Should the UN be abolished?

2006-08-16 03:52:45

#1

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6799

The question is this: Should the ineffective veto-tastic talkshop that is the UN be abolished? If so then should it be replaced with something else? What should replace it? Would your suggested alternative be just as ineffective? Do we need anything in its place at all?

Answers on a postcard....

2006-08-16 03:56:06

#2

TeamZephyr: Maintaining My Rage Since 1975; +124|6773|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

2006-08-16 03:59:33

#3

Ikarti: Banned - for ever.; +231|6953|Wilmington, DE, US

TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

2006-08-16 04:47:46

#4

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6909|NT, like Mick Dundee

I 'gree with Zephyr and Ikarti.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2006-08-16 04:49:07

#5

jord: Member; +2,382|6922|The North, beyond the wall.

Go fuck yourself seemed the logical option.

Sorry Poe.

2006-08-16 05:19:56

#6

one_of_ten: Member; +7|6900|Brussels, Belgium

No

TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

2006-08-16 05:36:17

#7

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6799

Well what exactly should it be replaced with then? I want descriptions people.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-16 05:36:40)

2006-08-16 05:37:24

#8

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7085|Cologne, Germany

TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

QFE

reforms all the way

2006-08-16 05:39:36

#9

=OBS= EstebanRey: Member; +256|6794|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

The US and France should be removed as they are always the ones using their Vitos

2006-08-16 05:57:25

#10

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6805

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
The US and France should be removed as they are always the ones using their Vitos

And Britain would veto in the US' stead, and Russia would probably veto in France's stead. China would veto in someone's stead, depend on who they were trying to be friends with at the time.

2006-08-16 05:58:43

#11

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7001|Argentina

TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

2006-08-16 06:50:42

#12

Erkut.hv: Member; +124|6979|California

Ikarti wrote:
TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

Start by removing Annan from the mix. He does not inspire, he is a figurehead, and a horrible one at that.

Change the security council to a 75% vote for approval, that way one veto won't kill something.

The way it is now:

Security Council team 1: USA & United Kingdom
Security council team 2: China & Russia
Flip flop depending on personal interest: France

So basically a 2-2 vote every time, with France being the tie breaker. There is something horribly wrong with that.

The other memebers in the rotating portion don't have any influence on the council, so they are impotent in effect.

ed for sp

Last edited by Erkut.hv (2006-08-16 06:51:03)

2006-08-16 07:19:15

#13

HM1{N}: Member; +86|6888|East Coast via Los Angeles, CA

CameronPoe wrote:
The question is this: Should the ineffective veto-tastic talkshop that is the UN be abolished? If so then should it be replaced with something else? What should replace it? Would your suggested alternative be just as ineffective? Do we need anything in its place at all?

Answers on a postcard....

No, but the way it governs should be changed.

The veto should be disallowed and a 2/3 majority rule should be instituted. At that point, all members of the U.N. should be required to abide by any resolution passed, or they lose their membership.

It's simple really...

2006-08-16 07:31:17

#14

Ikarti: Banned - for ever.; +231|6953|Wilmington, DE, US

Hmm, given that, let vetos veto vetos. France as a tie breaker

2006-08-16 08:30:58

#15

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6825|SE London

TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

Remove the veto - it just means nothing ever got done. Unanimous decisions don't happen in politics.

Maybe add a few more members to the security council, Germany for example and perhaps India. Then just have the Security council vote on resolutions and action to be taken on them, no vetoes allowed.

A new funding system would be a good idea too.

2006-08-16 08:40:17

#16

JG1567JG: Member; +110|6832|United States of America

Please remove the United States from the UN. Please remove the UN from the United States.

Both of the above statements sound good to me.

2006-08-16 10:59:56

#17

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6876|949

First of all, there are not just 5 members of the Security Council. There are 5 permanent members, plus 10 other member-states elected by the General Assembly to serve 2 year terms. The five permanent members are the only ones who can offer a "nay" vote on a resolution and block it.

Second, the UN has incredible power, and does get things done. I think a few people here fail to see that. It seems that most people here see the UN as a world policing agency, when in fact this is not the case. Instead of focusing purely on the political actions of the UN, look at financial, health, and standard of living actions. The UN does actually get a lot done, they just don't have very much say in world politics. That is not necessarily blamed on anyone except the members of the UN, who fail to bring the needed legitimacy to the organization. The members of the Security Council seem to be the most guilty of this, because these nations are so powerful within the world community that the world community needs them, but they do not necessarily need the world community. Russia, US, UK, France, China, these countries all undermine the political power that the UN has.

All in all, the UN is a solid global community. It is just the political arm that needs retooling.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-08-16 11:01:31)

2006-08-16 20:54:47

#18

BVC: Member; +325|6939

Remove the veto. Also, since the 5 permanent members were given their places because of their status as nuclear powers, why not give India and Pakistan seats?

I think some sort of rearrangement is a good idea, but past removing the veto I have no real idea of specifics.

2006-08-16 20:56:48

#19

Raptor1: Member; +19|6732

china should be removed from the secruity office

2006-08-16 20:58:18

#20

dhoar4: Banned; +151|6779|Forest Lake, Australia

CameronPoe wrote:
Should the UN be abolished?

*Slap*

2006-08-16 21:19:49

#21

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6916|Colorado

The US should pull out of it with all funding, let them flip the bill, it's a broken corrupt organization, much like all governments.
What I'd like to see is someone do something about it instead of talk about it.

2006-08-16 21:39:22

#22

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|7073|Grapevine, TX

Ikarti wrote:
TeamZephyr wrote:
It should not be abolished, but should undergo a number of reforms to the Security Council, such as removing the permanent members ability to veto any resolution.

lol, "UNITED NATIONS" that's an oxymoron. They never stand up for what they vote in as a mandate. Its plane insanity to keep expecting things to change, when nothing is actually put into action to change what was voted on...

Yes, I think the whole charter needs reworked, from the ground up. I've been saying this for over 4 years now. Only Republics that have open societies can join " new " " league". It only makes sense that a country where the people can vote in their own homeland for their own government can join a group of countries that vote on what course of action would benefit and also condemn the actions of a violent and harmful actions of a dictatorship type government.

Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2006-08-16 21:48:21)

2006-08-25 19:41:00

#23

Takedazor: Member; +10|7022|Vila Real, Portugal

See this video it changed my view of united nations and i just can't believe this is true but it does look that way.

The united nations agenda is shocking.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … ed+nations

2006-08-25 19:46:08

#24

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6773|Global Command

1) hasn't this question been asked before?
2) Yes, to hell with the U.N.
3) Uncle Sam will take care of everything...

2006-08-25 19:57:03

#25

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6825|SE London

ATG wrote:
1) hasn't this question been asked before?
2) Yes, to hell with the U.N.
3) Uncle Sam will take care of everything...
http://i6.tinypic.com/23udl5e.jpg

Don't you mean 'World Liberation Tour'

Yes	32%	32% - 29
No	44%	44% - 40
Go Fuck Yourself	23%	23% - 21
Total: 90

BF2S Forums Should the UN be abolished?

Poll

TeamZephyr wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Ikarti wrote:

TeamZephyr wrote:

ATG wrote:

Board footer