Mr44 posted:Very true. Which is why one could probably separate the UN organization from the UNSC. It has something to do with the differences between conflict avoidance and conflict resolution, but it doesn't mean the overall organization is broken beyond repair. If one focuses on slices of the UN umbrella like UNESCO, UNIDO, and the WHO, the United Nations doesn't look half bad. When it comes to doing anything remotely decisive though, the UNSC probably wouldn't be able to find its own head to bury in the sand.
DarthMatter posted:Sure there are some issues and corruption, but look who's talking - the US is possibly the most corrupted, compromised nation in history, who are we to point fingers?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Or are you using some strange definition of "corrupted" and "compromised" with which I am unfamiliar?
Lowbacca_1977 posted:...Contradicting that isn't saying that there's no corruption, just that the claim of most corrupt in history is overblown.
Lowbacca_1977 posted:I don't think the U.S. really qualifies as an empire. World power, yes. Imperalist, yes. But not an empire as such as while it has wide ranging influence, it doesn't have territorial control.
DarthMatter posted:Lowbacca_1977 posted:...Contradicting that isn't saying that there's no corruption, just that the claim of most corrupt in history is overblown.No, the contradiction would be to prove "NOT possibly the most....". Plus, there was the question of being "compromised", which as the person who made it, I'll define loosely as how "sold out to the man" we are, or better, how we settle for lower standards from ourselves. But the phrase wasn't even the main claim, nor is the main claim dependent on it, so you'd have to demonstrate that "NOT possibly more corrupt and compromised" disproves that it's the US, not the UN, which is the "problem" in how the UN is viewed in the US. Before you're done, you also have to show that this would not affect the current functioning of the UN, and beyond that, you need to show the UN isn't doing great work all over the world and also will not become more important in the future. Good luck with all that Oh, and nice graph, but by their definition, it is "as seen by business people and country analysts", not to mention the commentary, which exposes bias in the rankings. Fun with Modal and Metalogic
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Excuse me, but what? I think you really need to go back and reread your history. Even today, there are far more corrupted and compromised nations in the world. Go look at Russia, for just one example. Or are you using some strange definition of "corrupted" and "compromised" with which I am unfamiliar?
DarthMatter posted:Lowbacca, am I allowed to express an opinion here, or not? You're so set on disagreeing with me, I probably couldn't even tell you what year it is without you arguing with it and casting aspersion (you'll probably quote this last sentence and argue with it just to prove my point, right?). So, let's illustrate the obvious to you by quoting one of your earlier posts:Lowbacca_1977 posted:I don't think the U.S. really qualifies as an empire. World power, yes. Imperalist, yes. But not an empire as such as while it has wide ranging influence, it doesn't have territorial control.Okay, then, prove it. I want to see links showing this claim is true or else I'll shoot peas at you from the sidelines as you do me
yuna_kenobi posted:i'm sorry DarthMatter but i obviously must be too dim to understand your arguement...DM i must say you are blatantly uninformed. this nation doesn't have territorial control (and this i can prove) because state governments choose laws in the interest of x territory \ my proof: guns are still legal in 43 states (everyone in washington would be rid of the things but they're still there)
dizfactor posted:Now, we could get into a conversation about the ways in which the US has historically tolerated or even fostered the growth of such corruption in some countries it's meddled in, but that's a different conversation.
