Welcome back! It's been several weeks since the last homework assignment, so this one will serve to get you back in the swing of things. Some of you failed to keep up with your homework in the previous quarter which caused serious damage to grades. Just a friendly note to warn you that I will not be accepting late homework from this point on. Homework posted no more than three days after the due date will receive a maximum of 50% credit. After three days the work will not be accepted for credit. By now most of you are in the habit of keeping up with your work and this will not be a problem for you.
Our focus this week is on World War I. Prior to the Second World War, WWI was simply referred to as "The Great War". Imagine - it involved more people, caused more deaths and destruction, and had a greater cost than all the previous wars of the world in human history combined! (Foreshadowing...World War II was more than twice the size of World War I!). It was a war of previously unimaginable proportions. Thanks to the advances in transportation and technology it became possible for the first time for the US to participate on a large scale in a war in Europe. The fighting was changed, as well. Previously soldiers had marched or rode horses onto the field of battle and killed each other with swords and small, inaccurate guns. World War I would introduce tanks, airplanes, poisonous gases, and greatly improved artillery and small arms.
Although we are studying US History, from this point on it will become increasingly evident that the story of America is inextricably tied to that of the entire world. The US, which had practiced isolationism since the days of Washington, would become a world power for the first time - and has been ever since. America discovered that we had grown to become a powerful force in the arena of foreign affairs. Take a minute to think about it - our ancestors, who immigrated here because they were poor, deprived of liberty, and promised nothing but opportunity, built a nation that would turn around and determine the future of freedom in the "old world". That, to me, is the amazing part of the American story.
Out of World War I would come the League of Nations - predecessor to the United Nations. While the UN is hobbled by politics today and has become increasingly unpopular in the US, your assignment this week is to answer the following question: Does the world need the United Nations? If so, identify three things that the UN can accomplish better than individual nations working independently. If not, why not? Identify three reasons why you believe an organization of nations is actually a bad thing. Your essay must be at least 200 words. Comment at least twice (a minimum of 150 words) on the opinions of others. Cite your sources.
I hope your Christmas break was wonderful - here's hoping for a great new year! God bless!
Ps: don't forget to visit www.akers-scs.blogspot.com for lesson plans!
In responce to the first question, i would say that the world does not need the UN. What the UN aims to accomplish is international law, security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and world peace. All those things sound great, but, we know that, in a sinful world, world peace is impossible.
ReplyDeleteA few things that the UN can accomplish better than individual nations working independently. If there is a great need in a country, such as a natural disaster, the other nations can find out about it sooner, and send help more quickly. They also can settle disagrements faster, and help each other in times of war.
Three reasons why i think such an organization is bad. First, i think that when a bunch of organizations join up with each other, there is the problem of who is in charge. In something as big as the UN, if one person, or a group of people gain control of it, they could basically rule the world, which would be a very bad thing. Also, when an organization forms from many different organizations, the organizations that started it still tend to stay grouped. When something goes wrong in the organization, the different parts of it start to suspect the other parts, take sides, and cause trouble.
The United Nations, an organization that we are familiar with. The world-wide organization was established on October 24, 1945. What’s the first thing you think of when you see United Nations? Most likely it’s along the lines of “peace-keeping.” Although this is a rather prominent duty of the United Nations, it’s a debatable topic. We see both pro’s and con’s of this establishment, but we are here to voice our own opinions and justify them.
ReplyDeleteI believe the United Nations have been beneficial to the world. Of course the first thing we think of is peace-keeping, but it is a very important topic. When countries are having disagreements, it’s often that an outside hand can step in to help solve the problem before war breaks out. Now this is not a political argument of whether or not America should be involved in the war/international wars, but I think that we can all agree that war is never pleasant thing. Some cases may even require “help” from neighboring or other countries as is the case for many battles/wars America has been a part of. If this be, the United Nations is there to have that guiding hand and overseeing of trying to obtain that level of agreement and peace between countries. That there be no war and everyone get along is impossible and we all can see that, but we must not let the world just completely lose control. The United Nations can help obtain a proper level of peace.
Many people do not realize the many branches of the UN. It also aids in issues such as hunger, disaster, refugees, etc. With a base organization help keep everything in reach and perspective, I believe the United Nations helps the individual lives of the people in need. By providing that means of refuge and help, countries can better themselves through their own government.
Lastly, the UN just provides that common ground. It allows many countries to come together and have a like place. If every country tried to take care of everything on its own, it could lead to more disagreement and from there, other major disaster. So if only to provide that common place, the UN helps every country involved have a chance to help themselves.
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml
Xalo, this is a very interesting view with many good points. Yes, the UN does have the possibility of opening up the door for world leadership, but if we could find a way to lower that chance, just think of what the UN could do. Some countries are capable of compromising with each other. That was good to point out that the UN can take away the independence of countries, but the UN can also aid the countries in their time of need. The UN does have many pro’s and con’s and it is good to point them all out. Good job.
ReplyDeleteThe United Nations is a well-known organization throughout the world that is mostly known for trying to keep peace throughout the world. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II in order to try to put a stop to war and conflict. The United Nation's main aims are providing cooperation in international security, international law, economic development, human rights, social progress, and achieving world peace.
ReplyDeleteNow to answer the question on whether or not the world needs the UN. I personally think that the UN is very important. I mean it does have its problems, but it still does a lot of good for the world. Three ways that the UN can accomplish better than individual nations working independently is first, for instance if a poor nation had a drop in food production then the UN could step in and provide help by supplying the country with some food. Second, if there was a large AID epidemic in a country then the UN could step in and provide whatever help is needed for the epidemic. Third, if a large disaster struck a country (for example Sri Lanka with the tsunami) then the UN could provide medical care and food for the people so that they might recover from the disaster.
In the end, the United Nations is a great international organization even though it has its faults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations
Does the world need the UN? I’m not quite sure. The United States would be all right without them, but with the constant arguments that smaller countries are continually involved in, they may very well be a necessity. It also gives the small counties a voice that they otherwise wouldn’t have. Now, this could go two ways. Either they actually do get a say in what is happening around them or its just a “somebody is listening to us so we feel important” thing. Whichever way you put it, it works.
ReplyDeleteBecause I don’t know if the UN is “good” or ‘bad”, I’ll give two opinions of each.
“good”
1) One of the main things that the UN does, as I have already pointed out, is, gives smaller countries a voice, whether significant or not. By doing this they can turn all those small voices into one very significant voice. Without that they wouldn’t get along or feel important.
2) Not only does the UN stand for would peace but they also stand for international security.
“bad”
1) Because the UN has the power to influence all of these smaller countries they also have the power to turn them against each other.
2) Because the UN has access to everyone’s business we, and everyone ells are like peaces to a board game, they can move us where they want when they want. I don’t know about you , but that makes me just a little uncomfortable.
My sorses were my dad and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations.
The United Nations. I do not know that much about the United Nations, and although I am not a huge fan of it, I believe that it has been beneficial. You can argue about bad points and aspects of the United Nations, such as the elitism view of it, that the members of the UN should be considered to have more important views and opinions; and their support of globalism. The United Nations also does often seem to have the inability to handle international conflicts.
ReplyDeleteThe United Nation does help with peace-keeping, security, and bringing nations together. Although I do not think the world would be drastically different without the United Nations, I do think that it is a good thing. The United Nation has also made progress in the field of human rights. I think that the United Nations really helps aid countries, and human assistance is one thing that it really has going for it. I think some other people have mentioned and elaborated on this topic. And finally, the United Nations is a source of social and economic development through many of its different organizations and funds. For example, one of the largest ones: the World Health Organization. Those are several reasons that the UN is good for the world.
Blake, I liked the third point you make about disasters. When a large group is in need, it either takes a strong leader to pull them out or an outside source of help. That’s where the UN comes in. They provide that extra source of resources and power to help those smaller and desperate countries. Even though this opens doors for control, they give that very much needed aid. The disaster can include a disease, hunger, and poverty. All these disasters have a major effect on the entire country and having a helping hand ready definitely is beneficial to those citizens.
ReplyDeleteDoes the world need the United Nations or similar organizations? In my mind, the answer is a clear and definite 'Yes.'
ReplyDeleteTo address several things people have said thus far that I don't neccessarily agree with:
The UN is about diplomats from countries uniting and assisting one another with not on war, but medicine, and economics. Personally, I don't believe the UN is about 'peace'. It comes from a mind set of "Hey, when the bad guys do give you trouble, they are going to get trouble from the rest of us too, because we are on the same team."
Also, I don't think that one single person or group could get control of the UN that we have. As all of us know, UN means United Nations. A nation is a group people. NATIONS means several groups of people, and UNITED means functioning as one. There can't be a single person or group of people running the UN, it would cease to be what it is if that occured.
There are serveral things that the UN accomplishes
First off, it sets limits and restrictions on things such as nuclear weapons. When left unwatched, such a thing could obviously very easily destroy an entire country at another countries whim. This is too much power to have unrestricted.
Secondly, there is safty in numbers. If groups like Al-Queda or even other opposing countries like North Korea know that if they attack a memeber of the UN they will have several of the World Powers jumping down their throats, obviously they would be more hesident to attack. Terrorism still happens, but I believe it would be much more rampent if it wasn't for the UN.
Thirdly, as Blake eluded to, in the event of a natural catastrophy, smaller countries might be crippled. Being part of an organization with other wealthy nations could prove life saving to many civilians.
To sum it up, the UN is a good regulator, protector, and offers assistence in times of trouble. Definitely a positive in my book.
In my opinion the United Nations is a good idea but in reality is a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteThe reality of the mattter is that whenever an organization is given the job of trying to keep unity and peace in the world the group will always (because of human nature) try to take all the power they can. In order for the organization to keep the power they must set regulations that basicaly take away the rights of the countries in the group.
Another reason is that the countries who are not in the group then are forced to make their own group in order to hold their own on the world stage. We all know that whenever there are two people groups in competition there will be problems.
The third and final reason can be seen in the course of history. The example that I am talking about is what happened in WW1. The original conflict was between two countries. Then because of treaties and agreements the whole world got involved. This can be compaired to the modern situation in the Middle East. The original conflict was between the United States and Iraq, but because of the U.N. other countries have gotten involved. Another thing that can be caused by this is that countries will try to twist the arm of a country that they helped. this will only cause trouble between countries and could eventualy couse more harm than good.
As we all I'm sure know, the United Nations, ON PAPER, sounds like a great idea. All nations of the world being friends, sharing wealth among one-another, helping the little nations prosper into big nations, and everyone getting along. Sounds too good to be true doesn't it? Reality check: it is too good to be true. The United Nations is not an international negotiation we need. Here are 3 reasons why.
ReplyDelete1) All 5 permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdon and the United States of America) have the same voting power, regardless of contribution of money to the UN and the contribution of troops to the UN. In the Security Council, there are 5 permanent members (stated before) and 10 non-permanent members. Of the 5 permanent members, the United States gave an overwhelming 25% of the United Nation's budget. By comparison, the United Kingdom gave 6%, France gave 6&, China gave 2%, and Russia gave less than 1%. AND THEY ALL HAVE THE POWER TO VETO RESOLUTIONS THAT CAN AFFECT THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!! I mean come on, the United States should have more of a say in the United Nations operations for the Security Council.
2) The United Nations Peacekeeping Corps has been accused of very heinous crimes in the countries they sought to bring peace too. Some of these crimes are child rape, sexual abuse and soliciting prostitutes. Think about that. Countries where there has been civil war like the Congo and Haiti, whose people have had enough hard living. And as soon as those "peacekeeping" soldiers come into town, they think,"Yeah! Finally, we will now have peace!" And then what happens? The very soldiers that were brought into these countries to protect these people begin to rape the women and children, rob stores, and cause trouble. Come on.
3) The United Nations has pushed for the disarmament of the world's superpowers. War is not something that a normal person wishes to partake in. Noone wants to send their loved ones away to a foreign land, not knowing if they'll ever see them again. It's the part of society we're the least proud of: war. But lets face it: war is necessary. Diplomatic discussions NEVER work. War is what is necessary to stop people like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein. And disarmament is not something that will help this cause. And lets face it, countries will always be making weapons. Regardless of the international regulations. Like during the Cold War for instance. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were building nuclear weapons at an incredible rate. And, of course, the UN wanted to stop this. The SALT (Strateigic Arms Limitation Treaty) Treaty between the two countries laid down the law that the two countries would immediately begin to eliminate their nuclear weapons. Both SAID that they would adhere to these guidlines, but behind the scenes, they both were still building weapons as fast as they could. And not just nuclear weapons, guns and artillery too. Trying to eliminate weapons doesn't work. THE UN DOESN'T WORK.
Sources: Wikipedia.com/UnitedNations
Hannah, I liked what you said about how the United Nations can turn smaller nations against one another. In reality, when the United Nations thinks that they are doing a country some good, they are actually harming that country, making it worse than it was before. And even making other countries hate the country receiving the so-called aid from the UN!
ReplyDeleteNice Job Hannah.
Camden, you really made a good point in talking about how the United Nations will take away power from a country they feel is too powerful. Its like the UN gets jealous of how much power this said nation has, and feels they have to take some of it away to level the playing field for the rest of the world. They can't let an extremely successful nation prosper, they have to take its wealth/power.
ReplyDeleteNice work Camden
Sam,
ReplyDeleteI loved all your strong opinions. And I agree totally with your statement about how the USA gives more money to the UN, but has the same amount of say in a matter as Russia, who hardly gives anything compared to us. We should have at least a little more power than everyone ells. I mean, honestly does this not remind you of (and I know this is going to sound so kidish) the little red hen? Its like we do all the work and everyone (who all sit and watch us do it) only want in on the “good stuff”. not only does that bother me when I see it in my everyday life, but in a large scale thing like this? Come on!
An the elimination of weapons? Like that is EVER going to happen. I can just imagine what would happen…..I won’t post what came to mind because its not very nice. J
Sam, I really like your third point. War is a necessary thing in today's world because as you said if it wasn't for war then we would have people like Hitler and Stalin ruling the world. I know that war is an extremely horrible thing and many of us don't like it because it causes many people to lose their lives, but lets face it that war has almost always been the way to stop an argument between people and just discussing the issue has never really worked. So in the end war is vital if the two people keep the conflict fair. Good essay, Sam.
ReplyDeleteCamden, I liked how you included "human nature" in one of your points. Many people don't bring the thought of human nature into view when bringing up an idea. Human nature is usually the collapse of most plans because somebody always goes against what's intended. So as you can see the UN is made up of people and therefore that is what sometimes makes the UN's plans for peace fail.
ReplyDeleteAlright, so a lot of people have posted essays saying that they think the world doesn’t need the UN. Feel free to disagree with me, but I think it does. I’m not going to type my entire essay hating on the UN when I am certain of some benefits it contributes that you may not realize.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the UN’s major role is to establish world peace. I have some examples of what the UN is doing now. In Africa, some of the countries like Somalia and West Africa are having trouble and suffering because of their central government and in recent years the Department of Political Affairs have been helping to find political solutions for these countries. Also, the UN helps with keeping armed weapons under control. Countries could be destroyed in no time at all without someone keeping an eye on that.
Also, the UN is there in times of emergencies and disasters. One thing I thought was a good thing as I was researching the UNCEF in emergencies was what they do for children in these situations. They are dedicated to providing assistance for children when disaster strikes, and are there to protect their rights and care for their health and nutrition no matter how difficult the circumstances may get. This was in the Humanitarian Affairs.
Right now the UN is also having special programs for Least Developed countries. I know I’ve already mentioned Africa but it just happens to be the most needy. Right now they are working on helping African farmers not fall into the same rut of it being neglected and contributing to the hunger problems they are facing.
Now there are some negative aspects to the UN. For one thing, there must be cautions in that one country shouldn’t become more powerful than the others. I don’t know the real motives of the people in the UN, but they seem to be a bit power-hungry. They are very liberal which would make them pro a lot of things strong conservatives disagree with. However, overall I don’t see any reason to abolish the United Nations. It could potentially be bad, but it’s mostly good. The examples I mentioned above are only a small portion of what’s taking place currently, not to mention all the United Nations have done already.
My source was the official website for the UN: http://www.un.org/en/index.shtml
“The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace.” This is the first sentence found on wiki regarding the UN. I think that the UN is a critical asset to the world in which it bring different leaders together, and instead of killing each other to settle a little dispute, they can talk it out. I know that sounds kinda sappy, but still, what greater than the price of life? So yes I do believe it is neccisary.
ReplyDeleteMy reasons for thinking this are:
1) without the UN, there would be nearly no diplomatic way of solving a problem other than fighting it out and possibly killing tons of people.
2) The UN is a place where leaders from around the world meet, and can settle their differences without bloodshed.
3) World peace will probably never happen. Even though its what every miss universe says she wants in her interview, she isn’t making that much of a difference. The UN is one step closer to achieving the nearly impossible goal of world peace.
My source was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation
sam, i thought ur essay was pretty good. however i dont agree with "Diplomatic discussions NEVER work. War is what is necessary to stop people like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein. " i do agree that is was necessary to put the people u mentioned out of high positions by force, but occasionally a diplomatic discussion will work as long as its an issue unlike the ones u mentioned. dont get me wrong, im for keeping our guns and all, but if we dont have to send loved ones away.... why do it?
ReplyDeleteanna, i thot ur essay was great too. u showed a side of the UN i didnt think about. all i was thinking was war related. but without the UN those ppl in africa would be struggling worse than they currently are. i agree with wat u said. good essay
ReplyDeleteDoes the world need the UN? In some light I think that the UN looks like a utopian prospect of world peace possible in modern society. However, if you look closer and acquire a different perspective on the image on the UN maybe you would see that it is another one of man’s idealistic ways of having a perfect world with no war or starvation.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to address the fact that in this caucus there is still rarely a consensus between nations. And though the Bible states in Proverbs 11: 14 “Where no counsel is, the people fall: But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” I believe the Bible is saying that there is safety in counselors who are in agreement with one faith, in this case Christianity.
Second, position yourself in a room filled with people from different political parties. For example, there is in this room socialist, communist, capitalist, etc. They are about to talk on the very important issue of the world economy and how it should be run. How do you think this will go? Yes they say that “You put aside the greater good of your own people to help the world” but is it possible to have a global economy that is good for all people groups? In theory, yes; In reality, no. Because the basis of our economy should have a foundation on Biblical standards “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you.” However with many religions represented there will not be a consensus and therefore no true agreement will be met by the diplomats from the various countries.
Third, where does debating get you? Does a list of important arguments go anywhere if there is no one to receive to the truth? But what is truth? Is truth not relative? At least that is the definition given by Karl Marx in the Humanist Manifesto.
In conclusion, the UN basically convenes to argue circular reasoning and therefore wasting our money and time.
Honestly the united Nations is full of talkers but not "doers". The US takes care of all military requests the UN decides on and the UN is VERY indecisive to send additional aid. So I don't believe a UN is needed. Countries should man up and deal with matters face to face instead of in a room of multiple disagreements, handle your disagreement in private. The UN should not exist for 3 reasons they are as follows: far too many disagreements and not enough decision, too indecisive in military matters, and finally far too slow to act on nations the are overly aggressive.
ReplyDeleteAs to the first question, no! The world definitely does not need the UN. The world (especially the Untied States) would be much better off if the UN did not exist. I’ll give them credit for good intentions- resolving conflicts diplomatically and safeguarding human rights- but the have never actually seemed do that. The UN has proved unable to handle any kind of international conflict even on a small scale. There are several reasons for this. The first reason I would say would be that their letters and “resolutions” are not legally binding, nor could they make them. They can make a nice little document saying the government of a certain country has to stop being so violent, but that country isn’t going to care about a little piece of paper a bunch of peace and love hippies wrote. For example, in 1993 the UN started what they called the United Nations Assistance mission for Rwanda. It was supposed to help something called the Arusha Peace Agreement and see that it be adhered to. However, the UN did nothing when the agreement was not being adhered to and militias were stockpiling weapons. Because of the UN’s inaction genocide began in Rwanda. During the genocide, the UN refused to even try to do something about it. When it ended in April 1994, upwards of a million people were killed. Another reason the UN has not worked is because they do not have a Christian basis. Our nation has lasted so long and done so well because we are founded on Christian principles. With no moral standards, the UN does not act in a moral way. For example, around 1999 UN peacekeepers were sent to the Congo to monitor a ceasefire agreement. While there, the UN peacekeepers committed horrible sex crimes against the people in the Congo. Now if this was just one pervert, I would understand, but several hundred women came forward later saying they and their daughters had been raped by the peacekeepers, sometimes at gunpoint. What did the UN do about it? They put up a nice little sign saying “It is against the UN code of conduct to visit prostitutes or have sex with anyone under 18.” Let’s just say it didn’t work. Eventually around 50 of the UN peacekeepers were charged with over 150 sex crimes including rape, pedophilia, and prostitution. Another reason the UN fails is because they don’t realize you can’t negotiate with terrorists. They don’t want to talk things out; they just want to kill you because you are a Christian. Today, the UN acts with a left-wing and usually anti-American agenda and does virtually nothing to help solve international problems. They are completely full of scandals, fraud, and an anti-American agenda. Intervene in problems between nations? I don’t think a nice little peace of paper is going to crumble any evil dictator. Safeguard human rights? So you’re saying the UN peacekeepers shouldn’t rape people? I see very little good the UN has done and a lot of bad. If it were up to me, the UN would have no funding or involvement from the United States
ReplyDeleteThe United Nation is an international organization which facilitate cooperation between 192 member states. They work to facilitate cooperation in international law,security,economical development,social progress,and human rights.
ReplyDeleteAfter World War I there was a signing of the Treaty of Versales. Out of that signing came the League of Nations. The Leagues goals included many of the ideas used by the United Nations except in baby form. On the onset of World War II Hitler showed the League had failed to prevent a future world war. Benitio Mussolini thumbed his nose at the League of Nations when repremanded. He stated "The League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good when eagles fall out." Mussolini had been terrorizing Red Cross medical tents.
After WWII the United Nations was established with a little more experience in dealing with bullies. They have expanded their influence.
The United Nations is a positive force in...
1.) Being a voice for smaller countries.
2.) Making available resources for poor countries.
3.) WHO,the World Health Organazation issues a yellow card which gives certificate of vacintation to a person that travels internationally and into areas that are higher risk factors. You place it with your passport when entering a foreign country..
When dealing with certain mechanical details the United Nations wins hands down. When dealing with foreign dictators that abuse their people they need to be more aggressive.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
Do we need the UN? Well lets look at this for a minute. The UN aim's to have world peace, an international law, international security, economic development, social progress, and human rights. All that stuff sounds awesome doesn't it? Well of course, who wouldn't want world peace? But you've got to look deeper than that. The UN is an international orginization which means that they want all countries to come together as a whole and do things as a whole. Well I see some problems with that. 1) Can you imagine Iraq and all them coming together with the U.S.? That just sounds like a big mess to me. 2) It's great that they aim for world peace but it's not possible. If you try to bring countries together that don't like each other what do you think's going to happen? They aren't going to come together. There is no world peace and there won't be. 3) Bringing all these countries and such together would be bad. Even as one nation a country is probably going to suggest something that another country isn't going to agree with and then that will most likely cause an agrument. So no, I don't think the world needs the UN.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting subject, the United Nations, because opinions on this subject differ so much. Some people are for it, some people are against it, and both sides have very strong arguments to back their opinion up. But the side I choose to stand with, is the side that disagrees with a union of nations. In my opinion it is not doing much good and it could cause a lot of problems.
ReplyDeleteA few reasons that I think make having a union ofnations is the fact that people still tend to be grouped with certain people instead of the whole organization, it should only be an organization if they are going to accomplish the goals they set for themselves, and worst of all it could lead to the rule o fthe world in the worst possible cenario. My argument about smaller gtoups forming can be compared to a school. In a school you are one united body, students of SCS for example, but you have your “cliques” also. The jocks, the smart ones, those that just want to be different, etc. This could easily occur in the UN just seperation by nations. Next they set out goals, international trade, law, and most of all world peace. Trade, they have knid of helped, but if international law was fixed, there wouldn’t be different punishments for your crime depending where you are tried, and they are obviously far from any world peace. But I think the most important reason it is not a good idea, because if all these nations are in one union, all the leaders are there, what happens if one becomes too powerful? There are no checks and balances, if one somehow gains power they could potentially take over the entire world. These are my reasons for not havin a United Nations in place.
first an formost i would like to point out that the United nations is a noble idea that seems to strive to create a perfect world. however, these high seeking goals have been the down fall of the untied nations from the very beginning. The fact of the matter is we live in a fallen world full of hatred and vilence, full of people who would gladly give their lives and the lives of those who follow them to see that we are killed and that our culture and civilization is eternaly destroyed. The first reason i would like to point out for the desolving of the united nations is the "peace keeping forces." ok when your "peace" forces go into a country and rape, burn, and destroy there is a problem. for example the congo, or guatamala. these countries were destroyed and in guatamala for example after these socalled peace keeping forces left the country the decade long civil war ceased. this brings me to my next point of coruption and conflict of intreset. this includes anything from dictators being on the humanitarian counsil to the oil for food deal in africa where thousands were displaced and many died and several leaders personally became filthy rich. lastly, the united nations is full of peolpe who if anything need their countries taken over and the peole of their nations rescued. however, the united nation was a good a noble idea in its beginning but just as the nobel peace prize has become. its a joke.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/55875/max-boot/paving-the-road-to-hell-the-failure-of-u-n-peacekeeping?page=2
biggin i think you definately point out some very good points and present another side of the argument that some of us may not see. however, if you look at it more closely i think your right about that the un needs to be more aggresive towards dictators, but this is nearly impossible when the dictators are the ones running the show. unless people who have no conflict of intrest (impossible) are put into power the un will continue to be a power that presents a good face but is hollow.
ReplyDeleteashley even though you are a fan of the WORST sports team of all time i still agree with you. i think it is important to point out reality from fairy tales. your totally correct when you say that they wont get along. as a matter of fact they cause more wars and tension then they provent. the un seeks "peace" but when, as you said, look deeper you find that the un has gapeing holes that do not allow it to co-exist with reality. awesome essay.
ReplyDeleteDoes the world need the UN? The UN funds some many different programs like: UNICEF, UNDP, and WFP. The UN, its programs and funds, and the specialized agencies comprise the "UN system". As a family of organizations, the UN performs a vast collection of duties that affect us all in countless ways. These range from the decision of the Security Council to dispatch a peacekeeping operation in response to a disagreement, to setting standards for air safety and communications compatibility; from rushing emergency supplies to victims of natural disaster, to coordinating the response to the AIDS pandemic; from helping countries to organize and conduct free and fair elections, to securing low-interest loans to develop the infrastructures of poorer countries. Ultimately, its work is about making a healthier, more stable world with better opportunities and justice for all of us. I believe we need the UN for many reasons but these are three that play a big factor
ReplyDelete• In a world plagued by conflict, the UN permits instant consultations among governments and provides the forum for dealing with long-term problems
• The UN is a means for action on major global issues, such as the environment and illegal drugs, and provides the best mechanism available to mobilize and sustain international cooperation to tackle these issues
• The UN and its agencies protect weak groups, like children, refugees, displaced persons, minorities, native people and the disabled
No organization in the world is better suited to pursue these goals, because no other possesses the UN's universality and authenticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN
ReplyDeletehttp://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=655
Sources
Biggin, I agree with you the UN helps with so many things even if they are little things it is still helping. They are a good voice for small countries and make many resources available like you stated in your response. And the yellow card which makes vaccinations available is a really good thing also.
ReplyDeleteStotts, I also agree with you the UN is a big peace keeper and with this organization no telling what all kind of disputes could have broke out, or even wars between different countries. The UN brings leaders together without killing each other I personally think that is a wonderful thing. And yes even though each Miss America wants world peace it will never happen, but like you said there is no way it will happen without the UN either.
The United Nations, officially established in 1945, began as an effort to bring nations together in an historic and visionary union of diplomacy and logic. Since then, as Mr. Akers said, the establishment has lost esteem, respect, and some feel it’s functionality. However, I feel that if it could function as it was meant, the United Nations could without a doubt accomplish much more than nations could individually.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
(1) First of all, whenever nations are compelled to share the halls and chambers of a neutral location diplomacy is much more likely to be maintained and in some cases created. In the spirit of public relations, otherwise hostile parties will create a sense of peace and cooperation simply to earn votes or to appease public displeasure.
(2) The keeping of the peace is not the only area in which a meeting of nations could benefit. Such modern social problems as world hunger, AIDS, and even much debated global warming can be investigated and solved by a global effort much more quickly and efficiently than nations working individually.
(3) Finally, whenever nations are brought together at an organization such as the United Nations, a forced accountability is created between them. Though this could technically be covered by the aforementioned peace, it covers much more. Accountability means not only diplomacy between nations, but also monitoring a nations treatment of its own people, their arms development, and such things as these.
All in all, the United Nations may seem quite ineffective, however with the right kind of leadership and guidance, it could theoretically contribute many positive effects to a very chaotic world environment.
Does the world need a UN? No, but does it help? I think so. Think about how interdependent our world’s countries’ economies are. How we need an arena for ideas to be presented, and how we need to set global standards. Our economy is extremely dependant on other countries’ economies. We need to work together for to keep a steady global economy. My next to points are very closely related. One, we need to allow ideas for all countries to be presented; and second, we need to have ideas set as standards and enforced. Countries often get help from the U.N. ; other countries also go through the U.N. for permission to declare war on other countries. This allows peaceable confrontation before problems occur. Though the U.N. does have many flaws, the most obvious one being everything they have depends on cooperation between all countries. I think the U.N. helps to an extent, but it can only do so much. The problem is people. We’ll never agree completely with every country, and that’s to be expected. So, why should we not have a U.N.? I think the U.N. does the best it can to promote world wide peace for everyone.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/Whats-new/Speeches-and-articles/Speeches-and-articles-by-political-staff/tidligere-statssekretaer-johansen/2009/isfit_un.html?id=547873
ReplyDeletesource
oh and myself
I believe there should be a United Nations. Mainly there needs to be one because im sure we have avoided many wars through the past few years. So there is one good thing. Also With the United nations More representatives can come together and resolve many situations other than war. Like trading issues and nation security issues. But there are some bad things about countries coming together as one combined unit. Eventually someone will disagree to a point that it may cause a war internally. The United Nations also deals with trading and shipping so it keeps basically in order so with out the United Nations there would be wars left and right and countries would not receive the supplies and food they need. But the they also waste a lot of money doing stuff that is not necessary at the moment... Over all i think that the United Nations is a good thing but think about it. In Revelations there is that all countries run by one person thing. So its just another one of those the end is near things. But yes. The United Nations has some flaws like any other large project. But in the end it going to happen no matter what, and for the time being it is a good thing that is doing its best to make this world a better place.
ReplyDeleteWell, in my opinion,the United Nations is a good idea. It allows representatives from each country to come together as a group, and discuss different topics, and talk about worldly issues as a whole. Without the United Nations, every country would be coming up with different ideas that not every one around them would agree with, which would probably result in pointless fighting. I think that countries need to share there ideas, in stead of just randomly doing them. I dont know why the United Nations would ever be a bad thing, i mean, were all in this together guys, if we didnt come together we wouldnt be able to discuss our issues and figure them out without war. The United Nations could be a bad idea, if two sides disagreed about something, and ended up starting a war. But we do need to keep strong relations with other countries because our economy and there economy rely on each other. we get almost all of our resources and things from other countries, so why would you want to mess it up. And we need to stay in check with other countries, to make sure there not secretly making nuclear bombs and such.
ReplyDeleteAlmost immediately after World War I the United Nations was formed. Unlike the League of Nations, which ultimately failed, The United Nations’ structure was designed to be more effective than the League. I believe that the United Nations could be more effective still but it accomplishes more than every country working on its own.
ReplyDeleteOver the course of the 65 years since the United Nations was founded, many conflicts between countries have been resolved peacefully and ended-or even prevented- war. This fact alone has replaced pointless bloodshed with a more peaceful solution to settle disagreements between countries.
Another of the United Nations most important issues is to ensure that everyone has humane rights. This includes citizens from government-controlling countries to the natives from villages that have been around for hundreds of years. The United Nations also works with the Red Cross to provide food, water, and shelter to those who are affected by a war, famine, etc.
Although this reason is quite similar to the previous one I’d still like to point it out. The United Nations has a list of “Millennium Development Goals.” It includes objectives such as: end extreme world hunger, fight the spread of HIV and AIDS, and decrease the amount of child deaths worldwide. It was signed in 2000 and all 192 countries of the UN hope to have accomplished these goals by 2015.
Hannah, I agree with you on the point that smaller countries get the opportunity to express their opinion on what is happening around them. The United Nations gives them a chance to be heard along with larger and stronger countries.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I must disagree with you on your points on the United Nations having control of the countries. Countries join the UN voluntarily, and while the countries do give up some power to the UN they retain most of it. Also the UN only uses that power when the country is doing something against the UN guidelines that the country agreed to uphold when they joined.
Overall I enjoyed your essay. Good job. =]
Sam, I strongly disagree with your point that the US should have more power in the UN than other countries who did not contribute as many assets. There is no requirement that says each country must pay “so and so” amount to the UN to remain a member. The US was not forced to give up that money; it was given voluntarily to help better the United Nations as a whole. The United Nations is all about coming together peacefully and equally to solve issues and arguments. Saying that we should have more power in the UN because we have given more money is the same as BUYING our power. That is not equality. While some countries may have been able to give more money but chose not to, others just don’t have the economic stability to donate such large amounts. Should that mean that they shouldn’t be given an equal say in an organization that is all about equality?
ReplyDeleteAshley, some of the points you made were good and you do present a good argument. You’re right that world peace is not attainable and granted, the UN is full of flaws and it could cause more conflict between some countries. However, I’d like to point out that just because world peace is impossible and the UN isn’t perfect that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to make the world a better place. If not the UN, then what? When someone can answer that question for me, then I’ll rest my case. We as Christians can’t be perfect as Christ is only perfect but we still strive to be anyway. Just some food for thought.
ReplyDeleteDavid Sams, I agree with you completely. The UN is a help in a lot of different ways. How else would each country be represented, and how else would we be able to share ideas with other countries? You brought up a good point about how our country’s economy is so dependant on other country’s economies, and we can’t live independent from other countries anymore that’s for sure. Another thing I never thought of was how the UN can be used for peaceful confrontation before trouble lets loose. I didn’t realize that some countries used the UN to declare war on other countries. Also, even though some have said the UN could cause war, what about those countries that are powerless and helpless when war strikes them? They need assistance, and the UN provides them just that. True, sad to say, not everyone is always going to agree and the UN can only do so much.
ReplyDeleteThe word “need” is defined as “something required to reach a certain goal.” Does the world absolutely need the United Nations? Well, in my opinion, no.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of an organization that works together for the common good of mankind, sounds wonderful; multiple countries working side by side with one another for world peace sounds even better. But let us step back and take a quick look at reality. The reality of the world today is, it’s bad. In fact, not only is it bad, but it’s corrupt, fallen, broken. Whatever adjectives you want to use we must realize, it’s FAR from perfect. The UN might work in a perfect world, but not here.
I as much as the next person hate war; I hate the fact there has to be war. I wish countries could all sit down and discuss problems. It would be incredible if all the Al Qaeda terrorist cells just came out and admitted defeat. Sadly, that is not going to happen. The United Nations idea of “peace treaties” or “reaching diplomatic resolutions” doesn’t work; in a fallen world, war is inevidable for protection and security of countries.
Another problem surrounding the United Nations is the idea of too much power. With great power comes great responsibility. When one man, or country has so much power doors open to “world domination.” Yes, this sounds somewhat sci-fi but it’s true.
So, yes I think the UN does stuff for the world that is good and well. Helping other smaller and weaker countries is great, but do the positives outweigh the negatives? Not really.
The United Nations is something that we usually just look at and think it’s an organization that is very big on peace. And it is. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War 2 to help keep the nations of the world from going into war. To tell you the truth I am not very familiar with the UN but it does seem like a great organization.
ReplyDeleteWorking together and helping each other is what I get off of this subject, not only does it promote peace but it stabilizes it. And it is a great opportunity to share the love of Yahweh. Look at it this way, if we were a planet with countries who have separated themselves from the rest of the world we wouldn’t have a great economic system and our opportunity to share the Lord with other countries would be slim. Also there would be great tension between countries, never knowing if they can trust the other one or what. If war aroused to the surface and it was over something little and petty then the UN would take care of it so that many lives wouldn’t be taken. I believe that the UN is a good thing. Keeping order and peace in a world where there is none.
My sources were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
& I am sorry that it was late.
Charity, your post was cool. I think that you really showed one of the major accomplishments of the United Nations, helping to keep peace and bring nations together. I liked the point you made about sharing the gospel in your post. I had never really thought of that, but i do not know much about the United Nations, anyway. I guess that if nations were more friendly and peaceful towards each other, it would create a greater oppurtunity to share the gospel with them. cool post.
ReplyDeleteRoberto, I thought your essay was very interesting. You brought up some very interesting things and points. I liked that you brought up the United Nations failure to really solve any international problems or conflicts. That is the greatest reason that I don't really agree with the UN being such a good thing. I wouldn't really say that i totally agree with your ideas, but mostly because i am not that familiar with the United Nations and its practices. great essay, though.
ReplyDeleteBgruk:
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, that was a phenomenal introduction. You had a very valid and significant point. You’re exactly right. No, we do not NEED the United Nations. We would continue to eat, sleep, breathe, and live just as the Native Americans (my ancestors) did before it. But, just as you pointed out, it does provide some nice benefits. It’s a nice addition. Kind of like Ice Cream. It tastes pretty good on its own, but chocolate shell and sprinkles make it even better…but that’s just my opinion. Somebody else may like their Ice Cream entirely different, just as someone else may have different opinions on the UN and government in general. That’s part of what make our country so great. We’re allowed to have different opinions.
Biggin:
I enjoyed your essay. It was pretty informative to me. I agree with the positive points you gave. I realize that as to the first two points you made (voice for smaller countries and resources for poor countries) that is indeed what the United Nations is supposed to do. Unfortunately, a lot of times, (not every time) the UN forgets its purpose in my opinion, and some of its leaders become corrupt and can only see dollar signs. But, I suppose that with everything there is some good and some bad.
As to your third point, that’s really good. I didn’t know that they did that. It’s a great idea for the number of people in our government ranks who have to go to “high risk” areas. That is definitely a good thing that the UN does for the protection of its people.
Can nations working together in one organization benefit the world? There are certain risks involved in a United Nations. Having a group of nations working together could open the door up to a bunch of problems. If it failed, these nations would have a great influence on each other, causing them to pick sides which could possible lead to another world war. Also the relationship between the nations could influence globalization, and could lead for a one world economy and eventually a one world government. One nation could be powerful, imagine how powerful a group of nations would be. What if the nations in the group all wanted power, they would fight each other for power. One good thing that a united nations would bring is an attempt for peace. However I do not see peace ever coming because everyone wants to benefit themselves. Would not the larger nations take advantage of the smaller nations to benifite themselves. I doubt that it is even possible to have nations work together like this. War has always gone on. The United Nations was an attempt to stop this but it has only allowed allies to fight in other people’s war. If people would only mind their own business World War one would have never have started. Russia should have just waited and made friends with the winner.
ReplyDeleteSorry I was late. It completly missed my mind. Probably because of the break and missing friday.
ReplyDeleteDoes the world need the United Nations (UN)?there have been a lot of debates on this subject. However I think that that the world does not need them. Because in my opinion they are petty useless.
ReplyDeleteone reason I believe this is because there is still a lot o f people who will hate each other no matter how much they talk about their problems. There are counties out there that have been fighting over their borders for centuries. Take for example England and Scotland. I have been to both countries and have seen how much these two hate each other. England used to have a law that stated it was LEGAL to kill a scot as long as you did it with a bow and arrow. That is he kind of hate that you cant just talk away. another reason why I don’t approve of having the united nations is the rest of their goals. They set out for international trade, law, and world peace. Trade, I don’t really have a problem with but law I do have a problem with. With this everyone would be punished the same for every crime. These are my reasons for not havin a United Nations in place.
Wikipidea.com
shley i strongly still agree with what you. i think it is important to see through lies and focus on the reality of the situation. your exactly right when u said they wouldnt get long. The seem to start more fights and wars that they have solved wich brings me back to my point that they r totally useless. the un wants world peace but if you look closely u will see that they cant even bring peace in their own room yet alnoe the whole world.just like you said, “look deeper you find that the un has gapeing holes that do not allow it to co-exist with reality. A truly great essay
ReplyDeleteMaxwell, when you give examples on how the UN could work better than individual nations, the key word you used is “could.” For instance you said “…then the UN could step in…” If you are telling us ways a union of nations can work better than independent nations, I agree with your examples. An organization of nations definitely could do the three things you mentioned. But if you are saying the UN specifically has or will do things like that, they really don’t. Whenever the UN tries to step in, they only make the problem worse. They never do practical things like those you mentioned. I disagree with you when you say the UN is very important and say it is a great organization.
ReplyDeleteCamden, I really liked how you included human nature as one of your points. Many people don't realize that it is human nature to fight and to crave more than what they already have. That is why the united nations are a lost cause. You cant prevent human nature. No one is perfect. And we will always want more. Human nature has been the down fall of many great civilizations. So since the united nations is made up of people they will always fail.
ReplyDeleteGuffey: in reality, very few if any conflicts have been resolved peacefully due to the UN. They really have not replaced “pointless bloodsheds” with more peaceful solutions. For example, when they tried to intervene in the conflict in Rwanda, violence and bloodshed broke out and the UN refused to even try to do something about it. When UN peacekeepers were sent into the Congo, they not only did the peacekeepers commit horrible sex crimes against the people in the Congo, but civil war broke out there too. And of course, the UN did nothing to stop it. The next thing I would like to address is that you said is that they ensure everyone has human rights. Human rights, like the ones they violated in the Congo and Romania when the peacekeepers committed all those sex crimes against the people they were supposed to keep the peace with? And even with resolutions they make to supposedly ensure human rights, they never seem to work.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
ReplyDeleteI like your thought that outside hands can step in to help solve problems. I agree that people don't realize the branches of the U.N.
When the Tsunami hit Mylasia, the United Nations was able to step in and help with aid to every country. Children are able to get their vacines and bring up the standard of living to help them live longer.
Food is a problem in many countries. Children can not develop their brains or bodies. The United Nations is able see that they get food.
Zach,
ReplyDeleteI liked your information concerning the United Nations. you called it a "family of organizations." I think of the Security Council that dispatches the peace keepers to their spot. I also think about the people that report on elections in foreign countries. They help expose corruption in the political arena. If they were not there the story would not be told.
I love the thought of the world being smaller and more interactive with people in the U.N. being there to help. They would be able to report on elections with some of the corruption being uncovered.
Maxwell, you had a good essay. It was a good idea to list all that the UN does at the beginning of your essay.
ReplyDeleteI believe that what you said about the UN is true, they do a lot of good work for the world at large. And though they do have their faults they help a lot of people out by pooling resources and doing what’s right when a country may not be in the physical/economical state to help themselves.
Ashley, good essay. I agree that when you think about what the UN is trying to do it seems preposterous. Because there are so many nations in the world that hate each other; and even though we are called a humanitarian country it doesn’t mean that we don’t have enemies. World peace is a delightful idea but when put into the real world you face more problems than what you calculated on paper. But all in all it does stand for help to those who can’t help themselves (in a sense).
ReplyDeleteJonathon in response to your comment on my post:
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you liked the essay, its the best i could have done considering that it was the first time i even looked upon the matter of The United Nations. I knew it was there, but i never studied it or took a liking to it. But i do think that it is a good way to share God with people. Even with people being nicer and stuff and having that much more of an opportunity to have to share the gospel. Even though we have that, it gives people opportunity to get into other countrys to "work" with the United Nations. While there "working" they can be preaching and sharing the love of our Heavenly Father.
the need for an effective organization of nations in which effective joint action against common dangers can be discussed, agreed and carried out is evident, in my personal opinion. The worst of these problems being nuclear weapons, international terrorism, climate change and other environmental threats like the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina and, the problem of poverty. Wether or not that can be accomplished by the U.N., I am not the correct person to ask, I think that they could do more, but that they are accomplishing things that an individual nation could not on its own.
ReplyDeleteThe U.N. is often called ineffective and unnecessary, but that, I think, is because the UN is a behind the scenes organization, geared more at prevention than repair. They effectively prevent wars, as far as I know. They also aid in repairing the aftermath of environmental disasters, and they are a major diplomatic tool for all countries
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletestotts:
ReplyDeleteI really liked your essay. But more so your comments than essay. I liked how you stated that while sometimes war may be necessary, sometimes conflict can be resolved diplomatically. While I am a right-winged-minded by nature and upbringing, it is important that we do remember war does have a cost. Not only does it take billions of taxpayers dollars, but it takes lives of American soldiers. So, if for no other reason but those, it is good to avoid war when at all possible. But don't get me wrong, passive-ism isn't the key to world peace
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnna,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your essay. You were one of the first to bring out the organizations that the UN founded that are beneficial for other countries in poverty. I, for one, did not immediately think of operations like UNICEF when the topic of the United Nations was brought up. So yeah, kudos.
I liked what pope02 said. The United Nations is founded on good intentions. However, basic human nature prevents these good ideas from become good acts. Instead they become more corrupt and will only benefit the people who enact it. It is impossible that we can keep peace in the entire world. Before 9/11 we felt that everything in the world was peacfull; until someone flew a highjacked plan into a building. Shouldn’t the UN have prevented that? This war has lasted more than seven years. The UN should have made peace by now.
ReplyDeleteI liked what biggen said. I don’t feel like the United Nations is very effective when dealing with issues that have occurred. For example, the UN is not as effective stopping a war than preventing a war. There was no way to have prevented the war on terror because no one had any idea that they were going to fly a plane into a building. The UN has failed to have stopped the war on terror.
ReplyDeleteHannah, good job on your essay. I really liked that how you pointed out both sides, as you said, the good and bad sides of the UN. I agree with what you said in the first one under the "bad". They do , as you said, have the power to influence the smaller countries and turn them against each other. Thats kinda scary to think about. Yes, the UN does have some good qualities, again as you said, they give smaller countries a voice and such. And again, great essay Hannah!
ReplyDeleteDoes the world need the united nations? Well honestly Im not sure exactly how to answer this. Although I lean more towards thinking we do not NEED the united nations. Sure they have done some good things and they mean good and have good ideas but have they really helped us as a nation?
ReplyDeleteSome of the reasons that we do not need the united nations are as follows:
1) The united nations doesn't really have the power to force peace between nations. Most natons only see them like "all bark and no bite" meaning they will keep saying stop, stop, stop and threaten them but never really so anything. Therefore what the united nations says tends to go in one ear and out the other.
2)How can you bring all these dif nation with dif beliefs and expect them to agree on all decisions? It becomes a stumbling block for them to be able to get things done and accomplished when they can not agree on what the solution is.
3)The lasi issue I see is that they can get something unneccesary started such as to begin with only a few countries may be involved in something but then the united nations gets more and more countries involved and turn it into something way bigger than ever needed.
Ok well these are three things that I see that are bad about the united nations however I do think that they have been beneficial. Yet even though they have been beneficial they are not needed and cause some problems and issues.
xalo, I really liked your essay. I'm with you those things, as you said, do sounds great great but world peace is impossible. I also liked that you put some of the good things that the UN can bring but I still think that the wolrd does not need the UN. Sure, they have somegood stuff about them but also some not so great things. It'd be, and forgive me if I offend anybody, but it'd be stupid to join just because of the nice things you've heard about it. We have to look at the bad qualities of it. It's like buying something in a way, you look at reviews to see if it's a good product and there's a few good reviews but there's also a few bad reviews on it. After reading the bad reviews I wouldn't buy the item. I wouldn't want to risk buying something that would break or is just not good quality and waisting my money on it. But thats just my opinion. Great essay xalo!
ReplyDeleteChris, I don’t want to sound like one of those “change the world” people. But we all know that the only way that we can have world peace is through Jesus Christ. Yes. The UN could be a very good start on world peace, but don’t hold me to that.
ReplyDeleteWith the way that our government is getting I find that we, as people and as a nation, need God more and more. I’m not saying that we should go out on the nearest street corner and hit people over the head with the bible but it could come to that.
My sister was watching something on TV the other day that said that the world could have peace if we all just acted like one big family. YEAH, OK. If the world acted my family (not saying that we are always like this) we wouldn’t get very far. Well, come to think of it, all the girls would do the talking and the guys would have to sit there and listen to the girls disagree with each other (very loudly disagree).
Kezia, I like how added in your essay Proverbs 11:14 “Where no counsel is, the people fall: But in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” I agree that this is those who are in agreement with one faith, Christianity. I do not think that any nation that is not based on christianity can ultimately prosper and and therefore have safety and peace within. God said “He will bless the nation whose God is the Lord.” This just goes to show that if you want to be blessed you have to make God the Lord.
ReplyDeleteRoberto, I like your essay and how you gave distinct instances to support you answers. I especially like how you pointed out that our nation had done well without the united nations because we were based on christian principles. You are right that without morals how can the united nations have morals without christian principles. Many of the nations in the UN are not christian nations so what kind of principles do they have. Probably not that great so we can not expect there decisions to be based on was is truly right and the best decision.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not think the world needs the United Nations. Need is strong word. It is something we could survive without. I know they work towards peace, but I do not think they have accomplished much. The best thing they talk about is to deal with humanitarian efforts, but I do not believe the UN even deals with them. The UN could be so much more than it is if they actually walk the walk instead of just talk the talk. Instead of really dealing with important issues, they just talk about the important issues and waste money on frivolous efforts.
ReplyDelete1) I think that the United Nations is many times a waste of a lot of money. For example, in 2004, money from the UN’s oil-for-food program helped pay the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Also, according to an investigation by US federal agents, two United Nations agencies once spent millions of US money on shoddy, substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of collapse. I do not think that is a good, logical use of our money.
2) I also think an organization of nations is a bad idea because they are too easy on aggressive countries.
3) It goes with my first paragraph, but my third reason is that the UN has not had much of a positive impact because they are indecisive on how to actually deal with the problems.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack/un_money_funded_suiced_bombers.LogIn.html
I can’t remember or find the other cite I used.
Ashley,
ReplyDeleteI like your essay. You touch on many points that I have in my head, and for whatever reason can't get out into words. I'm really just repeating myself, but the idea of "world peace" is impossible. It's wonderful, but impossible. Anyways, I enjoyed your essay, along with Sam's and Pope's and many other people. Both sides do have good arguments, but I really think in this situation you have to take all the pro's and con's, line them up, and make your decision. Mine is: the UN is not neccessary or, right now, all that great.
Mr. Akers..
ReplyDeleteI really didn't use sources, just what I already knew or had heard on the news or had read in some book and formed an opionon from. I'm sorry it was late. Honestly, I just completely forgot due to the snow day. Ya, anyways, there ya are.
Your essay was very good, Robbie. You effectively and impressively expressed why you believed that way about the UN. You gave great examples to back it up. I already agreed with you that the UN is pathetic, but I had never heard of the sex crimes in the Congo. That is pretty disturbing. It just makes my view of the United Nations keep going downhill. If it were up to me, I would also end all funding and involvement of the US in the UN.
ReplyDeleteGuffey, I do not agree with you about this topic. I personally think that the United Nations has done little, if not nothing, to avoid “pointless bloodshed.” Take for example the genocide in Rwanda. Somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people died. In that situation, the UN ignored warnings and failed to create any sort of peace, allowing pointless bloodshed. At the rate the UN is going, those objectives you said they have will definitely not be accomplished by 2015.
ReplyDeleteMadyson, i want to comment on what you posted to the people who think that the United Nations is good and effective. I think that what you said was very interesting, it had a lot of good points. Like what you said:
ReplyDelete"Our nation's government operates uniquely, in that decisions are reached through debate and rational discussion in courts, Congress, etc. This works (for the time being) because (at the moment) we are a "free" country and our government is set up in the form of a democracy (as of right now.) Sadly, the rest of the world is not set up this way."
We ARE a very unique country. Lets say were one body, which we are, but figuratively speaking. Our brain is vast and disiseds things differently, very uniquely. Like different ways to work math problems. But you know what God has an eye on us which provides us with those outcomes. We are a very blessed nation, even though MANY want to take "God Bless America" out of the pledge and prayer out of schools and work places.
Jbyrd, I agree with you completely. The U.N. is not that important but it is beneficial. Even though the U.N. does have very large flaws it’s very helpful, like you said, in the field of human rights. They have helped many countries and people groups. You also pointed out the World Health Organization (WHO), which helps millions of people. During preparation for KUNA we’ve, in the past, studied the WHO. That organization does so much for countries, if a proposal is passed. That’s something, the U.N. you didn’t mention. The U.N. allows countries to present problems within their borders. Good essay, Jon, you brought up some good stuff.
ReplyDeleteAshley, you have good ideas but there are some things I want you to think about. The U.N. forces no one to join. It brings together countries that want to. Sure not all countries in the U.N. are cooperative with each other but they most try. Points one, two, and three of your essay were the same point. And number one was just an example of number two. Also, countries are going to suggest thing that others don’t agree with, but there will be debate and vote. It’s the same as a law we don’t like here in the U.S. being passed. I’m sorry if I came off rude, Ashley, I wasn’t trying to be.
Xalo,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your essay. You hit some good points and explained them very well. My main focus was your paragraph stating the things that the UN can do better than individual nations. I agree with one point and I disagree with the other. I agree that information gets relayed quicker this way, but the idea of help in times of war, I disagree with. What happens when the countries declare war on one another? Then the UN splits.
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteYour essay was very well writen and had some great information in it. I extremely like the point you made about the different countries coming together and agreeing with one another. Most countries all have different beliefs and cultures. Asking them to all come together and agree on anything is almost impossible. Your other point about the power of the UN I never thought about. But it seems apparent that is does go in one ear and out the other.
Do we need the United Nations? In my oppinion, yes. I think almost every issue that takes place inside our nations borders makes some sort of global impact and requires global awareness--our economic crisis for example--however, I also understand that the UN isn't perfect (i.e. the diplomatic immunity). Thanks Yahoo! Answers for the diplomatic immunity thing.
ReplyDeleteI do believe, however, that some sort of national political system is a good thing. The U.N does give the citizens of each country something to look up to and canfide in the fact that something will be done. (Though that's sometimes not the case.)
I would like to end with my most important point. I have heard a lot of people talk about how they don't like the U.N., and sometimes they have valid arguments to feel so, but here's my opinion: We have a really warped perspective. Living in America, a blessed country, we may not need the UN, but others do. The less politically stable nations that have Hezbillah or others ruling them, do need help. Look at this system from their eyes and perhaps you'll se a need for outreach.
Madyson, I like your opinion and I quite cunderstand where you're coming from especially with the terrorist thing, but I also must say that the UN does accomplish some things. Without some sort of entity that distributes communication glabally, we couldn't handle issues that do affect us globally. For instance, global warming, (unpopular, I know, but I'm using it) doesn't affect just the United States, it affects the globe, the entire earth, every country. The UN can be affective in a situation like that, where ever country can come and talk about to handle this situation, because they're all part of the solution, and it's affecting them all. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHannah, I liked your essay, good points. You did an accurate job at displaying both sides of the argument. I really like what you said about giving the smaller countries a voice in global issues. That's a good point. Like I said in my essay, we do have a warped perspective because our country may not need the UN that badle, but other countries really do--the smaller ones. Good job
ReplyDeleteThe UN as we know has become corrupt, in fact I'm looking foward to it's removal. Like most ideas, it started off with good intentions but is on it's death bed of American support. It's DRAINING the American's tax pocket. Most of the money is wasted on getting the people to the stupid meetings they have in the place. Not to mention this but, how would it make you feel if you were starving and the richest countries came together and spent over one billion dollars on a BUILDING. Wouldn't you think that money would do well to feed you and your friends? Just a thought. Yes, a noble IDEA. Sometimes they don't transfer too well in the real world.
ReplyDeleteDoes the world need the United Nations? Well some may disagree but i belive that no the wEED" the United nations. Maybe in some ways it has been helpful but inthe end it is certailny not a necessity to the world. I believe the world function just fine without the United Nations.
ReplyDeleteMy three resons:
1.) Well for one the United Nations is a bunch of countries that are working together for world peace. Which is pretty much impossible so why do we spend money and time on something that we do not need. It takes time and money and in many way is just a waste of intelligence somewhere when we could be using it else where along with the money and the time of our leaders.
2.) If sitting down and talking over our disputes and problems with everyone else really worked like the united nations is suppsed to then we would have no war. But not all of our problems can be worked out that way because this is a corrupt world and people are selfish and greedy. So as a result of our sinful nature war is inevitable. so again its a waste of money time resources and people an so on because when someone wants to go to war with someone else they are gonna go ahead an declare war on them.
3.) My third reason to believe that the united nations is not needed is...It can be biased towards the more powerful countries. Or certain ones anyhow like the ones with the most influence. And in the end more countries and powers are dragged into something that could be a small disagreement that could be solved with a small quick war or something as such. So in the end they sometimes make it bigger than needed.