Invasiontastic (fightfightfight)

pinkpimp · 28-05-2005 7:23pm

The UN seems quite redundant at the moment...
Whatever happened to the League of Nations?

StupidLikeAFox · 28-05-2005 7:29pm

its still going strong

TalkISCheap · 28-05-2005 7:56pm

Make basketball, not war!!

StupidLikeAFox · 28-05-2005 8:01pm

shoot hoops, not each other

TalkISCheap · 28-05-2005 8:33pm

i should be shot for not seeing that. and many other things, as colhol well knows....

actually if you only have one bullet, shoot the bloody crazy frog...

Barry Aldwell · 28-05-2005 9:38pm

pinkpimp wrote:

Whatever happened to the League of Nations?

It disintegrated shortly before World War 2. Good riddance. The UN is a minor improvement on it, in that it has a military force, and thus has clout, and also has the yanks, who provide the clout. Still pretty damn useless, though.

It wasn't me! · 28-05-2005 9:48pm

And somehow, someone has to take out the dragon and the birds as well.

Raphael · 29-05-2005 1:16pm

To hell with them both, we need the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen!

TalkISCheap · 29-05-2005 1:27pm

Hear hear!!

And next time the Americans get out of hand, we'll just burn them! Why didn't I think of that before?!

Plunky · 29-05-2005 1:34pm

Cuz there's not enough fire in the world?.. And also cuz we likeses some of them

TalkISCheap · 29-05-2005 6:46pm

Plunky wrote:

And also cuz we likeses some of them

True that. And they did give us the iPod...

Undergod · 29-05-2005 11:23pm

Raphael wrote:

To hell with them both, we need the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen!

But which one? As long as they have Hyde, they'll defeat the Americans. Or Iraqis or Iranians or Khmer Rouge or whoever you're talknig about, quite frankly I lost interest.

Or_we_could_use_the_man_in_red...

pinkpimp · 29-05-2005 11:45pm

Barry Aldwell wrote:

It disintegrated shortly before World War 2. Good riddance. The UN is a minor improvement on it, in that it has a military force, and thus has clout, and also has the yanks, who provide the clout. Still pretty damn useless, though.

That was quite the rhetorical question you answered there. The League of Nations were redundant towards WWII... The UN is...

TalkISCheap · 30-05-2005 8:23pm

... The whole world is waiting with baited breath for someone to fill in that gap.

The UN is ... ... ... (cough) ... ?

Suggestions on the back of a €50 note plz.

gigglingrat · 30-05-2005 8:31pm

....over there?

jono087 · 30-05-2005 9:47pm

The League of Nations were redundant towards WWII... The UN is... an organisation acting in a meagre fashion so as to appear to be effective in combatting major world problems like civil war, whereas in actuality it is an inneffectual collaberation of 3rd tier government officials trying to appear conscious of third world strife solely for the purpose of public relations.

Meh, you could probably top that pretty easily but I find it names my very deed of thought.

TalkISCheap · 30-05-2005 9:53pm

so the organisation exists purely to fool us into thinking that it's something it's not???!

maybe ColHol's behind it all, sounds like his work....

Bazookatone · 01-06-2005 11:16pm

wrote:

The UN is... an organisation acting in a meagre fashion so as to appear to be effective in combatting major world problems like civil war, whereas in actuality it is an inneffectual collaberation of 3rd tier government officials trying to appear conscious of third world strife solely for the purpose of public relations.

No, I must disagree. In fifty years, the UN has done a huge amount of good. The Korean War was an international effort (the US made the biggest contribution, but plenty of other countries did what they could). There have been successful peace keeping efforts all over the world. And this is just the times when the UN has failed to stop a war. We can't guess the number of wars that have been prevented by the existence of the UN. Think what would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if the USSR could not have been shown before the world to be putting Nuclear weapons in Cuba.

As well as this, orginisations like the WHO have made a REAL difference to people in their everyday lives. Smallpox and Polio have been eradicated by the efforts of many people, but without the ability to co-ordinate internationally (an ability provided by the UN's infrastructure) it never would have happened. The structure it provides allows scientists, engineers, doctors, academics etc to co-operate which allows the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts.

The "War on Terror" may seem huge now, but in the context of history, it's minor. Just because the UN can't immedietly deal with the USA's disregard for international law should not disillusion you, the UN is like a glacier, it moves slowly, but it also moves mountains

HeyYou · 02-06-2005 1:33pm

The War on Terror, is at least as significant as the Cold War (if not more so) and is certainly more significant than any one incident thereof such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's convenient to take the long-term view of the UN in this case because you're right in pointing out that they have done a lot of good in the past. However, in recent history their failings have been all to apparent; if the Iraqi sanctions and Iraq war weren't good enough examples, then how about the endless debate on whether or not the situation in Sudan could be classified as genocide? Nothing got done, the situation there is still as it was because after the Asian tsunami that's where all the political capital was.

Oh, and polio has not been eradicated yet, unfortunately.

jono087 · 02-06-2005 7:41pm

Bazookatone wrote:

No, I must disagree. In fifty years, the UN has done a huge amount of good. The Korean War was an international effort (the US made the biggest contribution, but plenty of other countries did what they could). There have been successful peace keeping efforts all over the world. And this is just the times when the UN has failed to stop a war. We can't guess the number of wars that have been prevented by the existence of the UN. Think what would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if the USSR could not have been shown before the world to be putting Nuclear weapons in Cuba.

////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

The "War on Terror" may seem huge now, but in the context of history, it's minor. Just because the UN can't immedietly deal with the USA's disregard for international law should not disillusion you, the UN is like a glacier, it moves slowly, but it also moves mountains

Granted, but if we could kindly recall the start of this whole fiasco when the UN not only discouraged America from embarking on GWB's personal vendetta, it forbade America from undertaking the war. And yet America acted in total disregard of the UN. True it's done a great deal of good in the past but I think we can conclude that the UN is only effective if America agrees with its actions/motives. So in effect it is really a pr front for America.

Undergod · 03-06-2005 3:17pm

Not a great analogy, if it disagrees with the states. I'd see it as they are seperate organizations, sharing a lot of th esame interests, but in there's no way the UN are willing to challenge the US.

jono087 · 03-06-2005 7:19pm

Quite true

TalkISCheap · 06-06-2005 10:17pm

is certainly more significant than any one incident thereof such as the Cuban Missile Crisis

What!? Trying not to be too sensationalist, that one "incident" had the capacity to set humanity back several hundred years!!

World War Three would have been fought and lost by all sides within a week, leaving some form of nuclear winter!!

Go now, talk later...

HeyYou · 11-06-2005 11:30am

True, but nothing actually happened. In addition, current events take place not between two nations and governments, but between many states and terrorist groups. It's a big shift in how these conflicts arise, with much less stability.

TalkISCheap · 12-06-2005 8:00pm

I did broadly agree with the rest of the post, much as it pains me to say it!!

Invasiontastic (fightfightfight)

Comments