What do you think o...
 
Notifications
Clear all


Also get access to over 60 free games in their trove of games, get 20 precent off all purchases and you can stop the subscription at anytime and keep all the games

What do you think of the United Nations?  

  RSS

ChillPenguin
(@chillpenguin)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 50
March 3, 2011 17:10  

What do you think of the United Nations?


Quote
DarkOne
(@sscadmin)
Supreme Dark Emperor Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 7117
March 3, 2011 18:10  

They should be disbanded. It is a waste of time and money.


ReplyQuote
LadynightShade
(@ladynightshade)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 115
March 4, 2011 13:22  

hmmm they are a bit pointless.... but most countries like them to be sent in as its a mixxed force, also you got to love the nice big blue hats-caps-helmet that you can spot a mile off, oh and the BIG UN sign on the side of your humvee 😀

*edit*

i forgot the humvee ect are WHITE wft lol hellooooo asking to be shoot at lol

who runs the UN what a idiot..... lol


ReplyQuote
ChillPenguin
(@chillpenguin)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 50
March 4, 2011 17:16  
Darkone wrote:
They should be disbanded. It is a waste of time and money.

How so?


ReplyQuote
DarkOne
(@sscadmin)
Supreme Dark Emperor Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 7117
March 4, 2011 17:33  

Browse this website for a while and go back a few years (especially the archive) and you will find some interesting articles. This website focuses most of its news stories around the UN.

http://www.innercitypress.com/


ReplyQuote
SpaceRider
(@spacerider)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 52
April 22, 2011 06:29  

Hi Darkone,

sorry but what makes you sure the UN is a waste of time and money? They may look like a big discussion club, but at least (almost) all members talk to each other instead of starting wars and then ask what to do for peace. Besides, there are UN origanisations like UNICEF or UNHCR which are extemply helpful for children in underdeleveoped states or fugitives who need accomodations and medical help. And in come countries, e. g. Cyprus, the UN army helps to keep stability. I doubt that private organisations or one single state could handle that better.

Looking to future when men start space travelling, we will probably do this first with support of our local space agencies like NASA (America), ESA (Europe), Roskosmos (Russia) or CNSA (China), but sooner or later they will need to cooperate or create a kind of roofing bond for more extensive exploration plans.

I know it is a hard and long way. The series "Babylon 5" prodived a good story of how this could be managed. Even in future, there may be these idiots (like president Clark in B5) who start a war against their own people only for their selfish purposes. However, in B5, there was the Earth Alliance fighting for freedom. I am sure they did not have any success if they still were splitted into serveral countries or fractions caring only for themselfs.


ReplyQuote
volrider
(@volrider)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 45
July 17, 2011 14:04  

While I thoroughly enjoy B5, it is, after all, a work of fiction. It is nothing more than a story built in the minds of its creators.

Look at the UN's "peacekeeping" missions. They are generally anything but peaceful. Granted, they are there because the region is already in trouble, but atrocities and genocide will happen right under their noses, and they can do nothing about it. The USSR occupied Eastern Europe for decades after WW2, and the UN was powerless. North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan pursued or are pursuing nuclear weapons, despite UN sanctions and prohibitions, in some cases helped by UN founding members. Atrocities and genocide in Africa, Asia, and even Europe have occurred during its time, and many continue to this day. They may have had some successes, but by and large they are far less effective than one would hope.


ReplyQuote
Cyrusblack
(@cyrusblack)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 36
July 18, 2011 01:09  

United Nations. founded by socialists and communitsts. funded and militarily supplied primarily by the United states. Poorly lead, and with several agendas that a person of my mentality ( that survival of the fittest is best for a specie, including humans) promotes weak human development. it talks and talks and talks. but nothing ever gets done. its a bureaucracy all unto itself, with the problems that in entails. diplomacy is fine amoungst countries, along with summits, but the UN itself is a terrible failure and a waste of money. esp since the USA supplies a fourth of its operating cost, and is usually the chosen "muscle" to get shit done. oh yeah, we only get 1 vote desipite that....


ReplyQuote
Zptr
 Zptr
(@zptr)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 35
July 25, 2011 06:40  

Like or loathe it the UN is all the world community has. As impotent as the power of veto often leaves it, it is a power for good in the world. Until someone comes up with a better way to have nations talk I'm happy to support it.

I spent most of my childhood living under a UN watchtower and I was happy it was there.

- Z


ReplyQuote
Potsmoke66
(@potsmoke66)
Captain Registered
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1822
May 14, 2012 12:16  

survival of the fittest = nazism & total extinction in the end

cyrus black, you should know that far better then me, for many reasons.

think to the end and not only for your life (time)...

what would you think if a fitter than you comes along and blows out your candle, feel fine with survival of the fittest?

or do you think you are the most intelligent and fittest creature?

and live for ever?

alien (i mean THE ALIEN) can't exist, it would have extincted it's own race before it would have started.

a race that kills it's own children (how ever that will be done) will be extincted tomorrow, most important is always reproduction.

reproduction is life, from the first self reproducing molecular strings to us.

a single creature is dead, because you are already dead when you are born...

any species parents protect their children with their own lifes (with a few possible exceptions i can't name by now, but it's certainly not the common).

oh well, i know a species, homo sapiens sapiens...

if we ever speak about laws of evolution...

without this "law" life simply wouldn't exist.

i know there are people who look at this problem from the other side,

survival of the fittest is evolution, but this is only half of the truth.

besides of that we are no "worms", we have brains and through that we have responsability.

"all creatures are subject to mankind, in heaven and on earth"

what does that tell you?

we are allowed to kill all because we are the fittest?

or does that mean, we are responsible for all creatures, because we can think? (sometimes i doubt we can)

i know some more damned old wisdom, like to hear?

"adam & eve have been sent out of paradise, because they have eaten the fruit of knowledge"

what does that tell to you?

has that something to do with sexuality like the church has teached us?

or shouldn't that tell us, we are no longer animals, because we have a mind and responsabilty?

it's really damned old and still we have learned nothing from it, eyes blinded, ears full of wax.

we already suffer to much of that.

phew, fortunately there was people like the founders of the united states who thought quite different about that...

and fortunately this has influenced the whole world...

perhaps we are able to have one day a federated world, that would be fine.

anyways without that we won't make it to space and will vanish from the universes history.

but there is a chance that we could be the glory of the universe...

take this chance.

if needed i will fight for this, even with guns, massive guns :mrgreen:

"if i had MY way, i would burn this whole building down..."


[/hr]

besides survival of the fittest, actually it's survival of the wealthiest, should we turn the pike around?


ReplyQuote
Dalkeith
(@dalkeith)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 69
May 15, 2012 08:46  

I voted for keeping them in their present format or possibly making them stronger.

At the end of the day they are an intermediate between national police forces and national armys.

Yes they're not idea but they are better than anything else that we have so far invented and importantly they are bi-partisan. By acting together they actually bring the armys of the world together. Which I've always thought was one of the main advantages of the space race. It encourages co-operation between military types. The fact that they are not very efficient at blowing things up is probably a good thing. Wars are expensive and the jury is out on what they achieve. Besides if there are real problems they're an additional reason for governments to think about the real reasons for going to war before they pull the trigger.


ReplyQuote
braddw25
(@braddw25)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 83
June 7, 2012 20:21  

IMHO the UN may have been a good idea, but it had gone horribly wrong to the point of ceasing to function in any useful manner. There are far too many petty 3rd world dictators like Kofi Annan who are able to get into important positions of power, and then do what they know best which is using their office to fill their own pockets. I would not shed a tear if the UN were disbanded.


ReplyQuote
Dalkeith
(@dalkeith)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 69
June 8, 2012 07:57  

err..

Kofi annan a third world dictator ... hmmm that's stretching the definition of dictator.

and lining his own pockets .... I guess that's being employed and getting a wage.


ReplyQuote
braddw25
(@braddw25)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 83
June 8, 2012 11:13  

I'll grant you that "dictator" was a poor choice of words, but I stand by my other sentinments in regard to Kofi Annan. Earning a wage does not come close to describing the corruption that took place in the UN during Annan's tenure there. The oil for food debacle and Annan's sleezy appointment of Achim Steiner to an important post in UNEP shortly after Steiner had helped to grease Annan's palms with a half a million dollar "Award" are just two examples of the irreparable damage Annan did to the UN's already suffering image. His horrendous responses (or lack thereof) to genocide in Rwanda was even worse.


ReplyQuote
Dalkeith
(@dalkeith)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 69
June 9, 2012 13:04  

Apologies Brad I'm not very well versed on the inner workings of the UN I knew that Annan wasn't a dictator and thought your other claims may be unfounded as well. Sounds like you know more than me.


ReplyQuote
braddw25
(@braddw25)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 83
June 10, 2012 20:09  

No apology necessary. I think debate is probably the purpose of a forum labled politics. No offense taken at all.


ReplyQuote
DarkOne
(@sscadmin)
Supreme Dark Emperor Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 7117
June 11, 2012 04:12  

I personally think the UN is a waste of money and time when it comes to anything besides humanitarian aid to countries in need. Because political and ideological ways keep all of these UN countries from working together for the common good not the personal gain of some countries. UN = United Nations and that is one thing this organized body is not is United. There is a few countries that have sponsored some sort of terrorism is recent years in the list of members, how is this possible.


ReplyQuote
braddw25
(@braddw25)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 83
August 6, 2012 13:54  

Great points, Darkone. It has often troubled me that some of the terror sponsoring nations often get a spot on human rights panels and such. It just makes no sense to have nations like that even participating. They're membership should be contigent upon giving up all ties to terrorist and rogue states in order to gain membership, but that is not the way it works. More often than not important positions are handed out based on secret monetary transations instead.


ReplyQuote
True
 True
(@true)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 171
October 17, 2012 07:58  

The problem with the UN is its security council. They need a consentaneous decision to make resolutions. But with USA, China, Russia and a few Europeans in this council it is unlikely this will happen often (see Syria).

They should abolish the council and have majority votes for their decisions. Not that I think this would always lead to the right decision, but it would lead to some decisions at least...


ReplyQuote
Share: