Do you think that there should be a United NAtions? YEs? or No? WHy?

Question

I'm trying to do some research, Feel free to leave as many opinions as possible. Thanks a bunch!

Answer 1

Yes because they are responsible for a lot of freewill and humanitarian projects around the world.

Even though they don't enforce their policies or anything, they should be around because of the humanitarian aid they give to developing countries.

Answer 2

No, the UN spends way too much money on killing people. We could do some real good stuff with that money. America needs to realize that our goverment has turned into a tyranny. Not just the president, but the corrupt government we have.

Most politicians don't approve of this because all they care about is having more power, and scamming the election. I can tell you most of the stuff you hear about the UN and our 4 major presidential candidates are false. The UN does not help anyone, they kill. And it should be done with.

Answer 3

there has to be, it was fortold.  they used to be the league of nations and everything that happened to them was fortold.  now they have resurfaced as the united nations.  we cannot change whats in store for them, so we have to sit back and watch it happen.

Answer 4

yes, because without it, the entire world loses a forum in which international talks can take place, consensus can be reached and the will of all the people represented.

Answer 5

Yes. The United Nations could be reformed. The Security Council on it does not sound quite right. The name should change. The other changes could be that any nation which does not support The Human Right to Peace would not become part of The renamed Security Council. The same to apply with The Human Right to own the planet and conserve natural resources.

Answer 6

The "idea" of the United Nations is understandable: it works as an international police force in an anarchic world... however, in my own opinion, throughout history the UN has been a complete joke. Take the Rwanda genocide, for example. We sent UN troops to "take care of the situation" and what happened? They failed miserably resulting in their own deaths, not just US deaths. This failure seems to be a pattern of the UN.

Answer 7

Vanessa,

The Rwandan genocide was not the UN's fault, it was the nations that make up the Security Council.  To an extent, they used the buerocracy to delay any action, but the US didn't want a repeat of Somalia and Beligium had pulled out its troops after a few had been tortured and killed (and actively petitioned other countries to pull out afterward).  US, French and Belgian forces (in addition to the UN blue helments) were all present in the country during the genocide but their governments refused to take action outside of evacuating their own people.  I think Rwanda was a major lesson for the UN to reform but it doesn't replace the need for an international body (and it would have been even easier for individual countries to ignore human rights crises without a Security Council).

Answer 8

yes..

Answer 9

Yes, the world needs a global forum in which all the nations of the world can come together to solve the worlds problems. That being said the current UN just is not cutting it. It has become corrupt and has destroyed its original purpose. From the Iraq-oil-for-food program to the s*x scandals. The UN needs reformation. It is needed in the world, but not without significant reforms.

Answer 10

Yes, it serves a good purpose. It also costs the US a ton of money. Countries of the world have a place to meet, sometimes in a general way, sometimes in an official capacity. That couldn't happen if not for the UN. Our diplomats (and theirs) are more protected in the US than could be expected in any other country. Do they get very much accomplished? Not in public but it is a good investment.