Talk:United Nations
I'm so lazy[edit source]
Could someone (specifically, someone other than me) write a parallel between the UN and the UN-Cyclopedia? Thanks. --Syndrome 14:41, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
This is stupid. The UN does good work, and slamming it with slander and misconstrued information is offensive. I agree that the UN does not run as well as it should, but no organization is perfect. If you must criticise, do so constructively.
- Amen.
Ok, Amen, consider it done. I added a reference to black helicopters.
Most people only see the negative in the United Nations, so that is all that is excepted in them, there fore the article has the right to be bias.
Shouldn't we show the UN as being 100% effective?[edit source]
I mean, if uncyclopedia is about making everything show up the wrong way, wouldn't that mean the UN would have an article saying it's a group of evil little mushrooms attempting to take over the world, but instead do great things? The UN is a bit of a failure in real life, so describing it as a failure here makes it both sad and realistic, don't you think? 72.138.179.83 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why it must be destroyed.
condeming israel[edit source]
what happened to the old article about the UN condeming israel all the time
it was more funny then the currect one
Why is the WWII section repeated 5 times[edit source]
Every subsequent section isn't different and the word bloat doesn't add anything to the article.