FIRE WITH FIRE

I agree that the U.N. is a joke, and has been for too long a time. A behemoth without jaws or a backbone, shackled by its own bureaucracy, it tries to answer to too many masters and so appeases none.

It's edicts carry no weight because they are not supported by the world community. The membership is so fractionalized and concerned with its own individual needs that few countries -- including some of it's staunchest members -- are willing to put aside their own petty wants for a greater world good.

But before we withdraw our aid, before we vote to withdraw from the U.N., let us remember that it's the only game in town. Flawed, ineffective, yes. But it is the one place in the world where countries large and small come together to air their views and discuss the issues that plague our world. Even a problematic forum is better than none. I can think of nothing worse than each country going home to pursue its own nationalist agenda, unfettered by the weight of world opinion.

The U.N. is ineffective in many ways, but as a cumbersome weight dragging against the unbridled ambition of some countries and their leaders, it still serves a purpose.

While I agree that the UN doesn't appear to have a backbone, it is our (the world community's) fault. The UN was at its height during the Cold War. It was an international forum for East and West (Democratic and Communist) societies to discuss world issues and potentially determine internatational actions without upsetting the delicate balance we were trying to maintain. This is also where the veto powers come from: US, Russia, China, others... It was a balance between democratic and communist nations/superpowers. The original methods in which the UN was to function, however, have been outdated since the end of the Cold War. Once the Berlin Wall fell, national and international politics changed irrevokably. Unfortunately, as it has taken the US a while to accept this change, it is taking the world community longer to adjust. The world was easier then: Good vs. Evil, East vs. West, Democracy vs. Communism. It was so simply. Now, the world is smaller and much more complex. While the world can change in an instant, it takes so much longer for people, and (heaven forfend) buracracy, to catch up. I think the UN, despite its many faults, does the best with what it has. But the UN will only be able to fulfill its potential when the nations involved can all agree on an international outlook/goal. While we (the world community) maintain our own national interests, the UN will continually fall short. We have reached an age (post-Cold War, post-9/11) in which the larger problems we all face are international problems, and we must learn to work together as an international community to solve our problems. I think there will simply need to be more bridges built for the nations and their peoples to cross the gap from the previous era into this new age and new ways of thinking.

Thank you both for you comments and points of view. I agree that the world when the UN was created was certainly different and that we need an international arbitrator and forum.

The UN has become so inept however, from scandals and buracracy that it has become a cumbersome giant.

We need strong effective leadership at the UN to forge consensus and move the world community in a forward direction.

That being said, when we have these ridculous power struggles to draft resolutions that are self-serving and not for the greater good it totally waters down the process and strips the UN of power and the ability to forge a consensus.