The UN needs more power, and stronger leadership

[frank.haugen]

The UN is today a discussion forum, where countries can talk out their difrences. But there are no real POWER involved. The General Secretary should have som much power that he only have to make a speach, and nations stop waring, in fear of the might of the UN. And a UN resolution should be passed that locks, all national boundarys from expansion. Then war will be redundant. And mankind can live in peace and prosperety, not in conflickt like now.

It's time for a unification of earth, we don't have to take a giant leap, it will be sufficiant to take baby steps in the beginning.

- "war is evil, and evil must be destroyed, at any, and all costs"

frank

[veerar]

It is the "WILLINGNESS" of the member nations to have a peaceful Earth that counts.U N also needs acceptance and legitimacy.At present many,nations and individuals in this forum itself are cynical of the World Body and its functioning,because,changes need to be incorporated with time.Lockng of boundaries will be unjustified because the Cold War,left its mark on many disputes,with the Superpowers jostling for spheres of influence,resulting in many unwanted disputes,getting aggravated.
The UNSC is composed of essentially five nations.The decisions change with the business opportunities for the so called G7(now G8)available in many other nations.
Power to whomsoever it is meant,is pointless,without the above points being considered.
As far as "unification" of earth is concerned,we are facing problems,even in WTO,wihch is the first step to Globalisation(Unification),thus creating the "Global Village". It may take some time,as you have stated!The link below is the web site of the U N. http://www.un.org/
Press on the "welcome" button,for details in English,and use other languages,as per liking and taste.
Eventhough the UN has its faults and weaknesses,we should not judge this Organization,on its ability to deal with wars or WTO.
I feel the U N has been of service to mankind and poor nations in general.
I feel that responsible World leaders,should be aware of the consequences of their mischiefs,in their quest for Global Domination,
THUS,IT IS THE AGRESSIVE USA AND ITS CORPORATES,AND NOT THE U N, FOR ITS LACK OF LEADERSHIP OR POWER ,TO BE BLAMED.

[veerar]

Unification of Earth(aka One World Government),is the idea of the following groups and is fraught with danger,for the poor of this Planet:-
1.Bilderberg
2.Trilateral Commission
3.Council ON Foreign Relations.
4.Bohemian Grove
5.Institute For International Econimcs.
Please use a search engine like yahoo or Google,to know,what these,reportedly,sinister groups are and their aims.You will be shocked.

[Tantal]

Someone needs to pull the fire alarm in the U.N. building, then implode the damned thing once everyone's safely outside.

[pauli007001]

Someone needs to pull the fire alarm in the U.N. building, then implode the damned thing once everyone's safely outside.

I couldnt agree more Tantal!The last thing anyone needs is an expensive and more powerfull UN following a doctrine of world domination!

[Opinionated74]

Someone needs to pull the fire alarm in the U.N. building, then implode the damned thing once everyone's safely outside.

Aaaah but here's the flaw, that would just destroy the building! Nations, international treaties and conflicts would still exist!

[Tantal]

Aaaah but here's the flaw, that would just destroy the building! Nations, international treaties and conflicts would still exist!But we Americans wouldn't have to foot 25% of the bill for those asshats to play 'frolick and grabass' in lower Manhattan.

[Opinionated74]

But we Americans wouldn't have to foot 25% of the bill for those asshats to play 'frolick and grabass' in lower Manhattan.

O.K. well because I like the fact you got everyone outside safely first, I guess we could get on with it without you, or perhaps not:confused:.
Is there a model for the U.N. that would be better in your opinion or is it completely redundant and should just be dispanded?
I personally think it's toothlessness can't be denied and it does need to be reconsidered to fit a very different world from that immediate post WWII from which it grew.

Seriously though would isolationism really benefit the U.S. and her people, if not what sort of institution would? How would that impact on the rest of the world?

[Tantal]

Seriously though would isolationism really benefit the U.S. and her people, if not what sort of institution would? How would that impact on the rest of the world?We could replace it with a group who's mission was to act as a forum for disputes with (maybe) the power of sanctions, provide humanitarian aid (so long as the French "aid workers" could keep their weiners out of the little African girls), and provide technical assistance to developing countries who need advisors in economics, agriculture, infrastructure, etc. The U.N. should NEVER have a military capability.

[Tantal]

Seriously though would isolationism really benefit the U.S. and her people, if not what sort of institution would? How would that impact on the rest of the world?I don't think that complete isolationism will work, but I'd definitely like to see a little more than we have now. We're always hearing about how the U.S. "sticks its nose into everyone's business" which, to an extent, I agree that we shouldn't. But just wait until we stop sending out the checks in foreign aid every year. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who wanted us to "mind our own business".

[Opinionated74]

I don't think that complete isolationism will work, but I'd definitely like to see a little more than we have now. We're always hearing about how the U.S. "sticks its nose into everyone's business" which, to an extent, I agree that we shouldn't. But just wait until we stop sending out the checks in foreign aid every year. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who wanted us to "mind our own business".

Whilst I completely disagree with your stance regarding Aid etc., I was wondering what the U.S. gets out of it's membership of the U.N., because you (as a nation) are quick (and often correct) to criticise and yet your politicians still try to get U.N. backing and I heared last-night that Condie held it up almost as a house of virtue in order to criticise Russia's latest debacle regarding diplomacy and Georgia. There must be some self-interest to not washing your hands of the whole thing, what is it?

We could replace it with a group who's mission was to act as a forum for disputes with (maybe) the power of sanctions, provide humanitarian aid...and provide technical assistance to developing countries who need advisors in economics, agriculture, infrastructure, etc. The U.N. should NEVER have a military capability.
Agreed http://www.politic.co.uk/images/icons/icon10.gif, I would add an international court to deal with despotism, genocide etc. but I fully appreciate the logistical nightmare of getting everyone to agree and protecting individual national sovereignty.