Is it a good idea to for the united nations to start to help the world starting from 2015 or must it be early?
337487
The United Nations doesn't and will most likely never help the world.  It's a wasted organization that needs a lot less talk and a lot more action.
1085686
It's early. Give it a few more decades before you decide...
502286
USA should stop helping everyone around the globe and help their own! You should help someone who will help their selves. I feel like for some unfortunate reason a person may become homeless or not have food. I believe we should help them get on their feet, but the ultimate goal is they go to work and make it on their own. If they are disabled or to old to work then extend the help!
653902
No one seems to have a policy, that's why so many people are suffering.\n\nTo top it all off the UN has announced it will be cutting aid to the region - that'll really help!
45194
the world bank is a part of the united nations organisations founded in 1945 . its sole object it to lift the world from poverty by granting loans to the third world nations
733095
rethink the UNOs...there are too many and they usually overlap each other, there's like 4 that concern natural disasters.  UN has limited funds, so regroup them, combine UNIFEM and INSTRAW so that there is one super power one for women, then funds aren't stretched too thin and you don't have 4 different organizations busting their butts to do the same thing, a lot more could be fixed if the UN was more efficient.
401879
As if \nlol!\nEven though they founded the UN, and they house the UN, they seem incapable of working with the rest of the world at times!
825998
I think the idea of the UN matches exactly how it handles major problems (genocide in action).  Its a great idea that some intellects with great ideas for humanity discuss with great passion and get together and chat about how to make things better.  But, then you hand them a decision that requires the violence to matched in order to be humane and they can't do it.  Easier to sit on the side lines and Monday morning quarterback than to strap one on and put it on the line.\n\nSo, what are the good for?  Nothing we shoudl request they relocate to Paris.
974548
The UN is a toy for the rich countries that keep it in existence.  Without funding from the US, the UN would be even less viable than it is now.  Do you have an example of this toying or is it just your impression?
1088023
The reason why the UN is established in the first place is to have a neutral ground where international disputes and issues can be discussed by all the member states.  Therefore, I think that having the UN is better than having each state have their say on international issues using their own ways (wars, etc.)  It was after the second world war that this organization came to be.  Hence, it is an important impartial way of avoiding conflicts worldwide.
640034
Why keep the UN at all? It is a joke. For people who need help, the best they can hope for from the UN is to not be raped by their 'peacekeeper' forces.\n\nWe could set up a union of free and willing democratic states who would actually step up and fight wrongs in this world.
333672
I would guess many NGOs would practice "diplomacy."  Same with IGOs.  They are of increasing influence in the world stage.
601080
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.
1032407
Make the earth a better world first.
529754
Most definitely.  We need to do some cleaning up ourself before we can help others.  The U.N. is a good idea in itself (like Communism is, I mean you can't say the idea of it is a bad thing, it just doesn't work in reality) but so far it's been just a bitch.  I know I'm tired of going through the U.N. I mean just look at the dumping scandal.  No one can really be trusted anymore.\n\nMy only qualm is that if we go back into the Monroe Doctrine phase, we will resort to Isolationism.  We, being a world power and major influence (to some degree), can't afford to go back to being isolated.  It would just be like backing down and letting the world do as it pleases--no Americans, I would think, would want foreign people dictating how we should run our lives (just as noone else would want that, either).  So it's sort of a black and white question with so many gray areas it isn't even funny.
977806
No I don't think so as the UN has already chosen Ban Ki-Moon as the sucessor to Kofi Annan.\n\nThe debate has been long gone and over. You're a couple of months too late to start thinking about it now!
1109501
No, I don't think so. US is contributing very little money to help clear poverty around the world. Only UK and Australia did that largely. I'm not sure with this answer.