Penpal-Gate Forums

aariz · #1 2008-03-21 15:42:03

Hi everyone
Post ur comments for the above question. I have posted this question because the security council of UN is not working properly. It has become selfish department of UN. The council has not done anything for the peace of the world.

Keep smilling 001_smile
Aariz Memon

French-touch · #2 2008-03-22 11:20:39

I think that... The UN don't have any power.. I mean , they give there opinion, but, have nothing to forcing you to do for peace... I think so : )

Nightsilence · #3 2008-03-22 14:23:26

Well, I couldn't say yes or not. I think UN is a mediating organization in order to try to keep peace of world but they can't make peace just with will (and self interests? I don't know) Each government has to do something by its own if wants peace truly.

shmegalah · #4 2008-03-27 21:12:28

the UN Security Council is a joke

dannial · #5 2008-03-28 01:34:50

It's hard to see! any country wanna be a powerhouse must boost its overall ability! this world's fundermental running priciple: power is truth. sorry to say, UN doesn't have that power!

Viimeksi muokattu dannial (2008-03-28 01:36:18)

TheRainGoddess · #6 2008-03-28 04:26:14

'Course, it is! How many permanent members does it have? Just Five (all of them developed, except for China, but I don't think it alone can represent for all the developing nations!), for the whole world! Oh come on, even if one of the five countries does not want something good to happen for most other countries due to selfish reasons, it just can't! It's ridiculous! The veto power must be removed-we can have the usual majority rule. It is high time that other deserving countries get the permanent membership, because it doesn't look like the present UN security council is doing something against the so many wars going on (In Iran, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.), does it?
I suggest you guys to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … ty_Council Gives you lot of info!

French-touch · #7 2008-03-28 09:10:12

yep...I think, the idea of a world organisation for peace, was a good thing... But, the UN must be different.

Should not see the money' interests. Just see egality, and peace. They should be stronger, to stop the things what can hurt peace

Viimeksi muokattu French-touch (2008-03-28 09:10:34)

shmegalah · #8 2008-03-28 12:14:55

TheRainGoddess kirjoitti:
'Course, it is! How many permanent members does it have? Just Five (all of them developed, except for China, but I don't think it alone can represent for all the developing nations!), for the whole world! Oh come on, even if one of the five countries does not want something good to happen for most other countries due to selfish reasons, it just can't! It's ridiculous! The veto power must be removed-we can have the usual majority rule. It is high time that other deserving countries get the permanent membership, because it doesn't look like the present UN security council is doing something against the so many wars going on (In Iran, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.), does it?
I suggest you guys to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … ty_Council Gives you lot of info!

THANK YOU!! i'm glad you agree. i really don't understand why people still feel that it is the best way to achieve ANYTHING. it literally gives me a headache to think about it. haha

TheRainGoddess · #9 2008-03-28 23:28:22

So...We all agree that the present UN is inadequate to maintain peace in the world. The reason is that it isn't powerful. So how do we give it power? I remember reading that to give UN the power that The League of Nations lacked, headquarters of UN was placed in New York in US, the world's Superpower-to be sure that US was always involved in UN, since The League failed cos the Big Powers failed it. Do you think that UN needs to be democratised? But some poeple think that it would dilute UN's powers. Would it? I'm not sure!
Take a look at this:
"Some of the members of the Uniting For Consensus group are:
Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil
Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany
People's Republic of China, South Korea - opposed to a bid for Japan
Pakistan - opposed to a bid for India"

Love thy neighbour??? 001_smile

Viimeksi muokattu TheRainGoddess (2008-06-07 04:08:32)

French-touch · #10 2008-03-29 09:08:56

You are right... That could be work if it was different..(I hope 001_smile )

We have to believe that a world full of peace can be possible.

We have to be optimistics to do somehting... Our governement don't really care about peace or war. Don't really care about poverty and killling.

They just se the economics problem. they don't care of the UN because it could be help people without earning no money...

We have to cHange every mentality to move the things.. We have to accept that we are all human, and that seeing a human dying is horrible.. We have to see that we all leave on the same earth. That it's not important if we are french or american or japanese. Then, there won't be any problem..

We have to be "utopist" (i don't know if it's the right word, but i think you got the idea)

Viimeksi muokattu French-touch (2008-03-29 09:11:04)

Sawyer · #11 2008-05-25 13:19:34

Megadeth - United Abominations -

Within striking distance from Ground Zero sits a smoldering international cauldron, the United "Abominations" as it were. Born to prevent wars, it froze in the face of disaster and stood silent while terrorization to hostage of the world
In a mire of hypocrisy, the U.N. ignores sex crimes by its "blue helmets", and enables terrorism; so in the end it's failed and the U.N. is where our
so-called friends get to stab us in the back and we pay 22% of their tab to host our
enemies here at home.

Ambassadors from countries enjoy otherwise known as a catastrophe, enjoy Diplomatic immunity living in Manhattan, while their children are turned into prostitutes It's a complete and utter disgrace, a blot on the face of humanity, and they get away with it.
(This part is about the victims)
Poverty in their kitchens
Held hostage by oil-for-food
Yet their own plates are full off the fat of their lands
There's no blood on their hands,
---------------------------
(This part is about the U.N)
They promised to tell the truth
Without leaving a fingerprint,
They will lose the U.N. one way or another
The victim, I fear will be us, sisters and brothers

The U.N. is right; you can't be any more "un"
Than you are right now, the U.N. is undone
Another mushroom cloud, another smoking gun
The threat is real, the Locust King has come
Don't tell me the truth; I don't like what they've done
It's payback time at the United Abominations

A grave and gathering danger
The decision to attack
Based on secret intelligence it'll take years
I fear to undo the failings in Iraq, Iran, and Korea
You may bury the bodies

But you can't bury the crimes only
Fools stand up and really lay down their arms
No, not me, not when Death lasts forever!

Moniquechang · #12 2008-06-24 06:03:55

TheRainGoddess kirjoitti:
'Course, it is! How many permanent members does it have? Just Five (all of them developed, except for China, but I don't think it alone can represent for all the developing nations!), for the whole world! Oh come on, even if one of the five countries does not want something good to happen for most other countries due to selfish reasons, it just can't! It's ridiculous! The veto power must be removed-we can have the usual majority rule. It is high time that other deserving countries get the permanent membership, because it doesn't look like the present UN security council is doing something against the so many wars going on (In Iran, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.), does it?
I suggest you guys to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat … ty_Council Gives you lot of info!

I agree. Taiwan should get permanent membership, but the proposal doesn't even get put on the agenda due to Chinese pressure. Last year Ban Kee Moon flat out rejected our application without putting it through all the legal measures by which proposals are considered.

starlord · #13 2008-06-25 12:14:39

I guess the UN has been enchaned into history since WW2 and the cold war: Not much has varied in it's institutions since that period.

Rahil · #14 2008-06-30 00:08:56

UN is not democratic. All the countires cannot vote and only 5 countries have veto power? Why?Do the countries like Uk ,france and USA beleive in democracy? If so then why don't they allow democracy in the UN. You should practise what yopu teach other wise dont pretend. UN is uselss because it is not democratic. It is meant for powerful countries to rule and do as they please. Iraq is one good example. No one listened to Un and Iraq was atacked.Palestine, same story. So why do we have UN?

Penpal-Gate Forums

#1 2008-03-21 15:42:03

Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#2 2008-03-22 11:20:39

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#3 2008-03-22 14:23:26

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#4 2008-03-27 21:12:28

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#5 2008-03-28 01:34:50

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#6 2008-03-28 04:26:14

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#7 2008-03-28 09:10:12

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#8 2008-03-28 12:14:55

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

TheRainGoddess kirjoitti:

#9 2008-03-28 23:28:22

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#10 2008-03-29 09:08:56

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#11 2008-05-25 13:19:34

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#12 2008-06-24 06:03:55

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

TheRainGoddess kirjoitti:

#13 2008-06-25 12:14:39

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

#14 2008-06-30 00:08:56

Re: Is United Nation Organization under monopoly of certain countries?

Board footer