If the United Nations (UN) had more power could they prevent future atrocities and wars in the world?

That corrupt and incompetent bunch of idiots? They can't even run a simple food program, and you want to give them MORE power?!?!?!

United Nations is run by the command of U.S... How do you think they would do better EVEN if given more powers?

They will just abuse it and cause more atrocities in the world!

No...it has plenty of power many times over if it thought unilateraly problem is too many spuperpowers on the SC have vetoed each others calls for action out of pride,historical antagonism and plain stupidity. Only the emrgence of more democracies especially in the 3rd world could prevent future atrocities.Autocracy breeds discontent and war. Having said that war is here to stay because ethnic prejudice, power struggles and competition for dwindling resources amid an ever increasing global population is a reality that is not about to change. Just , exploitation and an ever widening gulf between 'have mores' and 'have nots' are part and parcel of capitalism. People who think history does not repeat itself .....better think again

The UN ITSELF should be given more power. Member states that have veto power (U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain) are the ones who make things hard. They never agree on anything due to history and rivalry. But, as many people have already said, the U.N. has done an amazing job when it comes to humanitarian aid. Without the U.N., places like war-torn Africa would never have the chance to see schools and hospitals built in areas that need it. But when it comes to war, that sort of thing lies in the hands of the member states, specifically the ones on the Security Council, which never really can comprimise. And if you allow it to have a standing army under command of the U.N. that is not subject to the Security Council's squables, that would still make things difficult and present it's own problems. Such as contribution of soldiers. Which ever country contributes the most soldiers (and of course money, but let's leave that out of the equation for the sake of the argument), has a HUGE influence on how, when, why, and where that army is used. And right now the member state that supplies the most troops to the U.N. is not actually the U.S. (we give them the most money), it's actually Brazil. I know, it's not China with their population. Go figure.

If the UN had anymore power, we'd have long since legalised gay marriage globally and all converted to islam. Fortunately, we're not one global entity just yet. The UN has done nothing for the world but try and rebuild Africa with our money and verbally condemn wars against bolshevism (see Kosovo's "independence" from Serbia)

No this is naive thing to say. The UN is percieved as a peacemaker because of the liberal and rational foundations that make it up but in reality it is just an organisation of people who will always have the same capacity for barbarism no matter what. Another reason the UN is so high and mighty is because it is a body which is disconnected from the material struggles that nations and people go through so it can objectively stick to the rules that were made by these people. The UN has all the ideology and pomp but none of the responsibility that nationstates and people do. Also if attempted to manage conflict and difference to a certain ideal even a good one it would become a totalising power. This can be seen in nations were socialism is brough in from above and a potentially liberating idea becomes a dictatorship deciding on what people can and cant do. What is progressive and what is reactionary.

Good Grief!!! The UN can hardly make a decision, and when it does it usually means nothing. By the time they react, things have escalated to the point of war or starvation. They are corrupt. The oil for food program proved that. No more power for the UN please!!