What impact does the forming of the united nations has on the world today?

Question

What impact does the forming of the united nations has on the world today?

Answer 1

none

Answer 2

it makes some people in the world feel much more secure and the big 5..hit bigtime jackpots..toying with much smaller..undeveloped..war-torn country and its people..

Afghanistan..Iraq war..does other country aside from US allies agreed upon it? Then why does UN gave the green light? people who thinks using their brains will understand..its people who thinks using their guns and power that do not understand..

Answer 3

Little to none.It cost us millions of dollars to maintain.

I guess in one way it is a convenience for us.We have allot of the countries in one place so we can deliver their foreign aid checks.

Answer 4

It has eroded our sovereignty as a nation. The U.N. is the precursor to a one-world government that will take away individual civil liberties, primarily the right to bare arms, the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.N. has allowed an elitist society dominate today's America and a large portion of the rest of the world.

Get U.S. out of the U.N.!

Answer 5

It's made the world a much worse place to live.

Answer 6

without un - probably more wars.  as evident with the league of nations tt didnt stop hitler.

a necessity to calm nerves down.  eg sudan - without un pressure wld hv slaugthered all in darfur.  un was slow in rwanda.  

without un - many small nations cld hv been swallowed/left neglected

with un come all the affiliate orgs tt handles all kind of issues facing mankind - who, ilo, unicef, unesco, unep -  all trying to better live on earth.  devt r slow 'cos of funding, ego, personal interest of incumbents, national interest taking frontstage

its all abt powerplay. better the devil u know than then angel u dont.

Answer 7

I would have to take the incidents of Rwanda and Darfur as evidence that the UN is not doing what it could be doing, so what is it doing-see link below.

Answer 8

A lot of good. The UN is two things at the same time: an arena wherein the game of international relations takes place, and an actor to engage in international relations. Both sides have been good throughout the years.

The "arena" part: it forms a talking club where enemy-countries can duke it out with words first, before resorting to war. During the heights of the COld War, the Security Council was THE place where international politics took place. By giving the two superpowers a means to discuss their interests, they UN made sure they didn't have to use nuclear bombs to fight it out.

The "actor" part: in less tense times, the UN can function more as an actor, sending peacekeeping missions all over the globe. Some peacekeeping missions have gone horribly wrong. This is mainly due to their mandate: the countries who are supposed to back the effort, don't put enough people, power and money into it. But quite often, peacekeeping actually helps.Many a genocide has been halted or prevented thanks to these troops.  

The complicated thing about the UN is it;s double identity: when it acts as an arena, it cannot act as an actor. That's why some people think it is inefficient, because in certain high-profile human rights violations it did not intervene where it should have. The reason was that one of the big powers did not want it. But consider the alternative (tried before WW2, called the League of Nations): if the UN would have acted AGAINST the wishes of a great power, the great power would have stepped out of the UN and started waging war against the rest (since it is powerfull enough to do that) to protect it's interests. The result would be more war.