it has a bunch of crooks who can enter third world nations and look for resources that can be swindled. Once it is decided, it will become an administrative office for the war logistics.
2007-02-01 23:13:30 · 11 answers · asked by indianborntowin 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good question
UN is for peace and progress.
The world without UN would not have been better.
2007-02-01 23:19:53 · answer #1 · answered by deepak57 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
UN being the world body for peace and progress of the nations of the world, should stand above each nation. It is the highest power in the world. It's constitution, principles, the bills, the contracts.etc are of high value. But again weapon of exploitation and domination in the hands of five permanent member states. As per the standards of this world body, these permanent states should be the first ones to be faithful to its principles; respecting the human rights in every aspect and every corner of the world. But the tragedy is that these five countries are the ones who commit all possible abuses of the human Rights everywhere in the world. The UN itself needs liberation. Who can take up this struggle for liberation of UN? Or should we have another world body of all other nations than these five nations? Membership in Um without the right to be apart of its decisions worth nothing. should other countries still continue to be fooled? The discussions should continue.
2007-02-03 04:47:36 · answer #2 · answered by friend of knowledge 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It offers an areana for some kind of discussion. Its presence has a sobering effect on the warring parties. For the sake of a show, however empty it might turn out to be, the international parties will have to concote some tales.
The UN has several wings, under it. The International Court of Justice, is still effective in settling disputes, where it is referred to by both the parties.
Several other agencies like UNESCO, UNICEF, ILO etc are doing a good job, in their own way.
2007-02-02 07:43:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, U.N works at the beck and call of some super powers who are having veto power. Their illegal actions are legitimised by this agency. This is meant as if in the good books of the world. The occupation of Iraq by aggression of the USA is the example of how the UN functions in the world arena. UN stands for United Nations of some superpowers who are having veto power.
2007-02-02 07:36:06 · answer #4 · answered by katkam v 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh, you mean the UN -- Utterly Nefarious, Undoubtedly Negligent, Unbridled Nepotism? The worlds biggest paper tiger? Corrupt To the core. If the world is lucky, If we were smart we would withdraw, cancel our lease and tell them to move their headquarters to Belgium or somewhere else. No doubt in keeping with the UN's tough stance, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will tell Ahmadinejad to stop producing those nukes or else....or else...or else we'll sanction you. I'm sure Iran and their Ayatollahs are shaking in their sandals......
2007-02-02 07:51:37 · answer #5 · answered by sceducator1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the beginning, the UN wasn't the nest of corruption that it is now. There has been no accountability, and a loss of it's initail objectives. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is now what you wipe your shoes with at the front door.
2007-02-02 07:21:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I suspect that you would also want the USA to take its place. It might not be perfect but it is the only forum available to deal with matters collectively.
2007-02-02 07:38:02 · answer #7 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yep, Its another place like the Indian Parliament where nothing prospective happens..........
2007-02-02 07:17:28 · answer #8 · answered by Stunner_cool 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, yes, yes. The UN incites more violence and hatred than they prevent.
2007-02-02 07:19:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
UN has to be UN not USA.
2007-02-02 14:10:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋