Hi -- just a couple of things to think about for your UN debate:
How are you defining "effective"? And in what areas of the UN's remit? For instance, is the fact that the UN has essentially kept the entire Palestinian refugee community alive for nearly 55 years a success? Or are you limiting it to Achieving World Peace? And what are you recommending to replace it? And is it not true that the fact that the Great Powers at the time (including the USA) essentially punched big holes in the idea by insisting on veto powers? Is it not also true that the US has been unconscionable in its pre-9/11 refusal to pay its UN dues...and then suddenly turn around and pay up when it wants the world to come on its Let's Bomb Afghanistan/Iraq/Whoeverthehellwewantto World Tour?
no subject
How are you defining "effective"? And in what areas of the UN's remit? For instance, is the fact that the UN has essentially kept the entire Palestinian refugee community alive for nearly 55 years a success? Or are you limiting it to Achieving World Peace? And what are you recommending to replace it? And is it not true that the fact that the Great Powers at the time (including the USA) essentially punched big holes in the idea by insisting on veto powers? Is it not also true that the US has been unconscionable in its pre-9/11 refusal to pay its UN dues...and then suddenly turn around and pay up when it wants the world to come on its Let's Bomb Afghanistan/Iraq/Whoeverthehellwewantto World Tour?
--J, wishing you good luck in your debate