The League of Nation was introduced to world as a forum for all nations to gather an discuss certain situations.Now as the United nation is?

"The League of Nation was introduced to world as....." a New World Order. Or World Government

Sense it collapsed, because the US failed to join , AND pay its bills, the second W.War had to be mapped out to finish the job.

the UN is the result.

Many, if not most, leaders of the major world religions hailed the UN as the last and only hope for world peace. The leaders include the Vatican and its Pope.

Why would any Christian leader make such a statement when clearly Jesus Christ pointed to the Kingdom of God as the instrument God will use to bring lasting peace to mankind? The prayer Jesus pointed to as a model recorded at Mathew 6:9, 10 asks for Gods will to be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.!

Do the problems mankind see proliferating around the world be solved by any person or government of man? The Bible at Jeremiah 10:23 by saying it does not belong to man to direct himself. Has the UN been able to bring peace? No. At best it becomes a referee between wring nations.

True, away from its primary function, the UN has had some limited success in bringing aid to some. And some argue that if the UN would become a world government with its own police force, world peace could be finally realized.

But, can any man made organization function to solve the underlying problems faced by all in this world? The Bible answer is a resounding NO!. Only Gods Kingdom can achieve peace. How? By ridding the earth of the vermin infesting it. (Rev 11:18)

1. The UNO was formed after both the world wars. There hasn't been a full scale global war since it was established. Even the Cold War didn't escalate into one-on-one military action because of UN's efforts.

2. The International Court of Justice (branch of the UN) has resolved many disputes diplomatically which could have escalated into military action but for UN intervention.

3. In regions too politically complicated where immediate peace is not a possibility, UN has distributed food supplies, health care supplies etc and has thus saved lives (Somalia for example)

4. It's done considerable work in Africa in terms of reducing AIDS and promoting education.

5. Polio has been almost completely globally eradicated, thanks to WHO (another branch of UN.

No international body can achieve a state of complete peace, but a global body to further humanitarian causes is most certainly required, and the UN has achieved a considerable amount in this regard; therefore it should not be disbanded.

Simple, this organization was not organized by the Creator God written in the Holy Scriptures/Bible. It was organized and established by the countries of the world to resolve political problems without considering Spiritual rules and laws. Read [Ecclesiastes 12:13-14]. You will notice that all major religious groups established and organized by men are the endorsers of this UN organization. These religious groups have different gods although they claim their gods are in the Holy Scriptures/Bible and others have their own religious books all written by men without the inspiration of the Creator God written in the Holy Scriptures/Bible.

{ I missed the comment slot that refuses to open & so here I am }

Though LoN & UN look alike there is a whale of difference between the two in one aspect - the setting in which each was created.

The definition of a country wasn't crystallised after WW I even though many "Nations" got born. It was so because the world is still Imperial in its set-up with 75% political space under the Imperial blanket. The 4 resident Empires that were killed was a miniscule problem and the same passed under the other 8 (overseas) Empires. Though each of the 8 gloated over their gains out of the demise of the 4, they couldn't see their end then, as clearly as Ho chi minh for example. They were blind in their own self interests. LoN had to deal with Imperial interests over & above other national interests. Dealing Imperial interests was a very complicated process. At the end of WW II, all the remaining 8 (overseas) Empires were supine on the ground, exhausted after the war. Their lack of will, coupled with the a stubborn determination of the natives of the colonies made UN task easy. It reinvigorated the Trusteeship council and added a de-colonisation drive as members joined in trickles after getting independence from their erst-while Imperialist - voted for it. Though Cold War indirectly stalled the de-colonisation process striving to fill up the political vacuum left after the retreat of Imperialists from the coloured patches on the map of the world - it knew that it can't succeed. And that happened. 75% of the UN rostrum owes it to UN. Only the countries on both sides of the North Atlantic try pulling down UN, that doesn't amount to a speck of dust even.

Yet just like a tiny bit of uterus is left out after Hysterectomy to respond to the "periods", a tiny vestige of Imperial past is left out. It is installed on a pedestal called "Security Council" in the form of 5 permanent members with veto powers. These were the "Recognised" victors of WW II of which China is one. But there was confusion the regime & which China it is. Vietnam war resolved even that & Nationalist China aka Taiwan was sent to a permanent dog-house, and China with the longest history for any "civilisational" (as coined by Vladimir Zhirinovsky) country, patiently watching it. This relic of 5 permanent members, is being sought to be exorcised by the newly powerful.

What boggles my mind is that all those who criticise UN do only the Security Council dicta which in most cases is irrelevant and is a mime show of one permanent member or the other to vitiate the process. But these criticisers are blind to these shows or at best biased to one or the other member - simply ignoring the fact of multifarious UN agencies in development work, as there is no word called "development" in their lexicon. Or it is that they are just War-mongers and nothing more. Whenever I see such pub(l)ic pronouncements [like an ambassador describing the proceedings in the UN as "tyranny of majority", from one that is supposed to be the fountainhead of Democracy] I pluck one without a "ℓ", as that is its worth.