United Nations

[Soxbadger]

Im sorry I retract my statement that you were a freshman.

 

I really am not sure where youre going with the argument either.

 

So now are you saying major powers did war post WWII, which would defeat your premise that wars are to costly so reasonable powers dont fight?

 

Or are you saying the escalation between China/USSR/USA was prevented by the UN?

 

Im just not sure where that line of argument is going, because I still think MAD between USSR and USA was more important in preventing war post WWII than the UN, which was nothing more than a rubber stamp for the more powerful players.

[Soxbadger]

Oh and Im sorry if I hit a nerve, but that was the point. Anyone can talk down to some one else over the internet.

 

Just stick to the argument.

[DukeNukeEm]

So now are you saying major powers did war post WWII, which would defeat your premise that wars are to costly so reasonable powers dont fight?

Well, the US very well could have bombed the s*** out of Manchuria and whopped the Chinese but they didn't. McArthur was a total war hero and Truman fired him for his insistence on attacking China. It would be unfair to say there were no instances of conflict between global powers since 1946, even though I would really call Korea more a crisis than a war.

 

I really hate to say this, but I think nukes are overrated. Sure both sides had a lot of nukes but the primary targets for both sides were usually the other countries installations. A few civilian centers would probably have been hit but I mean the 2nd wave strikes would've been horribly disorganized and there would be probably be no silos left for a round 3. Nuclear war would've been bad but I doubt it would've been any worse than World War 2 or resulted in any countries getting wiped off the map in a matter of hours.

[mr_genius]

You wont let go of mutually assured destruction as being the primary reason for the lack of conflict in the post-war era, because that's pretty much what all your points are reverting back to.

 

well, that’s not true. I will address later in my post.

 

Mutually assured destruction relies on the belief that the costs of modern war will never outweigh the benefits, and that great powers will never engage each other because of that fact. Well it is probably true that modern war is never economical, that was not a reason to avoid conflict in the 20th century. World War 1 ravaged Europe; every country on the continent was put into unfathomable debt and went through unprecedented human suffering. They called it the war to end all wars for a reason. So why was World War 2 allowed to occur? Shouldn't the destruction of WW1 been enough to prevent any other conflict especially if mutually assured destruction is actually applicable in international relations?

 

I certainly do believe nation states realize the higher costs of all out war in the age of nuclear arms. Of course, the notion that they would 'never' decide to set off a nuclear Armageddon is a complete unknown, but we know form history that so far the major nuclear powers have been very much opposed to such global actions.

 

Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of the world was very much against WWII. Germany was given a number of appeasements as the world was very much against a second world war. However, eventually things had been pushed too far and WWII was on. Would WWII have been avoided if there were a number of nations with nuclear weapons? Possibly, it's impossible to tell. There is also the variable of the Nazi party and Hitler which, honestly, has yet to been matched. A major world power has not had an ideology of that of Nazi Germany.

 

Debt levels of Germany after WWI (due to a 'war guilt' clause) certainly did play a role in WWII. However, lets see how you tie the UN into this. The UN cannot control world powers or force them to forgive debts or loan money.

 

World War 2 started because of war debts not being forgiven between the United States and European nations, in particular France. Part of this was due to the lack of any forum for France to make it's case as the United States backed out of the League of Nations. After the US refused to ignore the war debts of France, France cranked up pressure on the Germans for reparations and it led to a global economic collapse that was completely unprecedented. Germany nor France could appeal to the United States for relief due to the absence of the US at the League of Nations. International Relations 101: When modern countries are reduced to nothing and are ignored in the international system the likelihood of irrational behavior by that country increases exponentially. America was naughty, isolationist and selfish... so we got Hitler in our stocking for Christmas.

 

Oh, the link. A UN forum for discussions would have avoided Hitler and WWII. The truth is there was a great deal of discussions of war debts and the guilt clause. There were plenty of forums, another one would not have done anything. The UN would not have been able to stop anything, as they cannot control the actions of sovereign nations. Also, Hoover tried to implement a moratorium on the 'guilty' payments but France refused. The United States congress also shot his request down.

 

There is a common misconception that globalization is inevitable when in fact it's a product of policy decisions being made by individual nations to stimulate economic growth. For instance you can't be against the UN and for MNC's, that's a glaring contradiction. You're only concerned with the economic aspect of globalization under a ridiculous notion that economics and diplomacy are two separate arenas of the international system. You might have been able to make the argument you are trying to make in 1922, but World War 2 proved everything you are saying completely wrong. Isolationism doesn't work anymore, the last time we were dumb enough to try it we caused the worst economic collapse and deadliest war in human history.

 

But wait a minute, I thought you said my only argument was that of 'mutual assured destruction'? Actually, this portion of your post makes little sense, as I have directly tied international diplomacy to economics. You really missed the mark badly here. The more countries trade with each other and have mutually shared goals in an economic format the less likely a world war becomes. The UN cannot force such interaction; nation states must want to participate. We now come back to one of my original statements that nation states will almost always act directly in relation to self benefit.

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I really hate to say this, but I think nukes are overrated. Sure both sides had a lot of nukes but the primary targets for both sides were usually the other countries installations. A few civilian centers would probably have been hit but I mean the 2nd wave strikes would've been horribly disorganized and there would be probably be no silos left for a round 3. Nuclear war would've been bad but I doubt it would've been any worse than World War 2 or resulted in any countries getting wiped off the map in a matter of hours.

 

Fair enough, I disagree with this assessment but at this point outside of a nuclear war happening, how can you really prove how bad it would be.

 

[bmags]

Fair enough, I disagree with this assessment but at this point outside of a nuclear war happening, how can you really prove how bad it would be.

 

There are movies on the subject. jk.

[mr_genius]

I'm going to modify my 'UN is completely useles' statement. I do think it can be a useful symbolic show of unity. However, the money we put into the organization is excessive and needs to be cut back. Let's face it, the US doesn't have money to be throwing around like this.

[mr_genius]

... but I mean come on it's pretty bogus to expect Hollywood to teach anything worthwhile on politics.

 

 

"Thats not true!!"

 

 

"Yea. What Michael Moore said. "

[lostfan]

Ok I think I have to give mr. g a point there.

[DukeNukeEm]

Documentaries are separate like Fog of War. But yeah, Moore and Gore don't really hold much more water than Matthew Broderick. They are entertainers.

[southsider2k5]

Honestly not trying to make an issue of it, but it's f***ing insulting to say I should watch a Hollywood movie to learn something. Call me arrogant or one of those pesky "know it all college kids" but there are certain things I really dont like. I mean really, dont correct somebody with wrong information after a quick glimpse of the Wikipedia page on the UN.

 

Its not any more insulting than you telling people to "read a f***ing book". If you talk down to people, you are probably going to find someone talking down to you pretty damned quickly. In this case, you totally brought this on yourself.

[EvilMonkey]

Here is one thing the UN does well. It provides cover and transport for terrorists in it ambulances. I wonder how loudly they would complain if they got blown up while full of unhurt, well-armed terrorists? How many resolutions would have ben passed?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf75baf763

[bmags]

Documentaries are separate like Fog of War. But yeah, Moore and Gore don't really hold much more water than Matthew Broderick. They are entertainers.

 

9 years ago I don't think I ever could have imagined someone describing Gore as an entertainer unless they were using sarcasm.

[Nixon]

The UN is completely useless, corrupt, and a waste of money.

 

They don't really have money to waste. Most member states are delinquent in their payments.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-09-dues_N.htm

 

That said, the security council needs an enema and they need to stop electing sac-less hippies like Annan and Moon as SGs.

[Balta1701]

They don't really have money to waste. Most member states are delinquent in their payments.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-09-dues_N.htm

 

That said, the security council needs an enema and they need to stop electing sac-less hippies like Annan and Moon as SGs.

Welcome to the forum.

 

If you wish to keep posting in this forum, please read the rules found in this thread and acknowledge with a reply that you have in fact read them.

[mr_genius]

They don't really have money to waste. Most member states are delinquent in their payments.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-09-dues_N.htm

 

The US gives the UN over a billion a year. The problem is we are signed on to be fitting far to much of the bill.

 

The debt, at $293 million, is projected to hit $478 million by year's end....

 

In 2007, the U.S. bill was $1.6 billion; it's likely to hit $2 billion in 2009.

 

Still over a billion in payments.

 

[bmags]

They don't really have money to waste. Most member states are delinquent in their payments.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-09-dues_N.htm

 

That said, the security council needs an enema and they need to stop electing sac-less hippies like Annan and Moon as SGs.

 

oh god bless it, you were serious and really joined.