The problem is if you raise the bar of membership...

Current Events » in reply to UN functions

Scott — 4/21/2003 8:08:48 AM (archived)

Then you lose any influence on those borderline countries...So its really a catch-22.

The UN is an idealists pipe-dream, and that in and of itself isn't a bad thing. But it is unrealistic to expect the UN to solve any "REAL" problems.

The UN can put a bandage on a few simple problems, but if people truely believe for example, that "Peace in the Middle East" cannot ever be achieved without UN meddling in the situation, then don't hold your breath waiting for "Peace in the Middle East": The UN just can't do it. So it will never happen.

I think the goal of the UN, if it is to achieve "peace among nations" is destine for failure. And in a real sense, any such broad "peace" goal would only enable a tyrant like Sadam Hussain...Who deserves to be deposed by the use of violent force.

Scott

The whole thread (10 posts)

"Keep the sanctions!" - Tom Brosz - 4/21/2003 4:22:01 PM
- Forget the sanctions...What did the UN do with the $8 billion it already collected?? - Scott - 4/21/2003 4:35:32 PM
  - U.N., R.I.P. - Perspective - 4/21/2003 5:10:35 PM
    - Re: U.N., R.I.P. - LJ - 4/22/2003 4:51:48 PM
    - I wonder if the only reason we let the UN linger on... - Scott - 4/21/2003 7:17:54 PM
      - UN functions - Tom Brosz - 4/21/2003 7:55:54 PM
        
        The problem is if you raise the bar of membership... - Scott - 4/21/2003 8:08:48 AM
      - That's Very Possible - Perspective - 4/21/2003 7:38:36 PM
        
        I would agree to keep the UN, but marginalize it - Scott - 4/21/2003 7:59:35 PM
        
        Re: The UN - Raoul - 4/21/2003 9:46:07 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (10 posts)