What do you think of UN?

[dead0man]

ACLU=6.67
NATO=6.41
AFL-CIO=6.00
ADL=3.64
PMRC=2.80
PETA=2.69

wiki on the UN

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mechaman]

United Nations, the rallying cry of future world statism.

1

[Mint]

We should withdraw from them immediately.

[dead0man]

I agree with Mint about getting out, but I'm still going to be generous and give them a 2.  Occasionally the peacekeeping troops actually keep the peace and they do feed people when they can get out of their own way.  But on the whole, it sucks.  It's fine, I suppose, as a place where enemies can talk to each other, but as an organization designed to spread peace and well being it fails miserably and usually seems to be working in the opposite direction.  The ironically named sub organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Council are a stain.

[Јas]

A flawed organisation in many ways, but an important and worthy one.
7

[AkSaber]

I don't like them, and I don't trust them.

In the mid 90s, they held a women's rights conference in China (of all places). Was Saudi Arabia booked that week?

During the 06-07 General Assembly session, they managed to draft 22 resolutions condemning various Israeli actions, yet never made a single one condemning Darfur.

[dead0man]

During the 06-07 General Assembly session, they managed to draft 22 resolutions condemning various Israeli actions, yet never made a single one condemning Darfur.

Lots of things like this by the UN.  Here is another one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[opebo]

United Nations, the rallying cry of future world statism.

1

Well, if that's what it really were, then I'd vote 10, so I did, just to oppose people like you.  But what the UN really is is an instrument of american imperialism.

[dead0man]

Obviously!  That's why they never go against American wishes.

[JSojourner]

I don't like them, and I don't trust them.

In the mid 90s, they held a women's rights conference in China (of all places). Was Saudi Arabia booked that week?

During the 06-07 General Assembly session, they managed to draft 22 resolutions condemning various Israeli actions, yet never made a single one condemning Darfur.

I agree on your last point, Saber.  The UN has been much too timid, as has the United States, in regard to any of the African atrocities.  And when the UN actually has taken action -- military or otherwise, it has been badly bungled.

The event in China was a winner, however.  It was the first time a westerner, none other than pro-choice Hillary Clinton, publicly condemned the Chinese forced abortion policy.

I give the UN a six, but I concur with those who say it needs injections of both reform and competence in healthy doses.

[Hash]

5.

In dire need of reform, competence and a pair.

[Earth]

I give the UN a two. Ineffective, flawed, and a political jerkoff session.

[Psychic Octopus]

4. It has the potential to be a good organization but needs dire reforms and needs to be centered more on democracies. I'd like the requirement to be in the UN is to be a democratically-elected president or leader, or it must have the nation's approval if it is a monarchy or dictatorship.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I don't like them, and I don't trust them.

In the mid 90s, they held a women's rights conference in China (of all places). Was Saudi Arabia booked that week?

During the 06-07 General Assembly session, they managed to draft 22 resolutions condemning various Israeli actions, yet never made a single one condemning Darfur.

[SPC]

1. Completely useless.

[DownWithTheLeft]

A flawed organisation in many ways, but an important and worthy one.
7

LOLZ

Anyway, I give it the lowest possible rating, its anti-American and anti-freedom, probably why Jas loves it so much

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Amusing that all the usual suspects seem to think that the UN = the General Assembly. It doesn't. The General Assembly is a toothless talking shop; power lies elsewhere.

[ChrisJG777]

Barely an 8.  Its effectiveness leaves a little to be desired, but overall it's a worthy organisation and if anything the Americans should be forced to remain a member.

[k-onmmunist]

2. Waste of space, and spends most of it's time drawing up pointless lists and organisations such as the 'Non Governing Peoples' list. You know, the one that features 14 British territories, all of whom wish to remain part of the UK.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     1. Just an instrument of creating another level of bureaucracy to mire global politics.

[politicaladdict]

Yeah.. and wasn't the U.N. made after WWII to get rid of poverty and tyrannical regimes around the world? And isn't there more poverty than ever? And wasn't it the U.S. and not the U.N. that liberated Iraq from a statist dictator? And didn't Saddam also violate the U.N. resolution?

[Mechaman]

United Nations, the rallying cry of future world statism.

1

Well, if that's what it really were, then I'd vote 10, so I did, just to oppose people like you.  But what the UN really is is an instrument of american imperialism.

Why opebo? I love you!

So you just gave an "instrument of American imperialism" a 10 rating just to oppose poor lil ole me? LOL.

[Person Man]

Good idea, but the U.N. is pigsh**t.  I mean, sh**t man. They have absolutely no power over the member states. It's basically a mediation firm for international law and nothing more...and maybe a charity.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Al's point is very valid.

Also LOL@anyone who wants the US out. Yes, the US is so threatened by an organization it has a unilateral veto over.

[minionofmidas]

Al's point is very valid.

Also LOL@anyone who wants the US out.

It wouldn't be a bad thing for the UN if the US left it... and took the other veto powers with it.

It might not be good for the World, but that's another matter.

So, yeah. Bottom line. Better'n nowt. But hasn't liveId up to its potential, and realistically couldn't be expected to given the way it's set up. And of course it's just another layer of overpaid top bureaucracy. Still gave it a five.