How can one organization be so ineffective?

As bad as the UN is, the FBI is the most comically inept organization of all time. From the backfired attempt to blackmail MLK into killing himself to operating a child porn site (and upgrading and advertising it) for over two weeks and not managing to get a single conviction from it, the FBI is truly impressive in its ability to embarrass the federal government.

>the FBI is the most comically inept organization of all time.
Hold my beer

Better a powerless UN than no UN at all. They're like that rent a cop mall security guard. They're a lot more effective than they seem even though it's not readily apparent.

I would argue that it's been more effective than you think: UN intervention in the Korean war, UNICEF's work furthering the education of children, not to mention the lack of conflict between the world's major industrial powers. It's usually much easier to point out the failings of a diplomatic institution than it is to point out the successes. That's because successful diplomacy is usually meant to maintain stability instead of achieve some sort of tangible result

International law is a joke.

>The US has an agency for alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives
Sounds like a good weekend to me

>how many layers of firearms regulations are you on right now

The UN was never meant to be "effective" in the way you're thinking. Did you honestly think the UNt was supposed to be a world government or some shit?

The UN does not "do things" - rather, "things" get done THROUGH the UN.

It represents a respectable third party in all things in international relations. Most importantly, It was always meant to be a sort of arena for global governance: a way for diplomacy to take precedence over complete and absolute anarchy.

Kill yourself.

rude

They only offer advice and pass judgement.
Who would they be to force the hand of a sovereign body?

>like 5, maybe 6 my dude

>if I impractically break apart an item it renders the ability to classify them impossible

t. buttblasted yankeenigger
How is your gun control working for you?

in english, doc

Image is the fallacy that because impractical/contrived guns fitting those classifications exist, the classifications are invalid

you dont know anything about US federal firearm law, or firearms in general, I suspect

Thanks for conceding the argument already, that was fast

so how is an AR15 with an arm brace a handgun again?

Justice without might is helpless.

UN releases some great statistics senpai. You take that back.

>has UN forces
>only thing that it can do is condemn and condemn
heck, even my based president is being criticized by this fuckers for killing CRIMINALS
fuck, the US killed CIVILIANS in fucking hospitals in another SOVEREIGN nation

>has UN forces
When will stupid rednecks like you realize there is no "UN Army" and those fucking blue helmets are people from existing national armies who volunteered units for peacekeeping missions? Jesus.

Strong world powers don't have to comply to its jurisdiction so it ruins the credibility of the organisation.

>made just before cold war starts in earnest
>US and Russia are permanent members

Set up to fail senpai

They can't go to war, nigger. Ask your president to do it if it bothers you so much.

Which is funny because one of the first major decisions undertaken by the UN Security Council was Korea, and the UNSC unanimously voted for action against NK.

USSR having weirdly abstained.

It's ineffective because it doesn't have a monopoly of violence and has to rely on soft power and influence, instead of strong power. If they actually had the power to bomb people, it would've been quite different.

>Provides a forum for nations to cooperate and communicate (its primary role), leading to peace unlike the League
>Still exists due to its ability to delegate tasks to smaller missions and when they fail, start a new mission unlike its predecessor
>Manages to big together nations for humanitarian aid and provides objectively good services when a nation needs them like food and water aid (inb4 spook)
>Doesn't infringe on sovereign states unlike other multinational organisations such as the EU
>Doesn't just focus on states but also brings to light human issues of security
>Does its best to prevent humanitarian disasters despite sovereign states always trying to stop it as they have their own agenda usually funding the perpetrators of said disasters
>Is actually a force for good in an otherwise shitty world
UN is unironically top tier globalism and how it should be done unlike the EU.
>Inb4 jewish shill who hates Westphalia and so on
Yea nah lads the UN is actually pretty decent.

>operating a child porn site (and upgrading and advertising it) for over two weeks and not managing to get a single conviction from

Isn't that illegal?

Entrapment isn't illegal in the U.S.

>does good
Allowing BRs and Frenchies to go unpunished when they're accused of raping and demanding sexual favors from kids and young women/men in exchange food isn't exactly humanitarian.

>>Doesn't infringe on sovereign states unlike other multinational organisations such as the EU
Either the EU doesn't infringe on state sovereignty either, or both UN and EU do, because both work through freely delegating some of their sovereignty to the supranational institution. (E.g.: Having to comply to WTO rules and having to comply to EU trade rules. Same thing, same process, different organization.)

So, theoretically, yank cops could go around selling drugs and then arrest and charge everyone who buys from them?

Pretty much.

Remember that scene from Breaking Bad about it being in The Constitution that a police officer has to tell someone that he is one, when asked (which is wrong)?

Literally WHO which is part of UN is literally based.

Question: Does the UN tell you to have common currency. Yes or no.

Addendum: That's exactly the scenario you described.

Also, here, a link:
youtube.com/watch?v=DfF8OSlGhKk

>THE UN HAS AN ARMY
american education.

No, but neither is that necessary for a delegation of sovereignty.

Question: Does being part of the WTO, an organization of the UN, compel a state to uphold WTO trade laws?
Question 2: Does signing up for upholding rules a different organization passes as a delegation of parts of one's sovereignty?

Exactly. It's inherently flawed. Glad you agree.

In business, we refer to the old saying "the customer is always right" when ideas and goods just aren't accepted by the public.

The U.N. has done nothing for peace and the current era owes everything to nuclear arms.

It's biggest successes are avoiding accountability for staff and volunteers who give aid for sex from child prostitutes.

*shoots your dog*

>anarchy
yes goy, anarchy is bad

The UN is a platform where those bearing nuclear arms can regularly communicate, and not every country has nuclear arms.

Because no matter what happens the interests of countries like Djibouti, Lithuania and Armenia are never going to align with the interests of countries like South Africa, France and China

...

It was worthless during the Cuba crisis. Both parties communicated by media or letter. After, they got a phone line of their own accord. The U.N. didn't do shit all.

Hello Russian.

>Needing to be Russian to laugh at the FBI
Reminder that pic related exists because the FBI played Goldilocks and the Three Calibers, then decided they didn't want it anyways.

>also a conspiracy theory freak
It keeps falling together.

Back then, there was a bilateral world order. This is much less the case now.

But even ignoring that, through arbitrating, it can change outcomes and prevent conflicts, both between the nuclear powers and among non-nuclear ones.

First off, I'm not the first guy you accused of being a vatnik.
Second, how is .40S&W a conspiracy?
Third, the ATF is funnier.

The UNSC pretty much bases the members on the victors of WWII.

However the UNSC also contains rival powers. And frankly it is better that way to ensure the UN doesn't swing security policy only to one side.

Sure you aren't.

FBI detected.

...

You are correct. Sorry for Veeky Forums being wrong.

...

This. Anyone who values a shred of individual and economic freedom will lash out against globalization.

>What is British Pound?

>makes claim
>no proofs

Silly