With reference to U.S action against Iraq,has the U.N become ineffective in controlling wars?
1 2 3
The fact that the topic contains "become ineffective" begs the question "was it ever EFFECTIVE"?
I do agree with Mike, however, attention should be paid to fact that UN has always been dependent only a few countries, therefore those few countries can go against the wish of UN or dictate its terms .
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
First let me ask you a question: Have you ever made a deal or a bet with someone only to find out they had their fingers crossed? Unless all parties are genuinely honest, this concept of the UN will never work. It is simply a vehicle for more political corruption and chaos. As far as controlling wars, no one can control a war realisticly.
"No one can control a war realistically."

Yes, this is true, but the UN is inept because it has failed to prevent wars -- and not to control them. WWII ensued because the League of Nations procrastinated when Mussollini invaded Africa and when Hitler marched into the Rhineland. Member governments of the UN are indecisive when it comes to preventive action because of their publics' aversion to a national defensive stance -- and governments only rule by the will of the people.
It becomes increasingly dangerous if there is no balance of power. One nation could hold the world to ransom. However ineffective so far, a U N or something similar is vital unless we want a free for all. There are emerging powerful nations.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
the UN never really was effective at controlling war. Infact i can not think of one time in history when it has ever done so. the UN is also not effective in controlling belligerent nations. it could not agree to do anything in yugoslavia back a few years ago or in sudan right now. while they are good at providing food and medicine and other aid to places in need, they do little for keeping peace. this is becuase they do not have an inforcment power. perhaps if they had a navy with 1000 ships and an army of 100000 tanks then nations would tkae it more seriously. as it stands now it depends soley on other nations for enforcment (mostly USA). but whether it should have enforcement power or not is another debate.
The UN is designed to be effective in controlling inter-state wars. In the nineties, there was a tendency towards intra-state wars, such as the emergence of conflicts in Sudan, the Balkan states, etc. Apart from practical aid, little else is done to keep peace because the UN may not intervene in the internal affairs of a state -- it is expressly forbidden by international law.
As it is lacking an army, a navy, an airforce, and any arms whatsoever, it must rely on on peaceful measures as it's only means to control war. If someone told me not to do something, but they had no force to back that statement, and I had my mind set on doing it, then I would ignore them as well.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more