Darusdei (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@suarezjaguar there are only 5 permanent seats and we should start throwing them to everyone?

suarezjaguar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@theCamelCase Take the case of the Security Council. It has no African country with veto power. None. I think extremely non-multilateral the fact that the continent that has most wars happening on their soil, don't have a single country with permanent seat. I know that the UN is not a government. If it were, would be the most corrupt, useless and rotten government of the planet.

theCamelCase (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@suarezjaguar "disagree about the reasons, but I agree with the conclusion: UN is a joke. Truth."You agree with the conclusion only because you misunderstand the purpose of the UN. The UN isn't a government capable of enforcing policy on subordinate nations; it's forum for diplomacy and multilateral action. It facilitates dialogue; does research; publishes recommendations; distributes aid; and deploys peacekeepers. It doesn't engage in wars or disarm sovereign states.

theCamelCase (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@suarezjaguar One could blame either, so perhaps fault is irrelevant. What does matter is that the UN charter won't change, but US policy can.

suarezjaguar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@theCamelCase "If you're upset at the UN's failures, look no further than the US's veto power."The mere fact that the U.S. does what it wants with veto power, is an example of the failure of the UN. The structure of the SC is a failure, do not blame the U.S. for taking advantage of it.

suarezjaguar (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I disagree about the reasons, but I agree with the conclusion: UN is a joke. Truth.U.S. has nukes and the UN does nothing to disarm them. U.S. invaded Iraq to control oil reserves and the UN does not do anything against America. The UN does not represent the majority of countries worldwide. Should be disregarded for everyone who wants to survive.

Lobonsky (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Slow down bossss.......I agree with the anger....just hear about the crap that happened in the Balkans.....standing around like goofs.....the Congo....rapes..........somebody is asleep at the wheel.....society is asleep!United Numbnuts!

MarijnMoritz (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The United Nations are controlled by Americans.. that's why it is a shit organisation.

Albyiscool (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@theCamelCase "almost always". Anyway I DO think it is foolish. Any binding resolute that forces a country to act in a certain way against its wishes certainly does dictate policy. So what is the alternative then? Multipolar seems to imply either with or without the UN. And the UN can be derailed by a single country. So does that imply the need for a multipolar order outside the UN entirely?

theCamelCase (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@Albyiscool I didn't say "always".I don't think the US's participation is foolish; I think its lack of quality participation is. I think you misunderstand the purpose of the UN. The UN provides a forum for diplomacy; it doesn't "dictate policy", certainly not US foreign policy.Your simplistic view fails here. In a political climate filled with complex diplomatic and economic relations, multilateral is superior to unilateral. The US cannot act alone and remain respected and economically sound.