The UN was begun after World War I with Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations, then reformed in the face of blatant incompetence after the second World War. It is quite plain that the United Nations was formed only upon good intent and a prayer that it could accomplish what it was supposed to. Obviously, it cannot: one cannot point a finger at the organization and miss the blatant violations of rights it has brought to pass in the name of securing world peace. I ask you to imagine a world in which the United Nations had never been formed, what it would do if the United States were not involved, or what might happen after its inevitable collapse.
2007-02-06 17:58:39 · 7 answers · asked by Richard S 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I am thinking if the UN did ever actually solve any conflict through diplomacy,and I can't find any...So even if they would exist or not it would be the same thing,because they are anyway invisible...Many spend for nothing...they can't solve little things ,see the minor conflict between Romania and Ukraine over Bastroe...they can't solve this and we expect them to solve world conflicts like the Israeli -Palestinian conflict...yes,the idea of UN is great,a world where everything can be solve through diplomacy ,but it simply isn't working...
2007-02-06 19:49:32 · answer #1 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it would make that much difference. Regional alliances such as NATO have probably accomplished as much or more as the UN.
The UN has unfortunately become ineffective because it has been hijacked by countries that have been anything other than united.
It may serve a few useful purposes in allowing a forum for discussions between nations, but I doubt if anyone is really taking the UN very seriously these days.
2007-02-06 18:11:49 · answer #2 · answered by Warren D 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
better countries would not be as reluctant to attack different countries, and what ought to were minor diplomatic arguments (e.g. Parcel Islands, Takeshima/Liaoning/Dokdo Islands, South Sudan-Sudan conflicts, Cambodia-Thai dispute, coup d'etats, etc) ought to all actual expand into violent wars with out everybody preventing them. The absence of the UN gained't impression tremendous countries who've sturdy militaries, or interconnected alliances (NATO, eu, etc). extremely, coming up international places will salary conflict antagonistic to at least one yet another, and international places in rebellions ought to discover themselves invaded via different more effective community powers. In different words, stability all of us understand immediately should be thrown again extremely some a lengthy time period, possibly a century.
2016-12-03 20:19:39 · answer #3 · answered by plyler 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We'd be in the middle of World War 5
2007-02-06 18:35:55 · answer #4 · answered by jeremy p 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
it is already collapsing, history is repeating.
the UN has already reached the point where it cannot and will not enforce security council resolutions.
That is the same condition the League of Nations reached between Japan invading Manchuria in 1932 and Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1937.
thus we are several years into WW3 already and the UN has failed.
2007-02-06 18:02:08 · answer #5 · answered by Malikail 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The world would be better off.
2007-02-07 01:59:00 · answer #6 · answered by JESSIE James 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would save the US billions every year.
2007-02-06 18:54:10 · answer #7 · answered by Joe J 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋