2007-06-04 11:09:18 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. its all talk and no action. If they would have taken some harsh steps vs Saddam we would have a very different situation possibly right now.
But waggin their finger and writing letters is about all they do.
I was going to say just get rid of the UN with teh exception of humanitarian efforts... however I remember how the oil for food program was corrupt as well so they are inept at even that.
2007-06-04 11:13:17 · answer #1 · answered by sociald 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UN is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It is by far the most ineffective organization ever assembled. The UN doesn't have the power to enforce its own policies on member nations let alone try and make another nation do anything.
As an example, according to the UN charter, member nations that owe money to the UN aren't supposed to have voting powers, yet, the US does. Secondly, each member nation is supposed to provide a certain number of troops for UN missions, again the US doesn't.
History is also filled with examples of nations that violated international law, most member nations have at one point or another, yet no action ever gets taken. Of course if you look at the five permanent members it's easy to figure out why.
Lastly, the only thing the UN has the power to do is pass resolutions it can't enforce. Moreover, UN forces in combat situations need to get permission to fire back, of course most UN observers don't have the ammunition to shoot back. UN observers who witness violations of human rights or charters can do little more than file a report, so I think it's safe to say we can do without the UN.
2007-06-04 18:22:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
FACT: There have been over 241 armed conflicts in the world of which the UN has authorized the use of military force just twice! (Korean War and Desert Sheild / Desert Storm). Given those numbers, what do YOU think the UN's effectiveness is when they've only taken action 0.0083% of the time???
2007-06-04 18:13:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it was purposely set up to be ineffective. The only power it has lies in the Security Council, but any of the 5 permanent members can veto any resolution. Two of the permanent members are irrelevant on the world power stage (France and Britain). It was set up to protect the status-quo of Europe in 1946, the world has changed since then.
Drew Blood - Correction, the current operation in Iraq was also authorized by the U.N. Security Council.
2007-06-04 18:14:26 · answer #4 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
no, the UN doesnt help much if not, anything at all....they think they are the government on the world....i did research on them in high school and u wouldnt believe the amount of corruption and scandals that go on....they have been accused of embezzlement, there has also been reports that UN officials have been sexually abusing women in Africa who they have been sent to help....etc, etc, etc.....so no i think the UN just shouldn't exist at all...no one even listens to it anyways.....
2007-06-04 18:14:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's been phenomenally ineffective. I propose the dissolution of the UN.
2007-06-04 18:11:58 · answer #6 · answered by Always Right 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i belive if they work together it can be good just like dessert storm but we cant even manage are own country thers no way for the world to besides every one blaming us for what is happening in africa what about the un that is what there ther for
2007-06-04 18:13:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the last 15 years, it's been a abyss of corruption, ineptitude, and collections of terrorist coddling, America hating squabbling bureaucrats.
2007-06-04 18:19:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No UN involvment in american policy.
2007-06-04 18:12:09 · answer #9 · answered by jeb black 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Abolish it.
2007-06-04 18:16:44 · answer #10 · answered by colorado_df 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋