Shop now Shop now Shop now Up to 70% off Fashion Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Learn More Amazon Pantry Food & Drink Beauty Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Is "United Nations" not a contradiction?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 51 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 30 Jan 2013 21:33:24 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 06:00:07 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 06:57:31 GMT
easytiger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 11:13:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jan 2013 11:34:27 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 11:33:02 GMT
easytiger says:
You just had to bring shagging into it, didn't you?

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 11:35:29 GMT
Dan Fante says:
It takes a special talent to write so much and say so little.

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 11:41:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jan 2013 11:41:32 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 11:45:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jan 2013 11:47:47 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 13:05:24 GMT
Spin says:
The UN is the sucesser to the League of Nations (a fantasy constructed in a post-world war world in which the victors dictated physical, political and economic boundaries to other nations). The UN is no more than an ineffective political "focus group" and a means to publicly express ones alliances.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 13:24:39 GMT
Dan Fante says:
It's a bit more successful that its predecessor though. The League of Nations was powerless to prevent WW2 and it didn't even have the most powerful nation on the planet as a member. Something like the UN is never going to be perfect but at least we haven't had any more conflicts on that scale since its inception.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 13:38:16 GMT
Spin says:
Dan; But the UN does nothing whatsoever, in practice or theory, to resolve political, economic or military conflict. It is simply a round table, a forum, where a nation can justify its actions to the world. No more, no less. As a political body it is absolutely powerless. The G8 have more power and influence.

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 13:52:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jan 2013 13:53:08 GMT
Dan Fante says:
How about Kosovo, for example? Again, I am not saying that the UN steps in everywhere and solves (or even attempts to solve) all conflicts and crises but it would probably be unrealistic to expect that anyway. However, to suggest it does nothing is, in my view, unfair.

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 14:03:45 GMT
Dan Fante says:
Also, is the inaction (see Syria for example) the fault of the UN or is it down to the members of the Security Council who are acting in their own interests / maintaining old allegiances?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:06:22 GMT
Spin says:
Dan: UN effectiveness is simply an exception to the rule. Conflicts, by thier nature, cannot be resolved by uninvolved parties.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:08:55 GMT
Dan Fante says:
If you can't suggest a better, more effective and feasible solution to the UN then it's all just hot air on your part. It's only ever going to be as effective as the member states want it to be and they, by their very nature are always going to be more concerned with self interest than anything else.

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 14:09:30 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:24:41 GMT
Spin says:
Dan: I do not suggest "better". I would not presume. I believe conflicts can only be resolved by the parties involved, not by other nations attempting to create and maintain economic and political alliances. Egypt, Israel and Syria and North Africa are a current example of the worthlessness of the UN in situations that can only be resolved by civil or multi-lateral war. Our "leaders" arguing around a big table in front of the worlds media does nothing to resolve a national or international war. Only those involved in the conflict, those who have a hell of a lot more to think about than the economic and political desires of foreign nations, can resolve the issue.

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 14:26:40 GMT
Spin says:
If Saudi went to war, the west would bend over backwards to halt the conflict, not because of any morality or sense of duty, as expressed in the UN under the gaze of the worlds media, but because the oil would be cut off.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:27:46 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I would have thought that you, given it was you that posited the view that the United Nations is a contradiction in terms, would see the logic in the argument that criticising the UN, rather than the states that make it up, misses the point somewhat.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:31:10 GMT
Dan Fante says:
I'm a bit confused now. Are you saying non-intervention by the UN in conflicts is a good thing or a bad thing?

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:34:00 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:41:12 GMT
Spin says:
Dan: Since you ask: I believe the "intervention" of the UN (a very ambitious and idealistic conception of the influence of the UN) makes no difference whatsoever in situations of genuine conflict or suffering. I am sure poverty stricken or war-torn nations have the highest respect for the UN...

Posted on 31 Jan 2013 14:41:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jan 2013 14:41:52 GMT
Dan Fante says:
GTL, I don't see how pointing out that the flaws of the UN are essentially caused by its member states is "unquestioningly submitting" to it.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:43:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 31 Jan 2013 14:44:32 GMT
Dan Fante says:
The Kosovans might disagree.

In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jan 2013 14:45:26 GMT
You already accept that it's a legitimate body, or based on a workable premise. That's one step further than I ever hope to go.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Does the U.S. want Trump's Muslim solution or the vigilantism the E. U. is moving to? 52 5 hours ago
Colognising Europe 70 6 hours ago
Money Saving ideas 82 6 hours ago
Who wants to be bullied in Amazon for personal data published? let's see how Amazon applyes the rules. 154 6 hours ago
Are vampires a warning about how syrian refugees will behave if allowed into civilised society. picking out women victims. 23 7 hours ago
The Yanks launch rockets constantly....so why can't North Korea? 41 7 hours ago
Tactically and for the good of humanity do we need to obliterate certain countries. 6 8 hours ago
Should migrants be relocated to the wastelands away from civilised people. 8 8 hours ago
Lord Lucan 46 8 hours ago
Do we need to create the "super human"? 28 9 hours ago
Why does the Mainstream Media refuse to report, or even acknowledge, The Hollie Greig case. 51 10 hours ago
ISIS and Football 5 11 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  51
Initial post:  30 Jan 2013
Latest post:  3 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions