Opinion of the United Nations?

[ElectionsGuy]

With the way its currently functions, Horrible Organization.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FO. The highest-profile stuff it does is the stuff it's worst at. Programs like UNICEF, UNESCO, and UNHCR do a lot of on-the-ground, often unrecognized good in the world.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To believe it's an HO, someone would have to be either:

1-Some black helicopter fearing nutjob who believes they're going to implement some new totalitarian new world order or
2-An ignorant individual who incorrectly believes it consists of nothing but the General Assembly and thus does nothing but pass meaningless resolutions.

[Miles]

FO.

[H. Ross Peron]

FO. The highest-profile stuff it does is the stuff it's worst at. Programs like UNICEF, UNESCO, and UNHCR do a lot of on-the-ground, often unrecognized good in the world.

[Dereich]

FO, barely. It could be improved with a more activist Secretary-General in the mold of Hammarskjöld and by being given more autonomy how it goes about its business. Having a UN standing army as either the main peacekeeping force or as a supplement to peacekeeping operations would be a good step.

[Lambsbread]

A freedom idea and a lean freedom organization. The idea kinda plays into my idea of a united world (except there wouldn't be countries in my perfect world) but they still don't do an incredible amount of good.

[TNF]

Freedom organization, although one in need of significant reform.

[Sol]

Freedom organization, although one in need of significant reform.

Exactly. I actually did a huge presentation at my church on the topic of the UN recently, and this was basically the gist.

[opebo]

FO on balance, but barely.  It is also a horrible vehicle for American influence around the world - which of course was what it was designed for.

[Peter the Lefty]

Freedom organization, although one in need of significant reform.

This.

[TDAS04]

I voted FO because it is in theory.  It also does some good things on the ground to help people in need.  The ideals are basically good.  

However, it's current makeup is flawed.  The Security Council represents the world of 1945, and will continue to be a joke as long as India and Japan continue to be unrepresented, but it will probably never be reformed.

I am not in favor of a "world government".  Not only is it not practical and won't happen, it wouldn't be ideal if it were to happen.  What if the world government is awful?  Then the entire planet will suffer. Too much centralization of power is not good.

FO on balance, but barely.  It is also a horrible vehicle for American influence around the world - which of course was what it was designed for.

There is truth in this, and why it can be hypocritical for American conservatives (at least the neocons) to complain about the UN.  They claim that the UN interferes in US affairs, but these neocons are more than happy to use the UN as a tool to interfere in other countries' affairs.  I still remember the argument that "Iraq violates UN resolutions.  We must invade!"  Many of the people who hate the UN hate it because it does not always obey the US.  

[© tweed]

FO on balance, but barely.  It is also a horrible vehicle for American influence around the world - which of course was what it was designed for.

There is truth in this,

but a lot less so than with the other huge supranational institutions, World Bank, IMF, and so on.  more often than not, the US has to openly flaunt the will of the UN, rather than simply co-opting it for its own purposes.

[TDAS04]

All nations, especially powerful ones, try to exploit the UN for their own selfish interests, not just the US.

[Redalgo]

FO in need of major reforms, as posted by several other already.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Feel Good Organization.

[Lief 🗽]

The idea that the UN is a vehicle for United States influence is silly. The General Assembly is openly hostile to the United States, and has been since the 60s and 70s, and the Security Council (apart from France and Britain) is as well.

As to the question, freedom organization of course.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Could be more effective by an order of magnitude, but their aid work (i.e. stuff that's not the GA or SC) puts them squarely in the FF category.

[Darth Plagueis]

Horrific and a complete joke.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I voted FO because it is in theory.  It also does some good things on the ground to help people in need.  The ideals are basically good. 

However, it's current makeup is flawed.  The Security Council represents the world of 1945, and will continue to be a joke as long as India and Japan continue to be unrepresented, but it will probably never be reformed.

I am not in favor of a "world government".  Not only is it not practical and won't happen, it wouldn't be ideal if it were to happen.  What if the world government is awful?  Then the entire planet will suffer. Too much centralization of power is not good.

FO on balance, but barely.  It is also a horrible vehicle for American influence around the world - which of course was what it was designed for.

There is truth in this, and why it can be hypocritical for American conservatives (at least the neocons) to complain about the UN.  They claim that the UN interferes in US affairs, but these neocons are more than happy to use the UN as a tool to interfere in other countries' affairs.  I still remember the argument that "Iraq violates UN resolutions.  We must invade!"  Many of the people who hate the UN hate it because it does not always obey the US. 

This.

[Goldwater]

Overall,  FO.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

FO because of the good it does, though it should not have the political influence it has. I would prefer it stuck to famine relief then trying to remove Middle Easter dictators that centrist European premiers don't like.