Leave the UN

[Deleted]

Okay, given that the United Nations has utterly failed and was doomed from the start, I think it's time the US and all countries who want to be considered "free" to abandon this theater of the absurd. Its commitment to human rights has failed, it hasn't promoted human rights, it has acted hypocritically disproportionately targeting Israel while ignoring others with far more serious human rights issues, it hasn't prevented wars, massacres or genocides and it's no surprise really. How can it prevent human rights abuses when it is a coalition of mostly unfree countries and North Korea or Iran are often elected to its human rights council? That's like putting gangsters in charge of the court system.

You cannot promote justice and world peace when most of its members aren't committed to either. If someone can explain what exactly is the purpose of this farce other than to drain billions and pat itself on the back, pretending to be pro-humanity while either doing nothing or even being the exact opposite in some cases, I'd love to hear it.

[Deleted]

The UN is mostly a political gathering and like all things political it's fucking slow and useless.

[obdigore]

Okay, given that the United Nations has utterly failed and was doomed from the start

[Citation Needed]

[Deleted]

they should just start the elections for world leader. Or is diplomatic victory disabled? What are we gonna go for then? Science, cultural or conquest? Score victory is possible too, but that's a 2nd class victory

[Deleted]

[Citation Needed]

Actually the burden of proof is on you. Tell me when has it succeeded? What is its track record of success? Did it stop all the large-scale destruction of human life post-1945 in multiple parts of the words? Has it made most countries democratic or free?

The answer is no.

Here is a pamphlet documenting its multiple and utter failures:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/UN.pdf

[TZucchini]

Okay, given that the United Nations has utterly failed

Failed at what?

The UN, for all its flaws, has been extremely successful on many fronts.

They've helped negotiate settlements that have ended well over a hundred regional conflicts. They've brokered hundreds of international treaties involving everything from human rights to territory disputes (including space and sea). They've made incredible progress in eliminating smallpox, malaria, and reducing AIDS. They've helped nations receive funding in order to improve infrastructure, including clean water and air initiatives.

They're certainly not perfect, but they've done a lot of good things for the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the burden of proof is on you.

"The UN has failed."

"Citation needed"

"No. You need to cite how it has not failed."

.....


First time at the rodeo?

[Dezerte]

http://visit.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/..._60%20ways.pdf

[Orange Joe]

Actually the burden of proof is on you. Tell me when has it succeeded? What is its track record of success? Did it stop all the large-scale destruction of human life post-1945 in multiple parts of the words? Has it made most countries democratic or free?

The answer is no.

Here is a pamphlet documenting its multiple and utter failures:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/UN.pdf

If you state something the burden is on you. You stated it failed so you need to provide proof that it did.


Debating 101

[Deleted]

If you state something the burden is on you. You stated it failed so you need to provide proof that it did.


Debating 101

Follow the link in the post and comment here.

[Kasierith]

The UN has had numerous successes in its brief time. The reason why most Americans, as well as most European countries, do not see this is that a lot of these benefits are taking place elsewhere or behind the scenes; research allocations and technology transfer in developing country, addressing and organizing human rights groups, establishing trading policies, serving as a neutral ground for the formation of multiple bodes. The biggest problem with the UN is a perfect fallacy solution; people expect it to be a monolithic power capable of solving all the worlds problems, when it can't. It was never, ever intended to intrude on the power of sovereign superpowers; that's why a single veto from the Security Council can kill a military/hostile action. No states are compelled to take part in anything (see NPT/ICC), and at the end of the day its a common ground for discussion, a meeting hall. People elevate its purpose far beyond what it was ever intended to do, mostly because of the mass media and gaming industry misinterpreting it.

[Orange Joe]

http://visit.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/..._60%20ways.pdf

Follow the link in the post and comment here.

60 > 10

Sooo.... Got anything else?

[Deleted]

Follow the link in the post and comment here.

You have shown 10 failures, for an international entity that is not a lot.

[Theodon]

Follow the link in the post and comment here.

Daniel Greenfield is showing massive bias. He goes on about the evils of the UN member countries, yet doesn't even mention that the US is up there too in the ranking of horrible shit done in the name of <insert country> It's difficult to have a group like the UN consist of 'moral' members when power is gained through immoral acts all over the world. The UN isn't even created to be the great moral police of the world either, it's there to ensure that there isn't a WW3.

[Zoranon]

Okay, given that the United Nations has utterly failed and was doomed from the start, I think it's time the US and all countries who want to be considered "free" to abandon this theater of the absurd. Its commitment to human rights has failed, it hasn't promoted human rights, it has acted hypocritically disproportionately targeting Israel while ignoring others with far more serious human rights issues, it hasn't prevented wars, massacres or genocides and it's no surprise really. How can it prevent human rights abuses when it is a coalition of mostly unfree countries and North Korea or Iran are often elected to its human rights council? That's like putting gangsters in charge of the court system.

You cannot promote justice and world peace when most of its members aren't committed to either. If someone can explain what exactly is the purpose of this farce other than to drain billions and pat itself on the back, pretending to be pro-humanity while either doing nothing or even being the exact opposite in some cases, I'd love to hear it.

Ah you fall for the usuall mistake. UN was not founded for world peace or something like that. UN was founded to prevent another great war between the great powers of the world. And it succeded at that point.

Of course, most of the UN agencies are a bad joke, most notably the HR council.

[Deleted]

The UN has always been an international diplomatic forum, not a militaristic authoritarian superpower. I don't know why people expect the UN to have any real power.

[Dezerte]

This is frontepagemag.com by the way, wiki. And the man in charge, David Horowitz.

[AnEvilForce]

You'd prefer the UN disbanded and everyone sit by passively while parts of the world silently destroy themselves? The UN has its uses, though not on the large scale it was intended, that's politics for you. The US backing out of the UN won't happen though, considering it's the only open line of communication with some countries. Also, I think it'd be quite hypocritical since the US have caused (arguably unintentionally) a lot of conflict in the last 13 years. It's like saying you no longer want to be part of city council because they're not taking garbage collection seriously, while throwing your empty soda can on the floor.

The UN has always been an international diplomatic forum, not a militaristic authoritarian superpower. I don't know why people expect the UN to have any real power.

Also, this.

[Theodon]

This is frontepagemag.com by the way, wiki. And the man in charge, David Horowitz.

So the OPs only source is extremly bias, to the point where it can be considered unreliable. That is what I get from the information provided on it anyway.

[AnEvilForce]

Well that's the OPs only source somewhat demolished. You might as well quote North Korea's official press releases to get the truth behind what a dictatorship does to a country.

ah ma gad, That's actually the most hilarious thing I've read all week *Like*

[Deleted]

60 > 10

Interesting, let's read one of these 60 pros:

3. Since the general Assembly adopted the Universal declaration of Human rights in 1948, the United Nations has helped to enact dozens of comprehensive agreements on political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights. By investigating individual complaints, the UN human rights bodies have focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance and arbitrary detention and have generated international pressure to be brought to bear on governments to improve their human rights records.

Agreements unfortunately that are largely ignored because they can be ignored and because most state members in the UN don't follow them anyway. You didn't actually believe the world was run by written pieces of paper? Come on, the only language dictators understand is force. Words like "we deplore X"... not so much.