Is the United Nations a Failed Organization?

The question we all ask ourselves before we go to sleep is this: is the United Nations a failed organization?
Let's take into account how the UN works, how it failed in the past and how the 5 permanent members hinder each other every time a conflict occurs.
Sources (unfortunately almost all in Italian, but you can translate them with Google, if you need):
www.miur.gov.i...
www.ilpost.it/...
www.rivistaaic...
www.archiviodi...
research.un.or...
www.agi.it/est...
www.news9live....
www.vox.com/pl...
www.vox.com/pl...

[@grantforester1864]

Pro: The UN can’t do anything Con: The UN can’t do anything

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

the UN and "human rights " are all based on subjective morality and they can not prove their stand at all. therefore all their intervenes weather it's " humane" or not can't be proven morally and they can't prove that's "terrorism" is good or bad. The UN is highly western based and most of world countries from Asia to Africa to eastern Europe to south America refuse LGBTQ refuse feminism refuses the banking system refuses the modern slavery ( salve wage ) refuses western subjective vales ,but yet they push it on all of us. using utilitarianism then the west shouldn't be pushing their values on the majority and the majority can take down the west. that's why in political science there's a famous quote " the liberal global order is neither liberal nor global " ( meaning only western based and other countries don't anticipate on it or they will be sanctioned and fought by the west ). also, this is by definition slavery because they tell us what to do and if we refuse, they punish us , starve us or kill us and we have to follow them when they are the minority. so utilitarianism doesn't work and they are enslaving us. what am trying to say is this system is belt on hypocrisy and when Objective moral people start to realize than they will take action and subjectisim will have no answer when the objective moral people start action and they can't say it's " good or bad ". even if objective moral people did wrong the subjective people can't prove it's wrong since it's all subjective. even so atheist can't prove what's good or bad in all topics other than morality. for example, an atheist says to someone you are Bac-kward and that someone says is being Back- ward good or bad ? here they can't really answer. they can't prove being whatever is good or bad. and so on and so on. what am literally saying now will change the world perception and the moral people will take action. it's inevitable. one thing else if they don't have the concept of good or bad of any subject other than morality that means it has no value ( worthless ). for example, asking an atheist is science good or bad ? if he/she did reply with good and bad they can't prove it therefore, it's subjective and has no value at all since they don't have the concept of Good and bad. therefore, all their " facts" ( which are hypothesis not facts ) are worthless if it has no value ( good and bad ). they can't detect which is fact and not if they don't hold on any value and even if they did they can't prove it since it's subjective. We live in a world that ran by subjective people who can't prove their value or the value of anything and can't prove even their subjectivsim and it's value! Yet they have the audacity to tell us what's good or bad and what's valuable and not and what's true and not. also brain is nothing but an organ according to their world view which means they cannot base anything on it and it's all chemical reactions which delude itself on having meaning when there's non which means all their claims as their existence worthless meaningless and untrue. which means they argue for nothing.....

[@dagon99]

@@ahmadfrhan5265 so they're useless hypocritices who lack any principles?

[@MegrelMamba]

​@@ahmadfrhan5265 What about people who despise child marriages, forced marriages, and forced deadly circumcision? I think not supporting traditions like this is good, but on the other hand forcing countries to adapt to pro-choice and LGBTQ agenda is horrible.

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

@@MegrelMamba in Islam there's no force marriages that's not Islam and any girl who hit puprity can get married. my grandfather got married when he was 13 and had a beautiful family. that's 2 generation ago. why is this bad thing ? is your morality objectively true or subjectively true? also, circumcision is not " deadly" when you said all of this, It's literally nail on the coffin that you will never be consistent and honest and would never talk facts just accusations and attacks. Proud of being t e rr o rist 🏴🇹🇷🏳☝🏼against your de ge ne r a t imperialism and your l0w r ce

[@sonicmeerkat]

@@MegrelMamba why is prochoice and lgbt bad? abortion is tied to right over ones body and in many cases both the child and perant will die due to complications or just being too poor to support the two, and lgbt is literally just a civil rights movement like that of women and minorities.

[@titan_fx]

"The world cannot be at peace, if the big five are not at peace" Enough said.

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

UK & France aren't big anymore though. EU should get a seat instead and India I guess

[@aediasnaini4918]

Erdogan said the world is not just only five

[@BroadwayRonMexico]

My favorite quote about the UN is from an old Simpsons episode "Do you kids want to be like the *real* UN or do you just want to squabble and waste time?"

[@Monkechnology]

15:27 Thanks God we're on the most sensible timeline and the Western members of the UNSC (you know, the ones in the "right side of history") only bombed Lybia into the middle ages because of reasons instead of enduring a monologue. Disclaimer: Yes, it's sarcasm

[@davesprivatelounge]

If we are going to prosecute war crimes, it needs to begin with the US. Edit: inb4 Hague invasion act

[@Karthagast]

"the right side of history" LOL. It is no surprise, they invented that expression... for themselves. I'm loving your sarcasm.

[@am72678]

yea but at the same time Russia blocked almost every resolution/trade barrier that could have been kept on syria so. All of them j want to fulfil their political agenda over "global peace"

[@thefrog6065]

If Russia was suspended from UN, then China would probably reconsider its position in the organization. The big five has already been uneven in terms of the number of eastern and western powers. Without Russia, there would be even more abuses of the system as the US could conveniently pass anything it wants just as during the Korean War. I don't see much meaning of staying in an international organization that lacks the representation of all. It's like a democracy without opposing parties, albeit China and Russia aren't that much of a democracy.

[@shadowlord1418]

You are right the un is not here to stop war its here to stop ww3

[@godfather7339]

The US voting system doesn't even select leaders the people want. I would argue that china is much more democratic than the US because the structure itself can change while the US has not adopted better voting systems tha were present 100 years ago. Repeating what I said, I feel china has a much more democratic system because it will change for the good like USSR did with its one party system, they did adopt very good voting systems that actually did what people wanted. When the Soviet union fell, 70% of people in the union wanted the system to stay, and wanted communism to stay.

[@shadowlord1418]

@@godfather7339 the people love their overlords right

[@Snocone333]

is this Godfather what a propaganda bot looks like? Surprisingly well spoken nonsense!

[@godfather7339]

@@Snocone333 I see none of you provide any arguments, even worse I see an emoji. Have any of you ever been to China?

[@MrLeemurman]

Most resolutions vetoed by the U.S. involve condemning Israeli aggression against Palestine and it's neighbors, including the first one they ever did by themselves.

[@vokajor9043]

Last time I checked Israel was threatened with annihilation by it's neighbors the moment it was born again.

[@godfather7339]

Because the US at its core is very apartheid, remember why Japan joined WW2 axis. The us didn't accept that people from different races were same.

[@godfather7339]

@@OttomanSultana why were Japanese becoming nationalists? Why did they feel alienated? Also you didn't tell me why the US didn't accept Japan's proposition to consider people from all races equal? Is it because even today the US is an apartheid state?

[@ryanmarlin2974]

Well yes, that's the US (and honestly the entire west) for you, hypocrisy and a false moral superiority.

[@STEP107]

@@godfather7339 Ah yes the Apartide state where asians and indians make on average significantly more than white people and we had a black president. Do you even know what an apartheid state is?

[@عضني]

Loved this video! The presentation is splendid and he did a great job of explaining everything! I really learned a lot so keep at it man you're changing lives and views

[@Dio_Brando76767]

US commits war crime* UN: It's okay we all make mistakes.

[@kristiandobias5533]

So true

[@FirstnameSurname738]

Russia: commits war crime* UN: It's okay we all make mistakes.

[@DarkJusn2020]

Absolutely anything* UN: It's okay we all make mistakes.

[@josem588]

Is weird seeing Americans complaining that the UN don’t works when they are the ones that benefit from its flaws in the security council.

[@GaionSputro]

See? So whats the point to un still exist?

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

The core problem with the UN is that it is based around trying to enforce morality 😇 rather than growing institutions and methodology to actually make anyone genuinely like each other.

[@memezoffuckery3207]

I agree, genocide is *based*

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

@@memezoffuckery3207 Genocide is as inevitable in this world 🌍 as rain 🌧.

[@Disgruntled_Canadian]

I think you meant to say ‘force immorality’

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

It *is* forcing their morality 😇. Just very violently and to no good end. @@Disgruntled_Canadian

[@businessmanbrute2211]

I agree, dictators are great for economic development.

[@thekingminn]

As a Burmese, I would say yes.

[@wush7985]

It's your government who failed not UN blaming others for your own problems eh? Who embrace Military junta before it's your own people.

[@emilsinclair9945]

We’re really talking about kicking Russia out of the security council? That worked really good with the league of nations a hundred years ago. I wonder how that turned out

[@robtoe10]

That's why DOTA's better than LoL lol

[@theentity5201]

League of nations you nitwit!

[@chtholly8084]

The League of Legend? Bruh, stay off the doobies

[@Aww-Geez]

You know they cant be kicked out of the security council right? They left the human rights council on their own....they are making their own choices regarding being involved in the UN.

[@Pantsinabucket]

People didn’t get kicked out of the League of Nations, they voluntarily exited. The USSR was never a part of it.

[@abir2019]

and these five permanent members are also the five largest arms producers in the world

[@JamesDB2]

Lord of War, great movie!

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

The UK has been surpassed since Brexit (by Italy & Germany)

[@GaionSputro]

This reason way they been called _"permanent"_

[@rejvaik00]

I would say the General Assembly of the UN is pointless But the Security Council is not, it's probably the only instrument of the UN that can actually do _something_

[@ВукВуксановић]

Yeah turn blind eye to all misconduct of united states and it's nato allies and rally them against everyone else for every minor thing

[@rejvaik00]

@@ВукВуксановић that's geopolitics for you there is no morality in geopolitics there's only national interests and capabilities the sooner you realize this the easier it will be for you to understand how every nation acts both when they being capriciously and courteously

[@ВукВуксановић]

@@rejvaik00 i realize that very well, that's why I call them useless

[@alis2638]

security council is a joke as well, Nations with the veto (USA, China, Russia, France and UK) can hold off any subject which doesn't suit their plans. USA defends israel with VETO since their existence + the iraq and libya war. France and UK same with their influence in old colonies like africa. China with Uygur camps and Russia with their ongoing war. The whole council is corrupt, be friend with them and they will Veto every shit against you and you can not be in the wrong.

[@rejvaik00]

@@alis2638 hence the italicized _something_ used in the previous comment lol

[@shadowsamurai4074]

DEFENATLY And this would be the second time Its brother also failed before WW2

[@aubreylear]

now do one on whether the international criminal court is a failed organization

[@aestheticjedi1868]

It is, since most of the superpowers ignored it or left the org entirety while they demand 3rd world countries to go to the ICC for their crimes.

[@tjenadonn6158]

The fact that there are living US Presidents not named Jimmy Carter who are walking as free men shows that to be true more than any video ever could. In a just world Bush and Obama would be cellmates.

[@wush7985]

Those countries who have the largest economy and military who left embrace imperialism.

[@tomosprice8136]

The only way to make the security council work would be to have more permanent members (e.g India, Germany/EU, Brazil, South Africa, Japan etc.) And to do away with the veto (i.e. only a majority would be needed to pass a resolution). Unfortunately none of the current members would ever accept any of these reforms.

[@LuckyPigeon1111]

_More_ permanent members? Shouldn't there be _no_ permanent members?

[@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022]

@@LuckyPigeon1111 If you're speaking in terms of purely representation, yes, but reality doesn't work like that. The big powers don't like to be relegated to "just another state" level of status and you CAN NOT have a productive international organization if the big powers aren't in on it.

[@LuckyPigeon1111]

@@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 so what do you think we should do instead? Is OP correct, or do you have something else in mind?

[@anzarm.a8547]

What about persia. Just take history and they are more important than every western country except britian(britian is very important in human history)

[@tomosprice8136]

@@anzarm.a8547 @Anzar M.A permanent members should be based on current power not past, otherwise Egypt, Syria, Italy, Mongolia would all be there. Maybe France could be replaced by the EU if we wanted to keep the UNSC smaller, but even then Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa should sill be added as permanent members

[@haiderfawzi6916]

Great video but i feel like you went a bit soft on the west especially America. I would’ve loved if you went into detail the U.N’s failure in regards to the invasion of iraq

[@businessmanbrute2211]

Yeah can't do much if the entire sunni muslim world supports the invasion of iraq maybe should have told saudi arabia to not drag us into thier regional conflicts.

[@businessmanbrute2211]

Authoritarian leaders are also not liked by many countries so..

[@shadowslayer9988]

​​@@businessmanbrute2211Still was a illegal invasion sanctions should have been imposed but VETO POWER and countries being to scared to sanction the United States.

[@deltab4077]

I'll say that is better to waste words rather than wating bullet like some men once said regarding the U.N.

[@TraTranc]

Words wasted at the UN never prevented a single shot from being fired. If anything, in many many cases, words were wasted at the UN so that bullets could still be fired. Like in Rwanda. Or former Yugoslavia. Or Chechnya. Peace among major nations was achieved not through the UN but through the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction brought upon by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Smaller nations, particularly those not important enough to enjoy the protection of one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, just went on about their daily war business.

[@mateosanchez1823]

"The UN wasn't created to take mankind into paradise, but rather, to save humanity from hell." Dag Hammarskjold

[@TraTranc]

And it failed at that too.

[@criwel7949]

and they murderd Dag

[@JuanManuel-ii1ov]

The UN is nothing but a tool for western elites to abuse third world countries. Full comment deleted because of youtube's censorship.

[@tjenadonn6158]

Have you seen humanity recently? We may not be in the Ninth Circle but we're certainly closer to it than we are from even the lowest levels of Purgatory, much less Heaven. Things being marginally better than the absolute worst they possibly could be still puts them light-years away from being acceptable.

[@tjenadonn6158]

@@criwel7949 Telling that even that grim enabler of the plutocrat class was too radical to be left alive.

[@awddfg]

If you remove the permanent members from the security council, then it won't fail.

[@monsieurlefrog8706]

i feel like people overlook the role of the UN because of its failings, it makes sense people dissaprove because the un has been unable to stop the russian invasion of ukraine and the civil war in syria has been going on for 11 years, but without the UN other conflicts such as the Mali civil war could still be happening. In times of crisis like earthquakes, tsunamis etc. the global effort to assist the countries would be far less organised without the UN. one of the easiest fixes to improve the UN is to have no countries be permemantly on the Security Council but none of the big 5 would like that.

[@davesprivatelounge]

Where do you stand on the multitude of illegal US/NATO interventions and wars? The very existence of the UNSC is discriminatory in nature. Realistically, it is just a forum to keep the nuclear powers from going "too crazy".

[@monsieurlefrog8706]

@@davesprivatelounge yeah i am strongly against millitary intervention in general including in cases of the usa and NATO such as Iraq and Libya, i do like NATO as a defensive alliance however i think article 5 is a really good way to keep europe stable and i hope it never gets used

[@JuanManuel-ii1ov]

The UN is nothing but a tool for western elites to abuse third world countries. Full comment deleted because of youtube's censorship.

[@renatonunez-melgarp2066]

Stable lol

[@mrlentien5333]

@@monsieurlefrog8706 Bosnia was justified

[@yochaiwyss3843]

Members of the UN Women Rights commission include such paragons like: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Qatar... And they have the gall not to call it broken?

[@srbtlevse16]

It's not a complete failure. The truth is the frequency of war between major nations (great powers, regional powers) decreased a lot since WW2, but that could also be attributed to modern weapons such as nuclear weapons along with alliances just making war much less rewarding and more expensive in terms of human and economic cost than before, with trade and cooperation being more sensible for most cases at least in this period of time. At the end of the day countries like USA and China like to banter with each other a lot, but that won't change the fact they're each other's biggest trading partners. They would literally collapse economically without each other.

[@TraTranc]

The UN is a complete failure. It didn't stop a single war. It didn't facilitate one single treaty.

[@7rock7]

That last part did change. The USA trades more with Canada and Mexico now than China and that’s only going to increase in the coming years. www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html#total

[@m2v-animatez]

That doesn't provide evidence to why the UN is not a complete failure

[@BroadwayRonMexico]

The UN had nothing to do with it. Mutually assured destruction just made it so that CIA coups, color revolutions, and proxy wars in the Third World became the new way war is waged

[@sonicmeerkat]

the big issue is the UN's main purpose is to prevent WW3, a war that'd innevitably include all the major powers so giving them all a veto which gives them power in the status quo will make them want to maintain it. that being said the UN isn't even responsible for de-escalation between the powers, it's always been diplomacy between the usa and ussr which prevented the cold war going hot so it's safe to say that the UN is pointless even at its primary duty.

[@Vmac1394]

I love how in school we were taught that the League of Nations was a total failure but the same sort of judgment was just absent from the UN, though at least one of my teachers did specify that Interpol was effectively worthless.

[@RusselTanTing-kf8zm]

I just love the honesty you guys have, there are indeed some serious credibility questions on the UN’s behalf.

[@user__100]

Replace UK with India on the UN Security Council

[@ronmka8931]

also that rimworld song is too distracting all i can thinkof in my head is losing all my squirrels to bubonic plague while all the colonists get malaria

[@ironman5034]

I am rwandese and the USA did us dirty, but i the end it's fine we got ourselves back on our own and now we are rebuilding and thriving

[@zephlodwick1009]

The council should be one per continent: 1 for Asia, one for America, one for Africa, one for Europe, and one for Oceania.

[@airmaxrd67]

that means that the biggest countries in each continent could bully the smaller ones into agreeing with their ideals, you really think australia would not try to fuck with NZ or the us with the rest of the americas?

[@mayankbisht7691]

Question: Then Russia will be considered European or Asia?

[@massimobernardo-]

Oceania ..... Australia or New Zealand ?

[@Haibing22]

@@massimobernardo- Papúa New Guinea

[@tjenadonn6158]

Plus a penguin for Antarctica.

[@smorcrux426]

The sad fact is that there are countries that are stronger than others, and so if you want the UN to resemble reality in even the slightest way, you have to at least acknowledge that. The UN is supposed to be a dialouge for countries, and of course in a dialouge the country that's more powerful on the ground will have an advantage, because if not then they will just ignore it. At least the resolutions that do pass nowadays are respected to some extent, and that's far better than passing resolutions that aren't going to be enforced, since that will hurt the legitimacy of even the resolutions that can be enforced. I do agree that smaller countries should be protected from those more powerful countries, but just like how that is very difficult in regular diplomacy, it is also in other channels.

[@alexu9696]

Thing is, Rusia isnt a superpower anymore. And if we count nukes then we would need to add some countrys to the "great 5"

[@smorcrux426]

@@alexu9696 that might be right (though I don't think it is), but anyways it doesn't really change my point. The UN security council doesn't have to perfectly represent political power, it has to do it well enough to sort of steer the world into some slightly better version of it, by giving at least some weight to humanitarian and democratic matters, while also not being too unlike the actual world such that countries won't just ignore it. I don't think that Russia "deserves" to be on the security council, but if you were to give any justification as to why that is the case then you will have to define what a world power is and what world powers "deserve" to influence the world, and you will inevitably be biased towards some regime type and generally have tons of problems with that.

[@alexu9696]

@@smorcrux426 Superpower means a country that dominates in either economic power or military power, and even better both. Rusia doesn't have that, its just a cheap gas station with nukes, and if we count that as super power, you need to put India, saudi arabia, Qatar etc. My Point is Rusia doesn't really fit in the permanent council... its outated world worder from 60 or 80 years ago.

[@harrisiskandar8356]

UN forces in Srebrenica only watched the massacre happen while they in close proximity. What they hell they doing there? Making babies?

[@RickyKapoor]

They were ordered to let it happen (most of the people were killed in an armed struggle). That allowed NATO to invade and destroy Serbia, and the US could then finally bring down Yugoslavia and loot it.

[@martinlopez7714]

The UN should be moved out of NYC and placed somewhere in the Global South!

[@TraTranc]

TL;DR: yes it is.

[@BBxBL]

I was just done playing Rimworld and I thought I was going crazy.

[@COBVS]

I hate UN

[@rezazazu]

Great video thanks 👍

[@TheScottishBOLSHEVIK]

The UN is not a failure its an organisation mainly to prevent an global conflict. Its not a organisation like the EU for example where they have there own Army. There is aspects of the UN I do find usless overall but in short data from peacekeeping forces etc suggest the UN has been good on preventing conflicts between minor / regional nations.

[@ayswaggh]

Pftt look now how very pointless and not useful they're. This organization made to prioritise US needs. lol

[@watanunmada3602]

Have there been wars since 1946?

[@tjenadonn6158]

Does the Pope shit in the woods? Are bears Catholic?

[@GABRY.179]

Grande simo io mi sono visto sia questo che quello in italiano ma una domanda ma pk in questo canale hai ancora il vecchio logo e non quello nuovo

[@novalectiointernational]

l'unico motivo è la fatica nel cambiarlo, nulla di serio

[@GABRY.179]

Nova una domanda so che sei stato per un giorno professore di inglese, mi potresti aiutare che io in 2 media pensa ho 9.8 di matematica, 8.75 di italiano e la materia che adoro ovvero storia ho 9.75 anche grazie a te. Ma di inglese ho 7.quapcosa per cominciare questa sera a costo di perdere la vista e l' udito mi ascolterò i tuoi video in inglese e mi ascolterò i tuoi podcast cmq bello il podcast sulla parte 2 sulle relazionk tra le religioni, ma il mio preferito rimane il tuo podcast su STALIN E IL TERRORE DELL'URSS

[@GABRY.179]

Simo ti offro una proposta e se andassimo in Tailandia per fare un colpo di stato così non avrai più 195 anni da scontare

[@ItssMrT]

I’m from Libya And here most of us don’t even trust 🇺🇳

[@MilanILoveU]

The views of ordinary people and the government are different, ordinary people can follow their own emotions, but the government considers more. Both the UAE and Qatar have established diplomatic relations with Israel, and they have found that doing so is of great benefit to their countries. But in the eyes of the Arabs, doing so is extremely wrong. There is always a great distance between reality and ideal.

[@ItssMrT]

@@MilanILoveU first of all it is not in the eyes of the Arabs it is in the eyes of the Muslims Because we live mixed between barbers Arabs turks Kurdish , we all agree that the government that recognizes Israel instead of Palestine is wrong , because no matter what is your reasoning behind taking somebody else’s home it is just not agreeable for us and that is not a minority speaking this is majority majority but unfortunately these rails are backed by superpowers and I will governments are either busy with their own revenue and their luxurious lifeOr they are busy with a torn apart country mainly caused by the western so called liberty and freedom( Libya , Iraq , Syria ) And this is not my emotions speaking this is logical for me as I view the Israelis as invaders and aggressors. and why we don’t trust the United Nations simply simply because we see the hypocrisy behind what’s going on. United Nations never took actions against war crimes that the United States has committed in Iraq regardless if we like or dislike Saddam Hussain‘s regime, at this point it’s a proven fact Guantánamo Bay the torture of civilians hundreds if not thousands of casualties innocents, The killing of an armed soldiers that have already surrendered on video this is all on video, cIA’s assassinations espionage, what about Julian Assange , no I don’t want to start talking about Israel and Palestine and ask you why am I not allowed to go to Palestine and fight for the Palestinians after all you allow Americans and Britain’s to go fight Ukraine against Russia I know these are not seminar conflicts by no means there’s a lot of differences. it is a fact that the Israelistake a more land from Palestine and just in the Last two months they killed a female Christian reporter are you going to associate that would Islamic terrorism ?

[@MilanILoveU]

@@ItssMrT exchange of interests between different countries. The United States will get a promise from Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, and at the same time, the Americans will promise Saudi Arabia to go to Yemen to encircle and suppress the Houthis. But Saudi Arabia is also planning for a future decline in oil status. From the perspective of Muslims, even if you want to completely defeat Israel, it is impossible to rely on brute force. Sometimes cooperation is a strategy to play against the opponent. Just using fists is useless. Israel has modern industrialization capabilities, while Arab countries do not.

[@ItssMrT]

@@MilanILoveU yes I completely agree with you we cannot fight with tests but I’ll problem is with our government that do not even try to put the lightest of political pressure to help the Palestinians. Speaking of the Yemen conflict, do you see the hypocrisy of the United States? The voice of the people is never heard In our countries , United Nations or the west make sure to put leaders that benefit them strategically or politically instead an actual Government that is democratically elected by the people. No I understand that just fighting with brute force then identifying you as the enemy of the west right away is not a smart move, but believe me when I say our leaders just enjoy the American dollars instead of actually put in the slightest effort that could endanger them to help us or help the Palestinians, i’m governments are corrupt and I’ll countries are coming apart by Civil War mainly fueled by superpowers like turkey America Russia, and I understand that that is just the way it is everybody fights for influence and interests, not to mention the actual terrorist groups that seek there Interests as well .

[@MilanILoveU]

@@ItssMrT In order for Arab countries to defeat Israel, Arab countries must also have the capability of military industry and weapon self-control, but these are based on the industrialization of the entire country. There are many Islamic countries in the world, but they are all countries that focus on agriculture and animal husbandry. Weapons can only be purchased from Western countries, and there is no autonomous capability. When Western countries support Israel, it is impossible for Arab countries to defeat Israel militarily. I very much support justice for the Palestinian people and condemn the Israeli aggressors. But all I can say is that the world is very realistic, and when Egypt was defeated by the Israeli army in 1967, they chose to recognize the existence of Israel in exchange for sovereignty over the Sinai Peninsula. Unless one day, Arab countries can also have strong military power, but this is an era of industrialization, not the era of relying on knives and swords 1,000 years ago. Only relying on the light machine guns of the guerrillas is a high-tech weapon that cannot be used against the United States. When the United States bypassed the United Nations and carried out a unilateral military operation against Iraq, the truth of this world has been revealed. Arab countries cannot make advanced weapons, so even though justice is on the side of the Arab countries, it will not work because the reality of this world is like that.

[@Lilo-rw4hf]

Question mark of the title is needless.

[@bogdan.vilimonovic]

I dont see the value of the UN in the things that the public sees, its the backrooms where diplomats can talk with each other, and can establish a direct line of communication, so that something like Cuban Missile Crisis doesnt happen again

[@Ida-xe8pg]

*an active genoside going on * UN: *grabs popcorn *

[@yeslol4267]

I love the fact that this video ignored the other organizations under the UN and not because its biased and trying to push a narrative.

[@blainn7788]

only thing i got from that convoluted analogy was the sick rimworld music. keep it up?

[@Avaricumstudios]

talking about new permanent members without including an African country is a clear sign of the paternalistic racist attitudes that permeate the UN ,Africa has the largest no of seats,the second highest population, the second largest in land area and you just want to brush it off,

[@AL-lh2ht]

Permanent members are permanent because they are the dominate powers so they can have their agendas protected. There is no African dominate power. There is not even a dominate regional power of Africa.

[@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136]

No African nation played a large role in winning WW2 so they didn't get a seat.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

If anything African 👨🏿 should be included, it should just be the African Union itself considering Africa's diversity and lack of concentrated power means no individual nation is a good candidate.

[@eliteplier]

Short answer: yes

[@nickgotvyak5890]

The mf took the picture of the wrong Roosevelt, wrore a correction note and kept the wrong picture 😂

[@bradduplisea6385]

YES

[@artemidemusic432]

i think that the big5 should be removed

[@lisa._.the._.lovely]

"Stalin, and his _infinite_ wisdom" 🤣

[@heather725]

Excellent explanation

[@Leiflokey]

Great video with rimworld music, Cant go wrong

[@realperson6957]

The rimworld soundtrack to start? I love it

[@acediasteffson7912]

Short Answer - *Yes*

[@shadowlord1418]

I wouldn't say the other 4 couldn't do anything because 40 billion dollars in aid is definitely something

[@yanbarbosa8092]

Is that rimworlds background music?

[@HolaBruv]

It works but not as expected because since UN was established major world wars became non existent unlike before UN. UNSC needs an African nation member.

[@tomosprice8136]

You could argue that is more due to certain countries having nuclear weapons rather than the UN

[@Haibing22]

And a Latin American one, but not Brazil. I propose Cuba

[@fduranthesee]

Mexico or Brazil and Nigeria - those two could be added to the Security-council

[@HolaBruv]

@@fduranthesee More like Nigeria or any other African country since their is no African nation at all in there plus Mexico will surely be biased in all matters While African nations might be neutral in some stuff

[@danijaldblr3388]

The UN is there to avoid a world war|nuclear war, not to avoid wars in General. Thats why it is necessary

[@falsedichotomy3385]

I think you got the arguments and the answer right..but the whole point wrong..The UN (and the League of Nations before it) started and its still maintained with the specific purpose of being a political tool for the purposes of the rulers behind the shadows.. Not only that explains the contradictory notion that the UN has being involved (either directly or indirectly) with MANY small scale wars, but also explains the little to no power they held when it comes to dealing with actual power struggles of the big actors...(the big 5..which in reality are the big 3+1 vassal states of the USA+1 vassal state of the UK)...Now, while most of the analysis still holds correctly..I think its far easier to explain it with the history of Mr. Bernadotte..Picture yourself being a swedish nobleman helping releasing some prisoners from German concentration camps during WW2, being unanimously selected as UN diplomat..being sent to the middle east to mediate between the recently created Israel and Palestine...being assassinated by zionist extremist (all of them given amnesty by the Israeli government)..and of course, your sacrifice being completely forgotten and completely useless in the big picture of things...That's the UN for you all..

[@boomgoesdynamite4177]

The Swedes were carrying water for Hitler and thousands of Jews were being murdered daily by Europeans. The Zionists were fighting for survival of Jews. Palestine never existed as an Arab nation. So antisemitic it's ridiculous. Ex-Nazis like Kurt Weldheim became UN secretary generals. Arabs gang raped Jews and deported them to Israel. Europeans got their whole continent rebuilt after starting 2 world wars.

[@MateoNieto-x3k]

This is a complete failure, trying to stop war is just like asking a dog not to bark.

[@annamhaid4047]

Yes

[@heather725]

The UK is still a world power partly because of its colonies Australia, New Zealand , Canada etc and because of it’s historic connections with South Africa and India etc

[@paul5475]

I think the only thing that the UN function is during the invasion of the North Korea to South Korea, that time the first Chairman was a Filipino who ordered every UN members to help South Korea to regain their sovereignty.. and it did help that's why there is South Korea now. I think it depends how bold whoever going to lead the U.N..

[@francescobuadu8912]

Korea happened because the Soviets weren't there to veto it

[@Leo-yr5jb]

The UN has never worked, and then the DPRK exists this proof. The current war in Ukraine is just another confirmation.

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

I think un should add brazil,india,japan,oman,south africa and for south east asia either Thailand, Phillipines or Indonesia

[@aryankhan3619]

Oman 😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

[@poisonbcm5275]

I think your list sucks

[@mkvenner2]

Compared to its predecessor the League of Nations, no the UN 🇺🇳 is not a failed organization which is a very low bar

[@ahmadfrhan5265]

the UN and "human rights " are all based on subjective morality and they can not prove their stand at all. therefore all their intervenes weather it's " humane" or not can't be proven morally and they can't prove that's "terrorism" is good or bad. The UN is highly western based and most of world countries from Asia to Africa to eastern Europe to south America refuse LGBTQ refuse feminism refuses the banking system refuses the modern slavery ( salve wage ) refuses western subjective vales ,but yet they push it on all of us. using utilitarianism then the west shouldn't be pushing their values on the majority and the majority can take down the west. that's why in political science there's a famous quote " the liberal global order is neither liberal nor global " ( meaning only western based and other countries don't anticipate on it or they will be sanctioned and fought by the west ). also, this is by definition slavery because they tell us what to do and if we refuse, they punish us , starve us or kill us and we have to follow them when they are the minority. so utilitarianism doesn't work and they are enslaving us. what am trying to say is this system is belt on hypocrisy and when Objective moral people start to realize than they will take action and subjectisim will have no answer when the objective moral people start action and they can't say it's " good or bad ". even if objective moral people did wrong the subjective people can't prove it's wrong since it's all subjective. even so atheist can't prove what's good or bad in all topics other than morality. for example, an atheist says to someone you are Bac-kward and that someone says is being Back- ward good or bad ? here they can't really answer. they can't prove being whatever is good or bad. and so on and so on. what am literally saying now will change the world perception and the moral people will take action. it's inevitable. one thing else if they don't have the concept of good or bad of any subject other than morality that means it has no value ( worthless ). for example, asking an atheist is science good or bad ? if he/she did reply with good and bad they can't prove it therefore, it's subjective and has no value at all since they don't have the concept of Good and bad. therefore, all their " facts" ( which are hypothesis not facts ) are worthless if it has no value ( good and bad ). they can't detect which is fact and not if they don't hold on any value and even if they did they can't prove it since it's subjective. We live in a world that ran by subjective people who can't prove their value or the value of anything and can't prove even their subjectivsim and it's value! Yet they have the audacity to tell us what's good or bad and what's valuable and not and what's true and not. also brain is nothing but an organ according to their world view which means they cannot base anything on it and it's all chemical reactions which delude itself on having meaning when there's non which means all their claims as their existence worthless meaningless and untrue. which means they argue for nothing.....

[@Kaiser_Polaris]

What if they pushed their agenda anyway how can you say it's wrong for them to do when everything is subjective

[@KekusMagnus]

yes.

[@Unknownoffical1162]

Well it's not that used knowing that a UNSC vote can be stoper by one country (as I know)

[@luffyaraheta3379]

How baby twins fight ceberus?

[@DogWhoFilms]

Yes!!! It’s a joke, bribes are everywhere

[@shaydenismat7786]

yes

[@narfle]

Rimworld music?

[@jacobblack2381]

Colonel Gaddafi literally explained all of this 👏 nd nobody listened !!!😒😒

[@Midgarov]

Your is microphone is weird, its sounds amateur

[@trolololololll]

The problem of UN is that it exists

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

When the LON fell apart WW2 broke out

[@BumberClarke]

United Nations 🇺🇳 is a complete waste of time

[@Paisi-24]

If we have to ask the question, then the answer is probably yes.

[@Haibing22]

Why Brazil? One of the few non-Spanish speaking countries in the region

[@LoboalphaMASTER]

Because, just like India, it is an emerging power, it is also the most poweful economy and military in South America, and the most influential in the region, plus, Brazil is a neutral country.

[@lugd441]

"NO" -United Nations

[@spoodermon2166]

You're so underrate d

[@GeneralGrayJay]

The UN needs its own independent nuclear weapons to make sure its take serious.

[@wush7985]

Who will run those nuclear weapons?🤣 If that will happen UN will become imperialist and other countries will left UN.

[@GeneralGrayJay]

@@wush7985 True

[@ministryofyahushua3065]

First we will need to identify/describe the word, "failure."

[@verdabirdo5495]

Failure??? No no no hehehe IT'S A FUCKING CIRCUS OF FAILURE

[@HippiePajon]

In one word... Yes

[@jonathanelkefif1128]

Yo that Rimworld track tho

[@Vilniaus_Zhybsnis]

1:44 -1:46 and once again damn liberum veto rears its ugly head

[@fusionreactor7179]

UNSC should be abolished, which the 5 members will oppose, thus the UN should be abolished in its entirety and reformed with its capital not in a remote imperialistc sidewater like NY. The Americas are peripheral on the world stage. Geographically someplace like Baku is probably the most central for everyone.

[@fusionreactor7179]

@@OttomanSultana The fact that the HQ is in New York, very far removed from the global population is evidence of UN being formed as an American tool after WW2. In the next 40 years USA will gradually weaken relatively. The process has been going on since WW2. The rest of the world is growing in wealth and the only advantage the West ever had is dissipating. USA’s percentage of global GDP will countinue to shrink from 40% in 1960 to 20% in 2019 to 15% in 2026. New York is not the center of gravity for anything besides a North Atlantic focused alliance, i.e. Something the UN is not. If USA is to destabilize due to its shaky internal politics, than relocation and restructuring will follow.

[@MilanILoveU]

If so, Erdogan will make it the royal palace of the new Ottoman Empire

[@lovesten7008]

India with biggest population is not a permanent member..means i feel UN is joke 😂😂😂

[@janlim0916]

I wouldn't say its a complete failure.

[@TraTranc]

I would say it's a TOTAL failure.

[@shadowsamurai4074]

I would sat Its an Utter Complete FAILURE

[@davesprivatelounge]

Name some wars it has prevented. The P5 basically do whatever they want.

[@davesprivatelounge]

@@Amoore-vv9wx You're joking. WW3 is only prevented by MAD.

[@yarn7344]

@@Amoore-vv9wx no the thing that prevents ww3 is nukes

[@serafinoloche6296]

Nessun riferimento a Novalandia, sono triste

[@lovesten7008]

What 192 neighbour ...its 6 kids game and rest kids watch only from far

[@lovesten7008]

UN only make news news and parties and nothing else...😂😂😂

[@MilanILoveU]

I have seen many Arabs, they have white skin, black skin, and brown skin, but they all think they are Arabs, and they don't have any racial discrimination. In the US, white people discriminate against black and brown skinned people even though they both consider themselves American

[@christopheralejandromezapa8934]

short answer: yes.

[@kierenalvarez]

Yeah it's useless. I would argue distructive in some ways.

[@spacecowboy307]

Yes no doubt other than giving aid in country’s that have lost all law an order or have destroyed there financial system an the currency is completely worthless other than that highly bureaucratical and is more of a symbol for global cooperation and unbiased aid and security global police and since it’s not ruled any one country and is there to help every an any country regardless of politics goal is to help suffering people but i say more of a symbol beside they really don’t do much because they art a country it has no political power an no authority there for all they really are is a charity and is to in some way be a symbol of good faith for global compliance and working together for the good of the people of the world but if things escalated militarily between major powers the un is meaning less and will do nothing an have 0 success trying to be the rule keepers of war because when it comes to war it’s all hands off generation of people are dieing and because of this is directly hiring both country’s butbyhr country with smaller population will feel it more after an there for will be more likly quicker to break war laws if they belive it will help them win a decisive battle or blow or help keep casualties lower that’s the beginning of lawless war cause once one law is broke more will follow suit until the book is thrown out the window an the only law not being broken is the use of nuclear weapons Casue of the realization of mutually assured destruction no one side will pull the trigger first because thr person who makes that call first goes fine in history as the man who destroyed his bike land an killer of millions but because there is nothing to be gained for either side by doing this only if a country is at the brink of losing an being Concorde and in a moment of patriotism and moral decision making would rather go out destroying the peoples land who destroyed an killed killing of his country men an his country there for is willing to logically make that call because They elude rather die than be Concorde by the enemy an let them occupie and take the resources from his land many men died.for an because of the number of feather it is better for this ol earth to be scorched to set an example for the world nuclear nations shall never go to war because in the final day the losing side will more than likly out of anger or passion an love for their coutry be will to send nukes flying 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@blockmaster156]

No, it’s not