NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN was a good idea and was effective early on. Seems that it is less and less effective as the years go by. The Iraq issue aside, it does not appear to have the flexibility to function in the faster paced world of today much less what the future might hold.

Thoughts?

I have never really seen the UN as being really effective. No offense to non-Americans but it has really been an American Alliance.

It doesn't have much power and won't do much without the backing of America, or at least it seems that way too me. When South Korea was invaded illegaly by North Korea, the UN took action, when the US invaded Iraq "illegaly", the UN did little to stop it.

I think it should either be revised, or destroyed.

U.N. That sounds vaguely familiar...they put out a lot of documents right?

I think it should either be revised, or destroyed.

Compared to the League of Nations, the UN was more successful, but I think it's turning out to be another LoN since it's rather powerless, too... The UN did nothing to stem Bush's imperialistic tendencies, nor did it protest against the Patriot Act that brought the presidency closer to a dictatorship.

So what everyone is suggesting is for UN to renounce USA and tell them to behave 'or else'? *g*

Oh, yeah, I can see that going down reeeal well... not!

But seriously, are there any other international forums that could take UN's job? Any better ideas from anyone around here?

The problem with the UN is the "veto" the power to "veto" what the majority wants. I think that a country should be able to "abstain" but not veto all together. Of course there would have to be systemic controls in place to protect the UN from unreasonable majorities. Perhaps give the countries of the UN more of an (I hate to say this..lol) but more like an "Electoral College"

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*

The veto is one problem among many, however I do not believe America to be the root cause of the ineffectiveness as you do, it is just another problem with the organization as a whole.

An Electoral College approach is not a bad idea knowing it faults they can be addressed (such as Electors not bound to vote as indicated). Problem is how to assign them, population alone would not work, there would have to be some equation to factor in economy and other aspects as well.

Thanks for the comments

The problem with the UN is the "veto" the power to "veto" what the majority wants. I think that a country should be able to "abstain" but not veto all together. Of course there would have to be systemic controls in place to protect the UN from unreasonable majorities. Perhaps give the countries of the UN more of an (I hate to say this..lol) but more like an "Electoral College"

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*As much as I enjoyed seeing the "Electorial College" statement coming from you, I would think that it would be a solution many would have a problem with. Fixing the problems of the UN/US relationship, using a system that is part of the US law, would surely still be seen as being too slanted in favor of the US. Don't you think? Most of the other countries in the world have trouble enough understanding the US type of democracy. Then we try to throw one of the things that people, in our own country, were fighting against each other about, just four years ago. I can see that happening on a world wide scale. :wink:

The problem with the UN is the "veto" the power to "veto" what the majority wants. I think that a country should be able to "abstain" but not veto all together. Of course there would have to be systemic controls in place to protect the UN from unreasonable majorities. Perhaps give the countries of the UN more of an (I hate to say this..lol) but more like an "Electoral College"

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*As much as I enjoyed seeing the "Electorial College" statement coming from you, I would think that it would be a solution many would have a problem with. Fixing the problems of the UN/US relationship, using a system that is part of the US law, would surely still be seen as being too slanted in favor of the US. Don't you think? Most of the other countries in the world have trouble enough understanding the US type of democracy. Then we try to throw one of the things that people, in our own country, were fighting against each other about, just four years ago. I can see that happening on a world wide scale. :wink:

It would be like...the General Forum! Oh the humanity! :cry:

The problem with the UN is the "veto" the power to "veto" what the majority wants. I think that a country should be able to "abstain" but not veto all together. Of course there would have to be systemic controls in place to protect the UN from unreasonable majorities. Perhaps give the countries of the UN more of an (I hate to say this..lol) but more like an "Electoral College"

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*As much as I enjoyed seeing the "Electorial College" statement coming from you, I would think that it would be a solution many would have a problem with. Fixing the problems of the UN/US relationship, using a system that is part of the US law, would surely still be seen as being too slanted in favor of the US. Don't you think? Most of the other countries in the world have trouble enough understanding the US type of democracy. Then we try to throw one of the things that people, in our own country, were fighting against each other about, just four years ago. I can see that happening on a world wide scale. :wink:

Well perhaps not exactly the same as the Electoral College, but some sort of fair representation.. I think economy would be a good standard. Perhaps we should just turn the UN into another League of nations and let the former, G7 now G8 make the decisions. As they are the 8 strongest economies. If another country has a dispute.. they take it to the G8.. Money talks, Bullsh*t walks right? Population can't really be taken into account. Some of the poorest most backward countries in the world have the largest populations. So, that shouldn't be a factor.

But the Americans are never going to agree to any thing. They're the problem. From 1972-2002 Russia used it's veto twice. The Americans used it hundreds of times. In fact America holds the record. No other country even comes close. So, the UN is pointless if the Americans don't agree.. but what has always amazed me.. is the Americans basically set up the UN after WWII to promote stopping wars and to promote peace. So, why does every one get so pissed off when the UN does it's job? Crazy!

The problem with the UN is the "veto" the power to "veto" what the majority wants. I think that a country should be able to "abstain" but not veto all together. Of course there would have to be systemic controls in place to protect the UN from unreasonable majorities. Perhaps give the countries of the UN more of an (I hate to say this..lol) but more like an "Electoral College"

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*
Well I have to say, you have stated well exactly what the problem is, offered a great solution (that the US would never agree to), and hit the nail on the head about US transgressions of International Law and the Geneva Conventions. Tis a pity.

The problem is, there are too many culture and they all have different ideas and many hate America and America does not vote in their interests, so not much gets done. Additionally because Amerca is the sole superpower, it feels it can do anything... (this reminds me of the regional war that started; and The Eastern Alliance DID say they were like America... No wonder they're about to get their asses kicked...)

The problem with the UN is the "veto" the power to "veto" what the majority wants. I think that a country should be able to "abstain" but not veto all together. Of course there would have to be systemic controls in place to protect the UN from unreasonable majorities. Perhaps give the countries of the UN more of an (I hate to say this..lol) but more like an "Electoral College"

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*

In my eyes that's half of the problem: the ability for any one permanent member of the Security Counsil to override the will of every other nation is a throwback to the days of the Articles of Confederation, and we all know how well that worked. . . :roll:

The biggest problem is one you touched on but didn't quite hit, Steph. It's the fact that there is no power of sufficient force to drive America into doing something it doesn't want to, either militarily, persuasively, or economically. Until there is some counterbalance, such as back in the days of the Cold War, then there will never be a reason for a large part of America to believe that it has any need to make common cause with anyone else. It may well be that by failing to make common cause with anyone else, we ultimately only succeed in hoisting ourselves by our own petards and leave ourselves to swing in the wind, but most people aren't going to be foresighted enough to see that.

Guess which nation was made head of the UN Human Rights Commission last week? Sudan, which replaced Libya.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ayn Rand was right when she said the UN is like "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors includes the leading gangsters of the community."

Well perhaps not exactly the same as the Electoral College, but some sort of fair representation.. I think economy would be a good standard. Perhaps we should just turn the UN into another League of nations and let the former, G7 now G8 make the decisions. As they are the 8 strongest economies. If another country has a dispute.. they take it to the G8.. Money talks, Bullsh*t walks right? Population can't really be taken into account. Some of the poorest most backward countries in the world have the largest populations. So, that shouldn't be a factor.

But the Americans are never going to agree to any thing. They're the problem. From 1972-2002 Russia used it's veto twice. The Americans used it hundreds of times. In fact America holds the record. No other country even comes close. So, the UN is pointless if the Americans don't agree.. but what has always amazed me.. is the Americans basically set up the UN after WWII to promote stopping wars and to promote peace. So, why does every one get so pissed off when the UN does it's job? Crazy!One more shot at you before I leave for the night. Isn't this idea of letting the nations with the best economies make the calls, equal to giving tax breaks to the rich? The countries with the best economies would only make choices that would make their nation richer. How hard would it be to get an article of war upon a nation with vast oil, diamond, technological, or other riches to be had, passed? Does this basing things on economy really make sense?

Where does all the concern over America's position on reorganizing the present UN or forming a replacement for the UN and scrapping it altogether come from? If a large number of nations support a change and the U.S. blocks it why can they not pull out of the UN and make a better one. If it is better then other nations will move to it. There is power in numbers and the U.S. economy can be matched by a number of other nations or groups of nations. Why the hang up on America? The question is what would be better than the current UN?

Guess which nation was made head of the UN Human Rights Commission last week? Sudan, which replaced Libya.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ayn Rand was right when she said the UN is like "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors includes the leading gangsters of the community."

UGH!!

A place like Canada, Sweden, Denmark...England... Japan... they should lead the UN Human Rights Commission...

Compared to the League of Nations, the UN was more successful, but I think it's turning out to be another LoN since it's rather powerless, too... The UN did nothing to stem Bush's imperialistic tendencies, nor did it protest against the Patriot Act that brought the presidency closer to a dictatorship.

Magnus,
1) I know it might be hard to think, but please show me where exactly in the UN Charter where they have the power to promote or reject laws that are passed in member nations? Re: The Patriot Act. Also have you READ the Patriot Act. I have, there is not much that is new there, much of it is just citing prior law.
Are you paranoid, or just a terrorist apologist?

2) Please cite where President Bush is a dictator, if he was a real dictator like you espouse in your 12 year old rant, why would we be having Election Day in November. I've heard the same Black Helicopter ravings from Right Wing loonies I know, I guess the paranoia just jumps from Republican to Democrat depending on who's in office.

3) I believed that all Democrats thought President Bush was too stupid to drive a car, nonetheless be a dictator. You must get your stupid conspiracy theories consistent here. President Bush is either too stupid to rule, or he's too smart and evil to rule. He can't be both A) stupid and B) smart and evil at the same time. Even a five year old knows that.

If you wish to rant against me, bring it on. I like the challenge.
insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse
Free-Virginia

Compared to the League of Nations, the UN was more successful, but I think it's turning out to be another LoN since it's rather powerless, too... The UN did nothing to stem Bush's imperialistic tendencies, nor did it protest against the Patriot Act that brought the presidency closer to a dictatorship.

Magnus,
1) I know it might be hard to think, but please show me where exactly in the UN Charter where they have the power to promote or reject laws that are passed in member nations? Re: The Patriot Act. Also have you READ the Patriot Act. I have, there is not much that is new there, much of it is just citing prior law.
Are you paranoid, or just a terrorist apologist?

2) Please cite where President Bush is a dictator, if he was a real dictator like you espouse in your 12 year old rant, why would we be having Election Day in November. I've heard the same Black Helicopter ravings from Right Wing loonies I know, I guess the paranoia just jumps from Republican to Democrat depending on who's in office.

3) I believed that all Democrats thought President Bush was too stupid to drive a car, nonetheless be a dictator. You must get your stupid conspiracy theories consistent here. President Bush is either too stupid to rule, or he's too smart and evil to rule. He can't be both A) stupid and B) smart and evil at the same time. Even a five year old knows that.

If you wish to rant against me, bring it on. I like the challenge.
insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse
Free-Virginia

Face it, The American people are starting to wake up. Bush will not be getting a second term.. and you know, even if he does.. worse case it's only 4 more years. I think the more important thing that is happening is that thanks to Bush's total incompetence the world and the American public is seeing that PNAC was mad!

The problem with the UN as it stands.. is right now the Americans are the only super power in the world. So, no matter what the UN, NATO, your grand-mother or the Pope says.. is going to change one damn thing if the Americans have made up their mind. If you had told me 20 years ago that we'd be seeing the Americans of all people breaching International law.. breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as the Hague rules of war.. I would of thought you mad. Power does indeed corrupt. We get to see it in our life times.... I often wonder if this was how the Romans started out.. *sigh*

Please stop flapping your gums about America "breaking the Geneva Convention" unless you can cite it.

If you're talking about the Iraq Prisoners, where was the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and the UN when 300 thousand Iraqis were gassed in the 1980s, when many Iraqis were beheaded, arms were chopped off, when tongues were cut out, etc?

Making Iraqi men disrobe is humilatating but not torturing, if you want to know what torture was, go ask Senator John McCain of Arizona. He lived it, and he can tell you what torture really was.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

If you're talking about the Iraq Prisoners, where was the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and the UN when 300 thousand Iraqis were gassed in the 1980s, when many Iraqis were beheaded, arms were chopped off, when tongues were cut out, etc?

Can you prove that Hussein was letting the Red Cross, the UN and Amnesty International into the prison when this was happening and that they were willfully blind to these crimes? Or, maybe we didn't know because we were still cleaning up other fights...

In my eyes that's half of the problem: the ability for any one permanent member of the Security Counsil to override the will of every other nation is a throwback to the days of the Articles of Confederation, and we all know how well that worked. . . :roll:

The biggest problem is one you touched on but didn't quite hit, Steph. It's the fact that there is no power of sufficient force to drive America into doing something it doesn't want to, either militarily, persuasively, or economically. Until there is some counterbalance, such as back in the days of the Cold War, then there will never be a reason for a large part of America to believe that it has any need to make common cause with anyone else. It may well be that by failing to make common cause with anyone else, we ultimately only succeed in hoisting ourselves by our own petards and leave ourselves to swing in the wind, but most people aren't going to be foresighted enough to see that.

Until the people of the world pick themselves up and police themselves will America stop treating them like the children they are.

America: Stop the drug war, it just fuels crime, and the criminal element. Stop listening to John Kerry, who is the biggest hypocrite, next to Ted Kennedy.
Africa: Quit living in a desert and popping out kids when you have no food to eat. Also stop killing each other like morons.
Mid East: Quit killing off the Israelis, and each other. Until then, we own you.
Eastern Asia, The Americas: You guys are doing well.
Europe: Kick France, Germany and Russia to the curb, they care more about the Oil For Food money than your collective security.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

Ironically when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own citizens, he had the blessing of U.S. mulitnationals, and a formal ally in the U.S. government!

If you're talking about the Iraq Prisoners, where was the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and the UN when 300 thousand Iraqis were gassed in the 1980s, when many Iraqis were beheaded, arms were chopped off, when tongues were cut out, etc?

Can you prove that Hussein was letting the Red Cross, the UN and Amnesty International into the prison when this was happening and that they were willfully blind to these crimes? Or, maybe we didn't know because we were still cleaning up other fights...
I'm not in the Red Cross inner circle, so I only know of what was on the news at the time, and I don't remember anyone pitching a fit, except for America, and her allies. France, Germany, Russia and the UN seemed all too happy that Saddam was still in power. It was the UN that kept us from sacking Saddam during the Gulf War 1. Then President George H. W. Bush was under UN mandate to just move the Iraqi soldiers away from the Kuwait border, there were no provisions to take out Saddam. We should've taken him out then, but the "international community" (read: France, Germany, Russia, and the Third World) would've cried. I can assure you the Kurds and others in Iraq would've been more than happy to have Saddam gone back then.

If Saddam didn't let them in, they could do what they're doing right now, crying like little babies at the slightest things. International Pressure could've worked. America, Britain and our allies are doing with military force in a year, what the UN's Weapon Inspector clowns couldn't do in 12 years.

Diplomacy only works if there is guaranteed force to back it up. "Soft power" as the French call it, does NOT WORK. Never has, never will. If Saddam wanted to violate the UN Resolutions, just like the 17 ones he did violate, he could do it all he wanted, because the UN is an impotent organisation. They have no teeth, and no backbone to stand up to enforce a thing.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

Guess which nation was made head of the UN Human Rights Commission last week? Sudan, which replaced Libya.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ayn Rand was right when she said the UN is like "a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors includes the leading gangsters of the community."

AMEN!
Finally some sensible people on this board, I thought I was alone in bashing the UN, and showing how morally bankrupt it was/is?
Thank you for also speaking up!

insanehippie@yahoo.com

hell no you aren't alone guys I'm with you. Libya and now sudan fantastic! :roll:

NOt to mention the recent scandal and lack of effectiveness with things like Rwanda. The usa should be sovereign I say the uSA should withdraw from the UN and I'd love to see the whole thing not replaced but abolished we don't need a world organization or government localize!

Face it, The American people are starting to wake up. Bush will not be getting a second term.. and you know, even if he does.. worse case it's only 4 more years. I think the more important thing that is happening is that thanks to Bush's total incompetence the world and the American public is seeing that PNAC was mad!

The American people ARE waking up, while John Kerry bleeds election money, many liberals I know dislike John Kerry as much as they dislike President Bush. Kerry's poll numbers are slipping while Bush's are remaining steady or going up.

How can President Bush be "incompetent" as you stated and a dictator, as other empty headed liberals have stated on here? I still haven't gotten a response yet... I'm waiting.
What's PNAC?

insanehippie@yahoo.com

Compared to the League of Nations, the UN was more successful, but I think it's turning out to be another LoN since it's rather powerless, too... The UN did nothing to stem Bush's imperialistic tendencies, nor did it protest against the Patriot Act that brought the presidency closer to a dictatorship.

Magnus,
1) I know it might be hard to think, but please show me where exactly in the UN Charter where they have the power to promote or reject laws that are passed in member nations? Re: The Patriot Act. Also have you READ the Patriot Act. I have, there is not much that is new there, much of it is just citing prior law.
Are you paranoid, or just a terrorist apologist?

2) Please cite where President Bush is a dictator, if he was a real dictator like you espouse in your 12 year old rant, why would we be having Election Day in November. I've heard the same Black Helicopter ravings from Right Wing loonies I know, I guess the paranoia just jumps from Republican to Democrat depending on who's in office.

3) I believed that all Democrats thought President Bush was too stupid to drive a car, nonetheless be a dictator. You must get your stupid conspiracy theories consistent here. President Bush is either too stupid to rule, or he's too smart and evil to rule. He can't be both A) stupid and B) smart and evil at the same time. Even a five year old knows that.

If you wish to rant against me, bring it on. I like the challenge.
insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse
Free-Virginia

Face it, The American people are starting to wake up. Bush will not be getting a second term.. and you know, even if he does.. worse case it's only 4 more years. I think the more important thing that is happening is that thanks to Bush's total incompetence the world and the American public is seeing that PNAC was mad!
ONLY 4 MORE YEARS??? Look what he has done in only 3.5 years. I think 4 more months is to long IMHO!!! :arrow: Exit stage right!!

Ironically when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own citizens, he had the blessing of U.S. mulitnationals, and a formal ally in the U.S. government!

He didn't get the blessing to gas the Kurds from America. We were (stupidly in hindsight) supporting Iraq because Iran and Iraq were in a war between them. If Iran would've taken over Iraq, they would then move on to other nations.

It is called "The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend" is a good policy in the short term, but it always bites us in the behind 10 to 20 years later. Before WW2 we hated the Red Soviets, tho during WW2 we hated the Nazi Germans more, so we allied with the Ruskies to defeat Germany. After WW2 things moved into the Cold War. Allying with the Soviets was only a good thing during WW2. We couldn't fight a two front war, we'd lose.

France, and Britain supported the Southern States during the American Civil War. The notion of slavery was known to the Brits and French, but they allied with the CSA to help keep USA weak. There wasn't hand wringing from their nation's liberals, not at least until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a useless document (read it for yourself, and see) but it did bring the slavery issue to light, then France and Britain stopped their support of the CSA.

Alliances are short term, and once the purpose is gone, they are dissolved.

Look at Pakistan, we we're good friends with them before 9-11, but since they helped us greatly with finding the terrorists in Afganistan, we're in an alliance with them and India.

Alliances must be seen in the timeframe and context of when they were made. Otherwise I could say the same thing about France and Britain supporting slavery in America. I don't see that argument coming up anymore, because it's gone, and irrelevant to today's conversations, just like the alliance with Iraq and America.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

hell no you aren't alone guys I'm with you. Libya and now sudan fantastic! :roll:

NOt to mention the recent scandal and lack of effectiveness with things like Rwanda. The usa should be sovereign I say the uSA should withdraw from the UN and I'd love to see the whole thing not replaced but abolished we don't need a world organization or government localize!

I would ONLY be for a new UN type group if it is only for defense and it is an opt-in group, and only democracies and republics where the people are free. (Japan, Oz, America, Canada, most of Europe... minus France ;-) , South America) Places in Africa, Mid East with dictators wouldn't be allowed in.
I'd also put many restrictions in the charter to keep it from being a cess pool of stupidity like the current UN, and former League of Nations.

Support Congressman Ron Paul's "American Soverignity Restoration Act".
insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

ONLY 4 MORE YEARS??? Look what he has done in only 3.5 years. I think 4 more months is to long IMHO!!! :arrow: Exit stage right!!

Canada... Please. You guys have a right to join the rest of the world in International Politics once you learn to police your own border from Muslim terrorists, and raise your own army. Waiting for America to help you isn't a valid national defense strategy.

I could rant on and on about Canada's abysmal "$2 Billion dollar National Gun Registry" that has yet to 1) Solve a single crime 2) Lock up any crooks 3) Stayed even a bit within budget.

Second, Canada needs to let in a real difference of opinion for her citizens by letting in Fox News. They're biased to the right, but at least it's a real choice from CNN, and the CBC.

Tho, I must commend y'all on getting rid of Jean Cretién, and having Paul Martin.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

ONLY 4 MORE YEARS??? Look what he has done in only 3.5 years. I think 4 more months is to long IMHO!!! :arrow: Exit stage right!!

Canada... Please. You guys have a right to join the rest of the world in International Politics once you learn to police your own border from Muslim terrorists, and raise your own army. Waiting for America to help you isn't a valid national defense strategy.

I could rant on and on about Canada's abysmal "$2 Billion dollar National Gun Registry" that has yet to 1) Solve a single crime 2) Lock up any crooks 3) Stayed even a bit within budget.

Second, Canada needs to let in a real difference of opinion for her citizens by letting in Fox News. They're biased to the right, but at least it's a real choice from CNN, and the CBC.

Tho, I must commend y'all on getting rid of Jean Cretién, and having Paul Martin.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse
At least we aren't regarded as terrorists.

Also, many of those terrorist Muslims came into Canada through the US... Also, maybe the US should stay the hell out of international politics until it fixes it own problems as well!

Also, we have better sources of news than you do...

We have CBC's Canada Now, CBC's The National, NewsWorld, BBC News, CityPulse 24, CTV News, VR News, Global News, various language editions of Omni news, for example. We do NOT need Fox News. We get enough American BS with ABC, CBS and WOKR and CNN news (if any of it can be considered news)....

Let's keep the UN around in its present form, but eliminate its use as a vehicle through which nations can express their anti-American vitriol. Eventually, and probably sooner rather than later, the UN will die of its own accord, there really is not any need to forcibly kill it.

Let's keep the UN around in its present form, but eliminate its use as a vehicle through which nations can express their anti-American vitriol. Eventually, and probably sooner rather than later, the UN will die of its own accord, there really is not any need to forcibly kill it.
I think that if it goes under the same transformation that The League of Nations did, it just might live.

U.N. That sounds vaguely familiar...they put out a lot of documents right?And worthless resolutions :wink:

Magnus,
1) I know it might be hard to think, but please show me where exactly in the UN Charter where they have the power to promote or reject laws that are passed in member nations? Re: The Patriot Act. Also have you READ the Patriot Act. I have, there is not much that is new there, much of it is just citing prior law.
Are you paranoid, or just a terrorist apologist?

2) Please cite where President Bush is a dictator, if he was a real dictator like you espouse in your 12 year old rant, why would we be having Election Day in November. I've heard the same Black Helicopter ravings from Right Wing loonies I know, I guess the paranoia just jumps from Republican to Democrat depending on who's in office.

3) I believed that all Democrats thought President Bush was too stupid to drive a car, nonetheless be a dictator. You must get your stupid conspiracy theories consistent here. President Bush is either too stupid to rule, or he's too smart and evil to rule. He can't be both A) stupid and B) smart and evil at the same time. Even a five year old knows that.

If you wish to rant against me, bring it on. I like the challenge.
insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse
Free-Virginia

1. I believe I am not a terrorist apologist or a paranoid freak; I'm an American with common sense, God damnit. The Patriot Act has so much underneath its surface and it paves a road to future constraints of civil liberties in our nation.

2. I believe I had said that Bush has the potential to be the dictator with his current opinions on issues and on other items, not him being an absolute dictator right now. If I didn't then I apologize.

3. Did I mention anywhere that Bush was an idiot? No. He is, though, someone who is bringing religion into his judgement and who leads one of the more obscure presidencies for a long while.

At least we aren't regarded as terrorists.

Also, many of those terrorist Muslims came into Canada through the US... Also, maybe the US should stay the hell out of international politics until it fixes it own problems as well!

Also, we have better sources of news than you do...

We have CBC's Canada Now, CBC's The National, NewsWorld, BBC News, CityPulse 24, CTV News, VR News, Global News, various language editions of Omni news, for example. We do NOT need Fox News. We get enough American BS with ABC, CBS and WOKR and CNN news (if any of it can be considered news)....
If you want to talk about internal problems, I could go on about Canada's higher unemployment figures, very high over budget "free" health care system (America's is a pay first system, but at least you don't die in the waiting room.) their major failure at the evil gun registry, the Canadian Human Rights Councils (where any notions of "free speech" are stomped out unless you're offending Straight White Christian males. Read John Leo, he's been talking about it in many of his recent posts.)

Fox News has a Conservative Right bias, and some pretty nice looking anchor babes to boot. CNN, ABC (for the most part), CBS, NBC have a left bias. If you don't like Fox's Pro-America spiel, turn off the volume and just watch the commercial breaks, I can guarantee you the women look better than the clipped hair women of CNN.

America will stop policing the world, once the world learns to police itself. Until then we must do the job of policeman. The UN is a joke, and always will be, thankfully. If America stopped policing the world I doubt I'd be seeing Canadian or many European soldiers doing the dirty work.

International politics is like the elementary school playground, most of the kids get along fine, and there are a few that require the teacher to lay down the law, and pick apart the fights, while the Principal (U.N.) sits high in his office, and takes the credit.

insanehippie@yahoo.com
-Jesse

If you want to talk about internal problems, I could go on about Canada's higher unemployment figures, very high over budget "free" health care system (America's is a pay first system, but at least you don't die in the waiting room.) their major failure at the evil gun registry, the Canadian Human Rights Councils (where any notions of "free speech" are stomped out unless you're offending Straight White Christian males. Read John Leo, he's been talking about it in many of his recent posts.)

Canada does have a slightly higher unemployment rate true, however we also have a safety net which the Americans don't. I'm not sure if you're talking about our budget? In any case it's been balanced for the last 9 years. Our trade has been running a surplus for over a decade now. America is going down the toilet with their trade deficit.

As for our health care which is the envy of the world.. well yes, if you have the flu or a broken arm you might have a 4 hour wait in an emergency room. However if you're seriously ill you are put to the front of the line regardless of your ability to pay. See I imagine people would be willing to wait the 4 hours then not have a way to "pay as you go" when they have no money at all.

As for guns, we don't believe every one has a right to own a gun. You will note by the difference per capita in our crime rate compared to yours, we have the right idea.

"Canadian Human Rights Councils " well that's funny, because it was Canada who wrote the Human Rights Declaration that is suppose to be followed to this day under international law. At least the countries that follow international law. I realize the day Bush took office that stopped..

Canada has a higher standard of living then the United States.. We have to world's 9th strongest economy.. not too bad for a country of 35 million people. I like Canada just fine. We have more freedoms then the United States as well. No one in Canada will ever get plucked off the streets and held without a lawyer or without being charged with a crime, I see that as a huge plus.

As for the terrorists.. don't forget that 16 of the 19 were in the United States legally.. so don't even try to put that on us.. funny, no one has ever attacked us, well except America.. but that was a long time ago, 1812.. and we kicked your asses back to your own border.

So.. pretend like Canada isn't a great country all you wish, some of us know better.

As for the terrorists.. don't forget that 16 of the 19 were in the United States legally.. so don't even try to put that on us.. funny, no one has ever attacked us, well except America.. but that was a long time ago, 1812.. and we kicked your asses back to your own border.

“We” as in the British! Haha…yes, the United States declared war on England in 1812…but the only reason why Canada is not part of the U.S. is that a viral pathogen called smallpox infected the American militia, which killed and weaken many. I must add that in 1814 American forces very victorious at Chippewa, and in 1815, American soldiers defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans.

As for the terrorists.. don't forget that 16 of the 19 were in the United States legally.. so don't even try to put that on us.. funny, no one has ever attacked us, well except America.. but that was a long time ago, 1812.. and we kicked your asses back to your own border.

“We” as in the British! Haha…yes, the United States declared war on England in 1812…but the only reason why Canada is not part of the U.S. is that a viral pathogen called smallpox infected the American militia, which killed and weaken many. I must add that in 1814 American forces very victorious at Chippewa, and in 1815, American soldiers defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans.

This is no different then the argument thread about the British allowed the Americans Independence.. it doesn't matter how it happened, it just mattered that it did. Most of North America is made up of British and French (others came after) The Americans themselves at the time were also British.. I don't see the difference. A lot of the British that fought for Canada stayed in Canada and settled here after. The fact of the matter is the Americans failed. The rest as they say is history.

As for the terrorists.. don't forget that 16 of the 19 were in the United States legally.. so don't even try to put that on us.. funny, no one has ever attacked us, well except America.. but that was a long time ago, 1812.. and we kicked your asses back to your own border.

“We” as in the British! Haha…yes, the United States declared war on England in 1812…but the only reason why Canada is not part of the U.S. is that a viral pathogen called smallpox infected the American militia, which killed and weaken many. I must add that in 1814 American forces very victorious at Chippewa, and in 1815, American soldiers defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans.

This is no different then the argument thread about the British allowed the Americans Independence.. it doesn't matter how it happened, it just mattered that it did. Most of North America is made up of British and French (others came after) The Americans themselves at the time were also British.. I don't see the difference. A lot of the British that fought for Canada stayed in Canada and settled here after. The fact of the matter is the Americans failed. The rest as they say is history.

american's failed? or was is that both sides were wearied of war and americans simply lost interest in you ppl? i guess u should honor the all mighty smallpox for not allowing Canada to become part of the U.S. 8)

what does this have to do with the UN? if you want to talk about the US revolution and taking over Canada, MAKE A NEW THREAD!

actually i care not. proceed.

what does this have to do with the UN? if you want to talk about the US revolution and taking over Canada, MAKE A NEW THREAD!

actually i care not. proceed.

my apologies. ur absolutely right. i just had to make some stuff clear for some ppl

what does this have to do with the UN? if you want to talk about the US revolution and taking over Canada, MAKE A NEW THREAD!

actually i care not. proceed.

my apologies. ur absolutety right. i just had to make some stuff clear for some ppl

Well this person is wrong and I cleared the debate up in another thread.

Now for my take on the United Joke...er...sorry...Nations...

Yes, the United Nations.

Well put it this way, the UN is able to condemn and talk. The UN as an international body has no powers to enforce their resolutions or impose their decisions on other nations (in a diplomatic sense).

For example...

Recently the UN suggested Australia was being unfair to asylum seekers. Now, Australia was condemned. Big deal, most Aussies laughed. The big and scary...yet powerless UN condemned us.

I'm shaking (just look at my hand :lol: )

The UN is an organisation without real support. We have seen this recently with Iraq. If a country wishes to defy UN resolutions or ignore policies put forward...they can and without repercussion.

If a country irritates the USA however, well that is plain stupidity. The USA is the real power...the UN is just a drain on international funds.

Another example of the UN's weakness...

The man set to become the next President of Indonesia is wanted by the UN for connections to war crimes in East Timor. Yet, despite having an international warrant for his arrest, they cannot touch him because he is too well guarded.

We may as well just take matters into our own hands in future. Id rather spend the money we waste on the UN going to education, health and defence back in my own country.

I like the UN as it is.

what does this have to do with the UN? if you want to talk about the US revolution and taking over Canada, MAKE A NEW THREAD!

actually i care not. proceed.

my apologies. ur absolutety right. i just had to make some stuff clear for some ppl

Well this person is wrong and I cleared the debate up in another thread.



Some people simply live to contradict others. *yawns* The facts are out there. Here's some advise; try doing some research before claiming anything! Ok, i'm done with this. its totally unrelated to the subject so i will no longer post anything on the matter. :roll: