has anybody noticed u.n. has failed again?
398938
Unfortunately, U.N. failure happens so often now that it fails to be news. (i.e. Sudan slaughter, Yugoslavia genocide, Rwandan genocide, etc. and in all of these incidents did the U.N. fail to act, or at least act appropriately.)
267992
UN IS useless. I seen first hand how useless they were in the Balkens.
1137397
In a very real sense, the U.N. is responsible for the United States having to go to war with Iraq.\n\nFrance, Germany, and Russia were getting bribed by Saddam Hussein though big payments siphoned from the Oil For Food program.  This is why these three countries were so against going to war.  They didn't want the cash flow to stop.\n\nSo, once again the UN Screwed us!\n\nSince you're interested in this topic, buy Eric Shawn's new book, The U.N. Exposed
592989
World Health Organisation... just a guess... just checked..yep it is the WHO.. well they failed on that one!!
878680
The goal of the United Nations was to increase discussion between nations in an effort to prevent global conflict.  But has it worked or does it really have any jurisdiction over its members, no.  Many nations, such as the United States of America, have failed to ratify much of the UN charter.  For example, the US has not ratified the International Criminal Court, a separate judiciary entity somewhat affiliated with the UN.  However, the UN does play a somewhat integral part in maintaining communication with outside nations. A great example is the UN's efforts to aid with peacekeeping in Darfur.  Though this is seemingly unsuccessful, the UN has worked to maintatin the prescence of peacekeeping troops in the region. \n\nHowever, this leads to more problems.  Throughout the years, peacekeeping troops have been known to rape their refugees and commit other inappropriate acts during their mission. This increases the negative opinion of the UN and its actions among nations.  In addition, when nations such as the US blatantly violate the charter and the UN declarations, it suggests the ignorance of global opinion. These events lead to greater tension between nations instead of increased pacifism, as the body is designed for. \n\nNo nation, due to the act of sovereignty, must abide by the laws of the UN.  This is solely because if the rules of the UN were more heavily imposed than national law, prominent UN nations, the UK, US, France, etc., would have greater precedence in the domestic politics of smaller nations, such as Swaziland.  This would lead to an almost imperialistic setting where global superpowers would be able to enact laws that colonized developing nations and poverished nations.\n\nI hope this answers your question!
327429
We could, it doesn't really do us any good.  They are a peacekeeping operation, not a peace-making...there is a big difference.  The UN is too soft on too many issues.  I respect their ideas, they just need to be able to back them up..and they are not in the position to do that.  All who are UN members need to back them up, and it doesn't happen.  It's good for diplomatic purposes, but as we have seen lately, there can even be corruption there.
243266
The United Nations is weak, indeed. The weakness of the organization stems from the widespread corruption throughout its ranks.\n\nMany of the UN's poorer members (as well as many of its socialist members) view it as an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Take a look at the amount of money contributed by each member nation versus the benefits received by each member nation. I am not saying that helping poorer countries is bad. Indeed, every nation should help out as much as they can. However, help should be voluntary and not forced through the United Nations.\n\nMany top individuals are corrupt, including the Secretary General. If you think the US government is corrupt regarding some of the defense no-bid contracts, you should look up what goes on in the United Nations. Not only are no-bid contracts common, NOBODY can summon the records. When an investigation becomes necessary, it is always conducted by UN members who find no wrongdoing. The company that Kofi Annan's son works for received numerous such contracts.\n\nThese are things that I certainly DO NOT want my tax dollars paying for.\n\nNOTE FOR EMILYROSE: An organization for peace is certainly a worthy goal. But when diplomatic options have failed, the UN has shown in recent history that they have nothing to back up their resolutions. Iraq thumbed its nose at the UN for a decade before something was done - and it wasn't the UN that did it. Countless resolutions regarding the Palestinian state and Israel have been passed (some for and some against each state). Each government laughs them off. Iran is now thumbing its nose at the UN. We'll see what happens. If the United Nations is not willing to go to war to back up the resolutions of the international community, they should disband and all go home because nothing will ever get accomplished. Kind of like what is happening now.
610413
Program set up by the United Nations in Iraq during the times of the Persian Gulf War. However, it has been recognized as a huge failure--considering that Saddam Hussein bribed people in the United Nations which led them not to protest the awful things he did to his people.
61835
Without significant reform it is unlikely to continue with a meaningful existance, but I think most western nations will force this to happen before allowing it to completely dissolve.\n\nAt the end of the day it is a forum to get the nations of the world around a single table. Naturally, it is not possible to drive clear consensus in such situations. So it is difficult to criticize it because of inaction or slowness. I doubt there is a silver bullet to that particular problem.\n\nTo think the UN can resolve major issues facing the world today is niaive. At the end of the day that will fall on the shoulders of the larger nations. What it cannot do is get in the way. It must ensure dialogue is flowing and that diplomatic solutions are pursued to global issues. However once these grind to a halt or fail, it must excuse itself from the proceedings.
1034396
Correct me if I am wrong, but their term is not limited and I haven't heard about any resignations.\n\nThe current one has been there since 1997.\n\nThey aren't shrek!! You might not like them but they do a lot of good work.\n\nWe started the UN!!\n\nIf it weren't for the UN this world would be a disaster!
335852
The UN needs to go. It's a waste of money and valuable real estate in NYC. They really don't do anybody any good other than to sponge money from the USA.
1122018
No!!  They used to be though. When sanctions were put on Saddam the U.N. started to change and turned corrupt. I just wish that America would have stopped all money to the U.N. after we found out about their oil for food program. Their soldiers are raping around the world and they do nothing. When we find out that our military is killing or raping their is always an investigation. And if found guilty they serve time. The U.N. are always giving criminals free reign. Why can't we overhaul the mess?
758590
Yes.  The UN is ineffective.  Look at Darfur.  They have done nothing to stop the genocide.  And the libs wanted nothing to be done in Iraq either.  I guess gassing the Kurds and torturing innocents is nothing to be concerned about
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?
946215
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the UN to help with anything, especially in the human-rights department.\n\nThis is the same organization that, just a day or two ago, voted down an amendment that would have called on Cuba to curb its human rights abuses.\n\nThis happened on the same day that the UN passed a resolution calling on the U.S. to end its Cuba embargo.\n\nThat's the UN for you -- silence with regard to Castro's human-rights atrocities, while lecturing us to do business with that bastard.\n\nSo, since the UN is so wimpy with regard to Castro, there's no reason to believe they can do much of anything about Nigeria or anything else in the human-rights arena.\n\n.
1132940
The U.N. did not fail anyone, because nobody should take the U.N. seriously. As far as I'm concerned the U.N. is right up there with the comic book strip. The whole f***ing program is run by a bunch of mindless, powerhungry socialists from 3rd world hell-holes that were living in the trees 2 generations ago.  Lets take a look at their resume':\n\nTHE OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL\n\nWow, that really panned out, didnt it? Just like everything else, the bigwigs who sit in the leather chairs profited while people from their own country died. Hmm, sounds great to me! Besides, we(The US) created the U.N. for amusement only. The primitive war-mongers and cavemen needed something to do with their time, so FDR said "Heres the U.N. Run around over there for a while and leave us alone." It only spiraled out of control. If ole' Georgie DUBYA was half the president that his Bush-Bots think he is, he'd have the U.N. torn to pieces and sold for parts.  Its a joke. They even tried to propose a "U.N. Tax" a couple of years ago, yeah right. It'll be a cold day in Hell before I give those thugs a cent.  Look what their doing now, all they want is to disarm the members of the idiot countries around the world so that they can institute a world-wide socialist state.  You can thank George Bush Sr. for that one.  This is what I know for sure.  The day that the U.N. takes over  is  the day that I'll walk into the U.N. building with backpack filled with 68.2 pounds of C4, with the detonation set to my mobile phone. I'd rather be dead than to watch my street be patrolled by a bunch of Euro-Weenies with blue helmets.\n\n-J.\n\nReply to Leela(As if that is your REAL name)\nI dont believe that "We" know how to best tell others how run their respective countries, I just don't want the U.N. fooling around with mine. Here's a question: What organization in its right mind would have a country like Libya in charge of a human rights committee? Again, I dont care what other countries do, they can have all of the fun in the world. I'm not interested in making the laws in another country, and neither is any other American. We just dont want to U.N. over here, it serves no purpose for a country that is able to sustain itself. The U.N. would be good for a country like, um, Bangladesh, where the people are too busy cutting off limbs and gouging out eyeballs to care.
544512
Why couldn't the UN? Not only did the UN not try to stop it, the UN authorized it!