NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the disparate motivations of the primary members of the Security Council, is it realistic to state that in the next decade or so, the United Nations will never agree to any action of any subtantive value?

Is the current paralysis over Sudan, and the inability to come to an agreement over Iraq (which resulted in unilateral action by the United States), just a sign of the times?

And now that Volcker's report indicates that the United Nations has difficulty managing an aid program without corruption, and has no internal mechanism to punish internal corruption, does this mean that future UN aid programs will be highly susceptible to unpunished corruption?

Is the United Nations therefore a moribund organization with no future in its present form - other than as a body of inaction and corruption?

What would you replace it with? And what provisions would you include to prevent the problems that the United Nations (and indeed its predecessor, the League of Nations) possess?

i really really hope it doesn't break up. this is the best organisation we've had of this sort (well the only other was the pathetic League of Nations back in the inter-war days, so not much competition....) and i'd hate to see it go, largely because i cannot imagine what to replace it with. without the UN all sorts of horrible things may be more likely to happen (WW3 for eg :eek: )

i think the UN needs to make changes, such as removing the veto,

i think it has a future, but only if it makes the necessary changes...like anything it should adapt to the current climate in order to survive

The Security Council can't agree on anything now. How do you propose to persuade them to give up the veto?

Or would it take another World War, and the sole winner would be in a position to impose world government by force alone?

The Security Council can't agree on anything now. How do you propose to persuade them to give up the veto?


i dont know, but i think for the UN to continue to have any relevance they need to get rid of it

i dont know, but i think for the UN to continue to have any relevance they need to get rid of it

I see several possible paths:

1. The UN continues on as it has, doing next to nothing, and screwing up occasionally - usually resulting in a massacre in some location of the world, but sometimes only resulting in money quietly pocketed.

2. The UN dissolves.

In either case, no nation in the Security Council is going to give up the veto.

Until there's a world war, and one country possesses the might to subjugate the entire world, there will be no world government. The very nations that hold permanent veto power will never give up that power.

I dont see any evidence of it being close to breaking up. It has faced some problems and obstacles, but they are short term. The UN failed to prevent a war in Iraq due to certain stubborn individuals who were adamant about invading. The fact remains, however, that UN sanctions were successful in ending Iraq's WMD program.

I dont see any evidence of it being close to breaking up. It has faced some problems and obstacles, but they are short term. The UN failed to prevent a war in Iraq due to certain stubborn individuals who were adamant about invading. The fact remains, however, that UN sanctions were successful in ending Iraq's WMD program.

how many slaughters that might have been stopped can we lay at the UN's feet?

the UN needs a reform, but i'd be a shame to lose it. :(

Well, it could very well happen that the NATO would break apart.
what with the huge gap that has grown between the EU and the US?

But I think most people still think of the UN as the world's anti WWIII weapon. Therefor it's moraly unacceptable for the UN to end.

how many slaughters that might have been stopped can we lay at the UN's feet?

none. without the UN the slaughters would still have happened. Thus, none can be blamed on the UN.

The Un is a defunct organisation. The Security council does nothing except to protect its own interests. In Iraq the reason there was no resolution to invade was because Russia and France bribed and threatened the minor memebers into submission to t protect their oil assets in Iraq. It's obvious that the UN is just a talking shop. America and the UK can do whatever they want nd no-one can stop them so why bother with this ridiculous organisation :headbang:

i really really hope it doesn't break up. this is the best organisation we've had of this sort (well the only other was the pathetic League of Nations back in the inter-war days, so not much competition....) and i'd hate to see it go, largely because i cannot imagine what to replace it with. without the UN all sorts of horrible things may be more likely to happen (WW3 for eg :eek: )
Nothing wrong with WW3, as long as you're on the winning side (most likely America's side). So the best course of action is to pal up with america and give the UN the finger.

none. without the UN the slaughters would still have happened. Thus, none can be blamed on the UN.

If there had been a single world government, with a single military force, I'm not so sure.

Well, it could very well happen that the NATO would break apart.
what with the huge gap that has grown between the EU and the US?

But I think most people still think of the UN as the world's anti WWIII weapon. Therefor it's moraly unacceptable for the UN to end.
Morality is relative

The League failed, the UN is on a downward spiral, its about time a new organization rose to take its place. A fresh start where the failures of the League and the UN can hopefully be avoided sure sounds like a good thing to me. If and when it ever happens, hopefully the new organization will have a strong moral compass and the guts to do what needs to be done. Because the UN sure as heck doesn't.

Just my opinion

impose world government by force alone?
Nah. The US is already busy trying to do that. No WW needed.

Well, it could very well happen that the NATO would break apart.
what with the huge gap that has grown between the EU and the US?

But I think most people still think of the UN as the world's anti WWIII weapon. Therefor it's moraly unacceptable for the UN to end.
I think this gap is not as dramatic as you suppose. all the Eastern European membersn and the UK love the US. Its only the Franco-German block who harbour the rabid anti-american hatred.

The League failed, the UN is on a downward spiral, its about time a new organization rose to take its place. A fresh start where the failures of the League and the UN can hopefully be avoided sure sounds like a good thing to me. If and when it ever happens, hopefully the new organization will have a strong moral compass and the guts to do what needs to be done. Because the UN sure as heck doesn't.

Just my opinion

Ah, but it usually takes a world war to generate that new organization...

Nah. The US is already busy trying to do that. No WW needed.
Damm right, we need a world empire with someone sensible (relatively) to rule. Better a US worl empire than a Commies ot islamofascists one. Besides as it ghoes the US has done more for the world than anyone else so far and we are in an unequalled era of peace and prosperity largely forged by the US and its allies

How come no-one ever replies to my posts? :(

Damm right, we need a world empire with someone sensible (relatively) to rule. Better a US worl empire than a Commies ot islamofascists one. Besides as it ghoes the US has done more for the world than anyone else so far and we are in an unequalled era of peace and prosperity largely forged by the US and its allies
When thinking of a sensible world ruler the US isn't the first that comes to mind.

I think this gap is not as dramatic as you suppose. all the Eastern European membersn and the UK love the US. Its only the Franco-German block who harbour the rabid anti-american hatred.
It is enough that the Permanent members of the Security Council cannot agree on anything of substance.

This makes the organization effectively moribund.

It also makes it impossible to pass a resolution eliminating the veto, or otherwise making major alterations to the Charter.

There, someone answered you!

Morality is relative


Amen to that. My thoughts exactly.

When thinking of a sensible world ruler the US isn't the first that comes to mind.
Well, apart from the Uk the US is the most sensible. Can you think of a better nation to rule.

When thinking of a sensible world ruler the US isn't the first that comes to mind.

Well, the Netherlands would be nice, especially since we would all get to smoke something decent for a change, but I think that they are too busy taking turn riding my bike and laughing at what a stupid bike the stupid American bought.

It is enough that the Permanent members of the Security Council cannot agree on anything of substance.

This makes the organization effectively moribund.

It also makes it impossible to pass a resolution eliminating the veto, or otherwise making major alterations to the Charter.

There, someone answered you!
Thats because most of the security council memebers are fools. Why has France got a seat? They are undoubtedly the most crap military power in existence. See http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Well, apart from the Uk the US is the most sensible. Can you think of a better nation to rule.
The Vatican. China. Russia. Denmark. Sweden. Japan. Germany. San Marino. Monaco. Liechtenstein. Nepal. Etc.....

No, it is not breaking up. The UN is working as it should be right now (aside from scandals such as the Food for Oil program, but that's the exception and not the rule... I hope). It shouldn't have any more powers then it already does. A world forum is all that we need in such an organization. Anything else infringes national sovereignty. If it did have the ability to enforce its regulations it'd first need nations willing to enforce it. You can count out the allies of nations that aren't following the regulations and put those allies on the side opposing the UN. If the UN had power to enforce its rules, even in theory, it'd have already fallen apart long ago.

I think this gap is not as dramatic as you suppose. all the Eastern European membersn and the UK love the US. Its only the Franco-German block who harbour the rabid anti-american hatred.

The media doesn't acknowledge the existance of Eastern European opinions on such matters. To do so would be kind of like saying that there is a population of people that can't be branded as 'rednecks' that have an opposing view. If CNN won't acknowledge it, it's kind of like it not existing in the United States.

Well, the Netherlands would be nice, especially since we would all get to smoke something decent for a change, but I think that they are too busy taking turn riding my bike and laughing at what a stupid bike the stupid American bought.
Oh goody, a country on the verge of civil war between the indigenous and immigrant populations is in charge of the entire globe. However, the pot-smoking definitely gets my approval.

I think this gap is not as dramatic as you suppose. all the Eastern European membersn and the UK love the US.
Your realy going out on a limb here. :D Don't confuse government ass kissing with the peoples sentiments. I've met lot's of Poles who hate the US. And would love nothing more then to see planes flying into US buildings on a weekly bases.

I think this gap is not as dramatic as you suppose. all the Eastern European membersn and the UK love the US. Its only the Franco-German block who harbour the rabid anti-american hatred.
youd be surprised

The Vatican. China. Russia. Denmark. Sweden. Japan. Germany. San Marino. Monaco. Liechtenstein. Nepal. Etc.....
China & Russia (in reality) = commies. NO
San marino, Liechenstein , Monaco & vatican= too small
Germany & Japan =you'd let them start and empire again. Look what happened last time that happened.
Denmark & Sweden= too up their own arses to care
Nepal+they can't even control thier own country. P.S Everyone support their noble king in his struggle against the evil commies.

Your realy going out on a limb here. :D Don't confuse government ass kissing with the peoples sentiments. I've met lot's of Poles who hate the US. And would love nothing more then to see planes flying into US buildings on a weekly bases.
Then they're no worth listening too. All of the people's of Europe should be grateful; for the US's effoerts for rthier safety and its victorious winning of the Cold war. They should hate Russia not the US

Nothing wrong with WW3, as long as you're on the winning side (most likely America's side). So the best course of action is to pal up with america and give the UN the finger.
:eek:

Denmark & Sweden= too up their own arses to care

As you clearly demonstrated so far, when it comes to "beeing up their own arses" no one can beat the Americans.

Then they're no worth listening too.
The only ones who are not worth listening too are Americans.

:eek:
What the hell? The Us has done nothing but good (or attempted to) in the last 60 years. you'd do well to remember that

As you clearly demonstrated so far, when it comes to "beeing up their own arses" no one can beat the Americans.
Well, at least the Americans pulled their heads out long enough to beat the Nazis Japs and Russians. Wait a sec, where's Sweden's and Denmarks contribution to world safety?

As you clearly demonstrated so far, when it comes to "beeing up their own arses" no one can beat the Americans.
PS you think i'm American? Notice how I refer to it as 'they' not 'we'

What the hell? The Us has done nothing but good (or attempted to) in the last 60 years. you'd do well to remember that
Im sorry, but i actually laughed at that

do you honestly believe that? or are you just looking for a reaction?

youd be surprised
Would I really? (sarcastic) Please extend your wisdom unto me, o wise one

PS you think i'm American? Notice how I refer to it as 'they' not 'we'
Even if your not a born American your asskissing almost makes you one.

Would I really? (sarcastic) Please extend your wisdom unto me, o wise one
yes, you would

the UK doesnt love the US, Tony Blair does

[QUOTE=Nadkor]Im sorry, but i actually laughed at that

do you honestly believe that? or are you just looking for a reaction?[/QUOTE
while there have been slip-ups (vietnam etc) the Us has tried to look out for world interests. This is on the entirely logical theory that world interests are 99% the same as US interests. Interests being whats god for them not what they want

yes, you would

the UK doesnt love the US, Tony Blair does
On this single occasion tony blair's has made a good decision His policy of alliance with the US is a good thing. Just like Dubya this is Blairs only good decision. If the Uk would sit down and think rationally then it would realise that allying with the Us is tghe best course of action

Even if your not a born American your asskissing almost makes you one.
To be a full american (i.e one that votes republican)I would have to undergo 300 years of inbreeding .

Your realy going out on a limb here. :D Don't confuse government ass kissing with the peoples sentiments. I've met lot's of Poles who hate the US. And would love nothing more then to see planes flying into US buildings on a weekly bases.

Here's (http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/europeanreport/index.htm) a website that shows opinions of Europeans in general on the issue. I thought the findings were rather vague, but I wasn't able to find any other web sites with this kind of information. I didn't look very hard though.

I wish it showed country by country results. I also wish I knew what the definitions of the terms 'Excellent', 'Good', 'Fair', and 'Poor' that are used in the accompanying pictures were. I can kind of assume what poor, good, and excellent are, but I have no clue what fair is supposed to mean. My feeling is that good means 'more good then bad, overall acceptable' and fair means 'more bad then good, overall not great but not horrible'. That still doesn't give me a strong feeling of what fair is though. Does fair mean that you oppose or support the actions? Or does it just mean you're noncommital?

To be a full american (i.e one that votes republican)I would have to undergo 300 years of inbreeding .

I think you've been misinformed. They need to update their encyclopedias where ever you live.

It is breaking up, but it is not too late to save it! There is still hope! All they need to do is start upholding their regulations.

Here's (http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/europeanreport/index.htm) a website that shows opinions of Europeans in general on the issue. I thought the findings were rather vague, but I wasn't able to find any other web sites with this kind of information. I didn't look very hard though.

I wish it showed country by country results. I also wish I knew what the definitions of the terms 'Excellent', 'Good', 'Fair', and 'Poor' that are used in the accompanying pictures were. I can kind of assume what poor, good, and excellent are, but I have no clue what fair is supposed to mean. My feeling is that good means 'more good then bad, overall acceptable' and fair means 'more bad then good, overall not great but not horrible'. That still doesn't give me a strong feeling of what fair is though. Does fair mean that you oppose or support the actions? Or does it just mean you're noncommital?
They called the EU a country in chapter 2. And I dont know. They are from Chicago. Mail them your question.

To be a full american (i.e one that votes republican)I would have to undergo 300 years of inbreeding .
Your close enough.

I seriously doubt that that many people wantnthe Eu to become a superpower. What that would mean putting Franceas the leader of a superpower and in charge of its combined military. read the website I gave the link for earlier and you'll see why this doesn't work.
Of course "The French and Italians are particularly supportive of the EU becoming a superpower, with 91% and 76% of respondents, respectively, in favor," because those nations are the most militarily crap and have the biggest chips on their shoulders. this is the only way (by stealth stealing of other nation's sovereihnty) thatbthey can ever have any power. If this happens, Europe is doomed

The UN is besides anything else a forum for discussion and understanding. It was this that the founding members had in mind when it was formed - to prevent conflict by talking early not fighting later. In this respect the UN is definitely a positive contribution to world peace.

However, saying that it can also be said that the UN was formed in a time very different to the present. There isn't really any excuse nowadays for not allowing equal rights to all members in proportion to the populations they represent alone in terms of security council vote. It is basically saying that a small proportion of the world's population knows better than the larger majority just because they were developed enough to form an organisation such as the UN but think about it like this, maybe its not about who knows best, maybe its just about a difference in needs. We shouldn't be so quick to ignore other countries because they are "wrong" and start to realise that people in different countries have different needs and expectations. If you haven't been to the country then don't shoot them down without giving serious thought to what might be motivating them to say what they are saying. To all "lets never leave our country because it is far too dangerous" Americans, this is the kind of thing you only realise if you are lucky enough to be in the small minority owning a passport and actually travel to different countries to see what they are like!!!!!!!!! Give it a try!

The obvious drawback of an equal vote for all countries (based on population) is that consensus becomes more difficult and the democratic machinery grinds along more slowly but hey we trust it in most of our own countries that we hold in such high regard for being beacons of democracy why shouldn't we trust it on the world stage?

They called the EU a country in chapter 2.

Did they? Are you sure? I don't know enough about the EU to find any subtext in how they worded that.

Desire for EU to Become a Superpower

Europeans would like the European Union to become a superpower. Presented two options, a majority in all countries surveyed except Germany say that the EU should become a superpower like the United States (see Figure 2-6).

Take it up with the Europeans that answered the poll.

Your close enough. moooooo

This is getting really OOC, but if a new world order were to form after the likely inevitable fall of the UN, it would probably be China, seeing as how 1/5 of the world's population is Chinese.

I'd give the United Nations about 20-30 more years. After fossil fuels start to become scarce, disputes over oil will likely occur, and the Security Council will probably break apart. Just look at how bad oil disputes are getting now.

A totalitarian world government is the only type of world government that would work. Alternate systems are prone to corruption and greed on a part of the member nations, and they usually fail (ie United Nations). If one person has power, and no one else does, then no one can oppose that person, and no conflicts form.

One could look at Pre-World War II Germany as an example. After World War 1, Germany was practically on it's knees. Citizens were pissed, and the economy was sliding WAY downhill. Enter Hitler, an excellent speaker with an iron-fist attitude. Although his motives were evil, he managed to turn Germany around (some would argue that most of Germany's pre-war prosperity was from just a rebound from the depression. They are right, to some degree, but Hitler still did a hell of a lot.) and the economy went up.

I think you've been misinformed. They need to update their encyclopedias where ever you live.
Note how i said republican voters . democrats are just fine by me. they are normal humans they know how to vote the right way for sense and reason.

The UN isn't there to prevent every death in the world caused by war, but in an ideal world it would. The UN can suggest possible remedies and provide peacekeeping troops for neutrals, but beyond that, the UN has not, and most likely will not, have more power than that over its member states.

The UN provides a forum for nations to resolve conflicts without violence, but sometimes it degenerate into war, or even slaughter. Even if this happens the UN (theoretically) has done what it can to prevent it, and will then do all it can to prevent to loss of life, either by supply peacekeeping troops of offering support to the 'right' side.

As for the veto problem, many nations are applying to become part of the SC, one of which is India (can't think of any others). More nations in the SC could reduce the influence of corruption. Also, if I'm not mistaken, any veto can be turned down by a 2/3 majority vote in the SC, which would become more effective in an environment where there are more than 5 Member States within the council.

Sot therefore, No, I do not belive that the UN is breaking up, it has always done what was in it's limited power, and an addition to the SC can only help it's situation.

Also note that the UN provides many other things besides war related issues. They can supply aid to AIDS stricken countries, or funding for educational programmes in unindustrialized nations.

This is getting really OOC, but if a new world order were to form after the likely inevitable fall of the UN, it would probably be China, seeing as how 1/5 of the world's population is Chinese.

I'd give the United Nations about 20-30 more years. After fossil fuels start to become scarce, disputes over oil will likely occur, and the Security Council will probably break apart. Just look at how bad oil disputes are getting now.

A totalitarian world government is the only type of world government that would work. Alternate systems are prone to corruption and greed on a part of the member nations, and they usually fail (ie United Nations). If one person has power, and no one else does, then no one can oppose that person, and no conflicts form.

One could look at Pre-World War II Germany as an example. After World War 1, Germany was practically on it's knees. Citizens were pissed, and the economy was sliding WAY downhill. Enter Hitler, an excellent speaker with an iron-fist attitude. Although his motives were evil, he managed to turn Germany around (some would argue that most of Germany's pre-war prosperity was from just a rebound from the depression. They are right, to some degree, but Hitler still did a hell of a lot.) and the economy went up.
I doubt China would. it may have a big army but it's a crap army. It may have 400 nukes but it has only 40 missiles. All the other superpowers 9except the French,as they are too incompetent) could easily turn china into radioactive plate glass if they wanted. A US, UK and possibly Russian (to provide cannon-fodder) coalition could topple it, if they utilised their entire military

The UN isn't there to prevent every death in the world caused by war, but in an ideal world it would. The UN can suggest possible remedies and provide peacekeeping troops for neutrals, but beyond that, the UN has not, and most likely will not, have more power than that over its member states.

The UN provides a forum for nations to resolve conflicts without violence, but sometimes it degenerate into war, or even slaughter. Even if this happens the UN (theoretically) has done what it can to prevent it, and will then do all it can to prevent to loss of life, either by supply peacekeeping troops of offering support to the 'right' side.

As for the veto problem, many nations are applying to become part of the SC, one of which is India (can't think of any others). More nations in the SC could reduce the influence of corruption. Also, if I'm not mistaken, any veto can be turned down by a 2/3 majority vote in the SC, which would become more effective in an environment where there are more than 5 Member States within the council.

Sot therefore, No, I do not belive that the UN is breaking up, it has always done what was in it's limited power, and an addition to the SC can only help it's situation.

Also note that the UN provides many other things besides war related issues. They can supply aid to AIDS stricken countries, or funding for educational programmes in unindustrialized nations.
Resolving conflict without violences doesn't work. Why can't the Un piss off and let us militarily powerful nations settle hings the old fashioned way which works. e.g. beating the crap out of someone till they do as you say

I'd give the United Nations about 20-30 more years. After fossil fuels start to become scarce, disputes over oil will likely occur, and the Security Council will probably break apart. Just look at how bad oil disputes are getting now.


Before 20-30 years are up, many of the Fossil Fuel based processes wil be replaced with hydrogen or alternative fuel sources, thus becoming less of a problem. I doubt that the downfall of the UN will be over oil.

Resolving conflict without violences doesn't work. Why can't the Un piss off and let us militarily powerful nations settle hings the old fashioned way which works.

Because then Umpteen Million people die unnececary deaths. Violence is just the easy way out.

The millitarily powerful nations don't know what's best for everyone else. They know how to screw their own people out of thier own money so that their country can kill things.

This is getting really OOC, but if a new world order were to form after the likely inevitable fall of the UN, it would probably be China, seeing as how 1/5 of the world's population is Chinese.

Huh? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=new+world+order)

I'd give the United Nations about 20-30 more years. After fossil fuels start to become scarce, disputes over oil will likely occur, and the Security Council will probably break apart. Just look at how bad oil disputes are getting now.

What if alternative sources of fuel are being perfected by that time?

A totalitarian world government is the only type of world government that would work. Alternate systems are prone to corruption and greed on a part of the member nations, and they usually fail (ie United Nations). If one person has power, and no one else does, then no one can oppose that person, and no conflicts form.

Differences and Problems: The United Nations is not a governing body and therefore cannot be compared to a global government. Totalitarian governments have corruption and greed too. Many, many, many people would oppose one person in power, no matter who that person is. Mark my words. Nationalism, religion, and culture are far too strong of forces to overcome.

One could look at Pre-World War II Germany as an example. After World War 1, Germany was practically on it's knees. Citizens were pissed, and the economy was sliding WAY downhill. Enter Hitler, an excellent speaker with an iron-fist attitude. Although his motives were evil, he managed to turn Germany around (some would argue that most of Germany's pre-war prosperity was from just a rebound from the depression. They are right, to some degree, but Hitler still did a hell of a lot.) and the economy went up.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Clarification would be appreciated. But look at the pre-war United States. We weren't hit by the great depression quite as hard as Germany, but we gave them a run for their money. Enter Franklin Roosevelt. Despire being a liberal democrat, he was able to leverage the varied opinions of the left wing into a single, (relatively) moderate agenda that, while it did not pull us out of the depression as fast as Germany's policy did their country, did manage to put us in a position where we could fight a war with Germany and emerge not only victorious, but the most anti-statist country on the planet. Contrary to Hitler, Roosevelt truely was the best friend the free market had at the time.

I don't know what I argued against. I guess I'm just trying to one-up Hitler.

Because then Umpteen Million people die unnececary deaths. Violence is just the easy way out.

The millitarily powerful nations don't know what's best for everyone else. They know how to screw their own people out of thier own money so that their country can kill things.
You've missed the point. Umpteen million other people will die. They know how to screw other people. Screwing themselves doesn't come in to it. Also, mi find the easy way out is usually the best

Note how i said republican voters . democrats are just fine by me. they are normal humans they know how to vote the right way for sense and reason.

I voted republican. Thank you, Mr. Sensitivity.

Huh? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=new+world+order)



What if alternative sources of fuel are being perfected by that time?



Differences and Problems: The United Nations is not a governing body and therefore cannot be compared to a global government. Totalitarian governments have corruption and greed too. Many, many, many people would oppose one person in power, no matter who that person is. Mark my words. Nationalism, religion, and culture are far too strong of forces to overcome.



Not sure what this has to do with anything. Clarification would be appreciated. But look at the pre-war United States. We weren't hit by the great depression quite as hard as Germany, but we gave them a run for their money. Enter Franklin Roosevelt. Despire being a liberal democrat, he was able to leverage the varied opinions of the left wing into a single, (relatively) moderate agenda that, while it did not pull us out of the depression as fast as Germany's policy did their country, did manage to put us in a position where we could fight a war with Germany and emerge not only victorious, but the most anti-statist country on the planet. Contrary to Hitler, Roosevelt truely was the best friend the free market had at the time.

I don't know what I argued against. I guess I'm just trying to one-up Hitler.

Lets just agree that the French are crap (see http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html). Let;s start with taht and then continue from there.

I voted republican. Thank you, Mr. Sensitivity.
More fool you., I'd get some false toes, the odd number of them doesn't dsuit you. P.S fake chins can be bought very cheaply on ebay.

The Un is highly flawed just like the Un is in this game.

I doubt China would. it may have a big army but it's a crap army. It may have 400 nukes but it has only 40 missiles. All the other superpowers 9except the French,as they are too incompetent) could easily turn china into radioactive plate glass if they wanted. A US, UK and possibly Russian (to provide cannon-fodder) coalition could topple it, if they utilised their entire military

I can't think of a situation in which a country, save North Korea and Iran some time soon, would use nuclear weapons in a war. Even if nuclear countries did get in a war, I can't imagine one side backing the other into a corner to the point that they would go nuclear. Lobbing nukes at enemies is in no one's best interest. No one wins in that war and therefore the threat negates itself to a point.

You've missed the point. Umpteen million other people will die. They know how to screw other people. Screwing themselves doesn't come in to it. Also, mi find the easy way out is usually the best

You're being a real sadist you know. The UN's function now is stop rogue nations from ever engagin war against each other. If a war between several heavily armed nations does breakout, it will not just result in the deaths of tens of millions, but hundreds of millions. You're forgetting that more than a dozen nations in the world have nuclear weapons and if one goes off then all fo them will. Think of the devastation a nuclear war would cause.

Lets just agree that the French are crap (see http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html). Let;s start with taht and then continue from there.

Agreed, my friend.

I dont see any evidence of it being close to breaking up. It has faced some problems and obstacles, but they are short term. The UN failed to prevent a war in Iraq due to certain stubborn individuals who were adamant about invading. The fact remains, however, that UN sanctions were successful in ending Iraq's WMD program.
Just going back to this, the Un has done bugger all to end Iran's(a far more dangerous naation) WMD program.

You've missed the point. Umpteen million other people will die. They know how to screw other people. Screwing themselves doesn't come in to it. Also, mi find the easy way out is usually the best

The easy way out is most always the worst way out. So people who don't share a nationallity with you aren't even human now? And because they don't share an identity created by an imaginary line in the ground means that they don't count more than you?

If I may be spared a moment of himsa here;
you are a wretched and dispicible person. You have no idea what living on this earth means, or what reponcabilities it entails.

Unfotunately, many governments do side with your opinion. I just hope you never make any political office, and it's a very good thing you only have one vote.

I dont see any evidence of it being close to breaking up. It has faced some problems and obstacles, but they are short term. The UN failed to prevent a war in Iraq due to certain stubborn individuals who were adamant about invading. The fact remains, however, that UN sanctions were successful in ending Iraq's WMD program.
MOOOOOOOOOOOO

The easy way out is most always the worst way out. So people who don't share a nationallity with you aren't even human now? And because they don't share an identity created by an imaginary line in the ground means that they don't count more than you?

If I may be spared a moment of himsa here;
you are a wretched and dispicible person. You have no idea what living on this earth means, or what reponcabilities it entails.

Unfotunately, many governments do side with your opinion. I just hope you never make any political office, and it's a very good thing you only have one vote.
Never said that tehy were'nt human. Whatever gave you that idea, all i'm saying is that might is better than talking. They piss us off we invade them. people behave if you do that , you know

The easy way out is most always the worst way out. So people who don't share a nationallity with you aren't even human now? And because they don't share an identity created by an imaginary line in the ground means that they don't count more than you?

If I may be spared a moment of himsa here;
you are a wretched and dispicible person. You have no idea what living on this earth means, or what reponcabilities it entails.

Unfotunately, many governments do side with your opinion. I just hope you never make any political office, and it's a very good thing you only have one vote.
You've hit the nail on the head there. governments do agree with me. governments = smart so your opinion = stupis, good day

Never said that tehy were'nt human. Whatever gave you that idea, all i'm saying is that might is better than talking. They piss us off we invade them. people behave if you do that , you know

What gave me the idea is that you talk as if killing countless numbers of people in other countries means nothing.

No doubt they'd listen, but then those people become resentful and the conflict never ends. The point is peace, not supremacy.

You're being a real sadist you know. The UN's function now is stop rogue nations from ever engagin war against each other. If a war between several heavily armed nations does breakout, it will not just result in the deaths of tens of millions, but hundreds of millions. You're forgetting that more than a dozen nations in the world have nuclear weapons and if one goes off then all fo them will. Think of the devastation a nuclear war would cause.
Steady on there I make it about 10 nations and not all o=f them have long range missiles.

What gave me the idea is that you talk as if killing countless numbers of people in other countries means nothing.

No doubt they'd listen, but then those people become resentful and the conflict never ends. The point is peace, not supremacy.
Supremacy is everything. peace is just when no-one challenges taht supremacy. And no they don't really matter so long as your objective (as long as it is reasonable) is achieved

You've hit the nail on the head there. governments do agree with me. governments = smart so your opinion = stupis, good day

Who ever said that agreeing with those in power was the right idea? Why not think outside of your Americanized box?

And no, I'd say that the governments that agree with you are not very smart.

It needs to be reformed to end some of it's corruption.

Supremacy is everything. peace is just when no-one challenges taht supremacy. And no they don't really matter so long as your objective (as long as it is reasonable) is achieved

So supremecy is reasonable? Peace is what happens when everyone decides that supremacy is not really what's best for the world.

Too bad no one's realized that.

Every life is as valuable as the next, including yours.

Who ever said that agreeing with those in power was the right idea? Why not think outside of your Americanized box?

And no, I'd say that the governments that agree with you are not very smart.
You should agree with thoise in power when they do have a good idea (e.g present Us administration). I could also say that governments that agree with you are short-sighted, impotent fools who would do better to shut up mand be marginalized. P.S I'm not american and just beacuse you support one policy you don't have to support a whole government. On everything apart from the war on terror Bush is a fucking moron chimp

So supremecy is reasonable? Peace is what happens when everyone decides that supremacy is not really what's best for the world.

Too bad no one's realized that.

Every life is as valuable as the next, including yours.
The value of life is relative. Also, peace is when no-one is able to challenge supremacy. There is no point when a nation does not want to be top dog (except for the Swiss, they have no emotion and no feelings of desire for anythingexcept money, cuckoo clocks and sweet sweet cheese)

So supremecy is reasonable? Peace is what happens when everyone decides that supremacy is not really what's best for the world.

Too bad no one's realized that.

Every life is as valuable as the next, including yours.
Of course my life is valuable. if I died what would the universe revolve around?

To whoever I pissed off with the inbred american jokes i'm sorry but a person's just got to have fun.

Fun quiz challenge : am i a man or a woman? Plaese send in your thoughts and answers

It needs to be reformed to end some of it's corruption.
Best way to do that: remove the french russians and chinese. get a new secretary general froma country witha sense of fairplay e.g Switzerland, Poland or the UK

come on lets see some more replies

is anyone still there?

:headbang: Dammit i demand a reply

Are you all astounded by my superior rhetoric ot kust ignoring me? Silence is taken to be atonishment :confused:

The UN should stay, but it needs a radical new facelift.

First, it needs to be more efficient and quicker to make good decisions

Second, the UN MPs need to be better trained towards a hostile situation to keep the peace better. In Africa a mercenary group comprised of only a few hundred men held off thousands of rebels and restored stability. When they left the country and thousands of UN peacekeepers took their place, the same number of forces attacked again and took over the country

i forgot which country this was- ill check and get back to you on this

Are you all astounded by my superior rhetoric ot kust ignoring me? Silence is taken to be atonishment :confused:

I said something happy now? ;)

"Anti Jihadist Jihad"- explain your stance on ignoring the UN when the French and co. are buggering around and putting their interests above world safety in the security council

Are you all astounded by my superior rhetoric ot kust ignoring me? Silence is taken to be atonishment :confused:

I think that it's best just to ignore you.

I said something happy now? ;)
I was trying to talk to the other people in this discussion but they seem to have gone now. which country are you from

I think that it's best just to ignore you.
When you come up against oppostion you run away and put your head in the sand. Very French tactics.

I was trying to talk to the other people in this discussion but they seem to have gone now. which country are you from

USA and bush is not a "fuckin moron chimp" in my oppinion. Not the best president in the world but id rather have him over John Kerry

When you come up against oppostion you run away and put your head in the sand. Very French tactics.

You must be German- You hate Bush and the French at the same time

am i right? :D

USA and bush is not a "fuckin moron chimp" in my oppinion. Not the best president in the world but id rather have him over John Kerry
Can't see why. Kerry had superior (from what i've heard) policies on welfare and funding of services. Even better he's even more pro-war than Bush.

You must be German- You hate Bush and the French at the same time

am i right? :D
Nope. Hate Bush, like america, loathe the French. Try and guess my gender next time for a bonus point.

Can't see why. Kerry had superior (from what i've heard) policies on welfare and funding of services. Even better he's even more pro-war than Bush.

You heard wrong. Kerry was pro-war, but when people started protesing it he flip-floped and changed his stance to anti-war. he also flip flopped on other issues and his downfall was that in the long run it made him sound like he was anti american because of his lack of support for the army when they needed it most

You must be German- You hate Bush and the French at the same time

am i right? :D
The German love the French, they form a solid, anti-american, corrupt backscratching, fuckwitted alliance in the middle of the EU. its dicks likle Germany and France taht want an EU superpower. well, fuck them

Nope. Hate Bush, like america, loathe the French. Try and guess my gender next time for a bonus point.

Are you both?

just kidding i dont know what you are

You heard wrong. Kerry was pro-war, but when people started protesing it he flip-floped and changed his stance to anti-war. he also flip flopped on other issues and his downfall was that in the long run it made him sound like he was anti american because of his lack of support for the army when they needed it most
It's a shame isn't it when left wing (for America, right wing in the rest of the world) people fuck everything up. They have good policies on welfare, education etc but they have to protest against wars. pisses me off. hate anti-war people.
It just goes to show that even the world's best news service (guess?) can get it wrong

Are you both?

just kidding i dont know what you are
Im a loyal subject of her britannic majesty, Queen Elizabeth II ruler of the Uinted Kingdom of Great Britain and northern island. oh and last time i checked I was a 15 year old guy.
P.S the fench really piss me off, do they piss you off? a good link is http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
why not show it to all your friends? Its history the way its meant to be taught.

come on keep the debate flowing :gundge:

sorry about that i had dinner

sorry about that i had dinner
You are american right? What did you eat for your american dinner? I've always wanted to know what amerticans eat. What is America's nation dish? Its not widely known over here

come on keep the debate flowing :gundge:

Not much of a debate when we both hate the french and think Germany and France is fucking up the UN

that sounded really german, sorry just imagine thats an english accent with funny word order

You are american right? What did you eat for your american dinner? I've always wanted to know what amerticans eat. What is America's nation dish? Its not widely known over here

Steak and Potatoes

as a matter of fact it was a London Broil Steak :D
whats the national dish of the UK?

I think the National American dish is Hamburgers or Pizza (sure seems like it)
pretty simple stuff

I do not think the UN is going to or should break up, but it does need a huge overhaul. It was their fault that the US did not get that much support for Iraq, not ours. And no wonder. If we did not go in there, they would probably still be using Iraq for their own benefit. The first thing they need to do is get rid of Kofi Annan. They also have to work out their stucture so that they can react more quickly. If they can not (or will not) do anything about its current problems, they I think whole world needs to look at itself in the mirror.

do all member states really listen to UN resolutions

Steak and Potatoes

as a matter of fact it was a London Broil Steak :D
whats the national dish of the UK?
Roast Beef with roast potatoes, yorkshire pudding and two lotys of overcooked vegetables, followed by some sort of sponge pudding and custard, served with beer (real beer, not Budweiser bottled piss)
What the hell is a broil steak? I know there are different cuts over there but it sounds funny. Steak is usually a grilling cut.

I do not think the UN is going to or should break up, but it does need a huge overhaul. It was their fault that the US did not get that much support for Iraq, not ours. And no wonder. If we did not go in there, they would probably still be using Iraq for their own benefit. The first thing they need to do is get rid of Kofi Annan. They also have to work out their stucture so that they can react more quickly. If they can not (or will not) do anything about its current problems, they I think whole world needs to look at itself in the mirror.

Sorry man this debate turned into one about national dishes

Roast Beef with roast potatoes, yorkshire pudding and two lotys of overcooked vegetables, followed by some sort of sponge pudding and custard, served with beer (real beer, not Budweiser bottled piss)

hey Budweiser is alright. i dont like beer much tho. we americans prefer to smoke weed and drink hard liquor. (i dont smoke tho-i wrestle and id catch an athsma attack from the 4 miles of running we do a day because "im an out of shape fat ass american" as the rest of the world says)

Sorry man this debate turned into one about national dishes
I prefer t6he national dishes. there's so few people around that believe in pre-emptive action; its depressing to hear all these quasi-communists spouting their crap. 80% of my school have the same lefty views although they mkight just be trying to lok smart. I doubt any of them even understand "pre-emptive". thank god for low voter turnout

I prefer t6he national dishes. there's so few people around that believe in pre-emptive action; its depressing to hear all these quasi-communists spouting their crap. 80% of my school have the same lefty views although they mkight just be trying to lok smart. I doubt any of them even understand "pre-emptive". thank god for low voter turnout

Other countries have beleifs on pre-emptive action; for example, the french have a pre-emptive stance of surrender :p

What the hell is a broil steak? I know there are different cuts over there but it sounds funny. Steak is usually a grilling cut.

Its just a name- London Broil is still grilled

Very Juicy, lots of flavor, best served medium-medium rare
good with Montreal Steak Sesoning

hey Budweiser is alright. i dont like beer much tho. we americans prefer to smoke weed and drink hard liquor. (i dont smoke tho-i wrestle and id catch an athsma attack from the 4 miles of running we do a day because "im an out of shape fat ass american" as the rest of the world says)
Aren't your drugs laws incredibly harsh. I read something about proposals for execution if more than 2 0z is found being smuggled in . (my source is Bill Bryson so I may have misinterpreted this). Why are so many americans so fat? We eat just as much as you but you don't see people that fat around here. I saw this woman on a documentary about Houston (they called it america's fattest city) she was so fat thst if she stood up she'd break her legs. how the hell does that happen. One more thing. why is american advertising so awful. We get some of it over here and its crap . example:the "bissel steam carpet cleaner with ScotchGuard" how the hell can it sell with an advert like that.

Its just a name- London Broil is still grilled

Very Juicy, lots of flavor, best served medium-medium rare
good with Montreal Steak Sesoning
How many inches across? Its just that we all have an image of an ameriucan steak as being about the sixe of a car wheel

Other countries have beleifs on pre-emptive action; for example, the french have a pre-emptive stance of surrender :p
damm right. The world needs real ilfe versions of "Team America". that film rules esp. when Hans Blix gets mauled by a shark

Aren't your drugs laws incredibly harsh. I read something about proposals for execution if more than 2 0z is found being smuggled in . (my source is Bill Bryson so I may have misinterpreted this). Why are so many americans so fat? We eat just as much as you but you don't see people that fat around here. I saw this woman on a documentary about Houston (they called it america's fattest city) she was so fat thst if she stood up she'd break her legs. how the hell does that happen. One more thing. why is american advertising so awful. We get some of it over here and its crap . example:the "bissel steam carpet cleaner with ScotchGuard" how the hell can it sell with an advert like that.

1) there is rarely an execution in the US. you can smuggle in 2,000 kilos of cocaine, heroin, or ex and still get out on good bahaivior. Executions are only held for double or more murders

2) AMERICA IS THE FAST FOOD CAPITOL OF THE WORLD! it's true that this is one of the fattest coutries in the world but there arent as many fat people as you think. most people start getting fatter at 35-40 when their matabolism slows down and the majority of fat people are poor because of cheap food at fast food resturaunts. There is progress being made at fast food locations (with the exeption of the hardee's thickburger with 1,500 calories in on burger)

3) as for advertising i have no comment

1) there is rarely an execution in the US. you can smuggle in 2,000 kilos of cocaine, heroin, or ex and still get out on good bahaivior. Executions are only held for double or more murders

2) AMERICA IS THE FAST FOOD CAPITOL OF THE WORLD! it's true that this is one of the fattest coutries in the world but there arent as many fat people as you think. most people start getting fatter at 35-40 when their matabolism slows down and the majority of fat people are poor because of cheap food at fast food resturaunts. There is progress being made at fast food locations (with the exeption of the hardee's thickburger with 1,500 calories in on burger)

3) as for advertising i have no comment
The guy who propsoed that law was called Newt Gingrich or something. Is he real or a a caricature of anti-drugs people?

How many inches across? Its just that we all have an image of an ameriucan steak as being about the sixe of a car wheel

WHO TOLD YOU THAT? its not that small, its the size of the car itself!

Just kidding, the London broil is about 14oz

There are actualy huge steaks like that but hardly anyone can finish them. Mortons steakhous makes 72oz steaks but it is either shared or made into a bet to see if the person can finnish it (doesnt happen to commonly)

The guy who propsoed that law was called Newt Gingrich or something. Is he real or a a caricature of anti-drugs people?

Yep guess so. If there was a law for executing people for possesion of narcotics, a third of my friends would be dead

Well, apart from the Uk the US is the most sensible. Can you think of a better nation to rule.

yes. Costa Rica.

I say this because a country with the least corporate influence will make its decisions and actions based on morality (however i do agree that it is relative) rather than greed. The US, i think is the WORST to lead the world. Costa Rica... New Zealand... oh wait, I forgot Poland! ;)

Yep guess so. If there was a law for executing people for possesion of narcotics, a third of my friends would be dead
Where exactly in america do you live? Its rather diffricult to just say americans as our entire country fits into texas. DFid you approve of Scwarzenegger getting governor of California?

yes. Costa Rica.

I say this because a country with the least corporate influence will make its decisions and actions based on morality (however i do agree that it is relative) rather than greed. The US, i think is the WORST to lead the world. Costa Rica... New Zealand... oh wait, I forgot Poland! ;)

No way is the US the worst to lead. Think of France, or Iran, or North Korea, or Syria

yes. Costa Rica.

I say this because a country with the least corporate influence will make its decisions and actions based on morality (however i do agree that it is relative) rather than greed. The US, i think is the WORST to lead the world. Costa Rica... New Zealand... oh wait, I forgot Poland! ;)
Piss off! Britain, Poland Us etc wipes its arse with nations like Costa Rica. How are you going to rule the world with an army like that hmmm? Its not just about about who's be the best ruler, but who can actually keep control

Where exactly in america do you live? Its rather diffricult to just say americans as our entire country fits into texas. DFid you approve of Scwarzenegger getting governor of California?

Connecticut (sigh) im surrounded by liberals

I really dont give a damn about California. Its the liberal capitiol of the USA. Suprising they elected a Republican as governor

I saw the South Park movie. Is there even some truth that america hates canada. i fucking do, they took the queen of their bank notes while keeping her a head of state! a disgrace I say and as arrant a piece of knavery as can be offered

I saw the South Park movie. Is there even some truth that america hates canada. i fucking do, they took the queen of their bank notes while keeping her a head of state! a disgrace I say and as arrant a piece of knavery as can be offered


I did not take much political intrest in South Park Bigger Longer And Uncut because i was too busy laughing my ass off :D

BLAME CANADA! BLAME CANADA!

Connecticut (sigh) im surrounded by liberals

I really dont give a damn about California. Its the liberal capitiol of the USA. Suprising they elected a Republican as governor
Conneticut , right thats New York, go down and turn left about 500 miles later. My geography is pretty hazy but I can get a lot of the states. Its embarrassing i can almost get more of the states than i can get english counties

Whenever there has ever been a confederation in which the smaller components had more power that the large component, it always fails. The UN has no real power over its components, and will fall.

I think it is breaking up and I can't wait for the day that it does. In the meantime I think the United States should remove the U.N. from the United States and also remove itself from the U.N.

Whenever there has ever been a confederation in which the smaller components had more power that the large component, it always fails. The UN has no real power over its components, and will fall.
Well done bonzo the Un is crap. the conversation has moved on by now m'kay

Conneticut , right thats New York, go down and turn left about 500 miles later. My geography is pretty hazy but I can get a lot of the states. Its embarrassing i can almost get more of the states than i can get english counties

Connecticut- Start in NY city, take 10 steps south, cross the Hudson River and your in CT. Yep ur geography is a little hazy, seeing how 500 miles east is in Lake Erie but your from the UK so ill let you go on that one

Well done bonzo the Un is crap. the conversation has moved on by now m'kay

Yea we should start a new thread

The Security Council can't agree on anything now. How do you propose to persuade them to give up the veto?

Or would it take another World War, and the sole winner would be in a position to impose world government by force alone?

not to bad an idea...hmmm...heh heh heh...i mean uh...ya...um... :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

I think it is breaking up and I can't wait for the day that it does. In the meantime I think the United States should remove the U.N. from the United States and also remove itself from the U.N.

You just said the same thing backwards

How come the french get france? It a lovely country with such pricks living in it. Ithink it should have gone to someone deserving:
like Poland or Croatia. Such nice people in such godawful countries. theres no justice

Do the French make Cristal and Dom Perignon? because if they do, we should invade them next and take over their champagne farms

i just tried cristal for the first time on new years and i couldnt get enough of it. too bad its so expensive...

Sorry got to go its 12 pm over here and i got school send my nation on nationstates a telegram .

Sorry got to go its 12 pm over here and i got school send my nation on nationstates a telegram .

sounds good i g2g too

[QUOTE=Anti Jihadist Jihad]Do the French make Cristal and Dom Perignon? because if they do, we should invade them next and take over their champagne farms

i just tried cristal for the first time on new years and i couldnt get enough of it. too bad its so expensive...[/QUO
Yes. all chanpagne has to come from a region of France called champagne. If its fro, Anywhere else its called "method champagnoise"

[QUOTE=Anti Jihadist Jihad]Do the French make Cristal and Dom Perignon? because if they do, we should invade them next and take over their champagne farms

i just tried cristal for the first time on new years and i couldnt get enough of it. too bad its so expensive...[/QUO
Yes. all chanpagne has to come from a region of France called champagne. If its fro, Anywhere else its called "method champagnoise"

the US should invade France and call it Operation Cristal Night-not to be confused with Kristallnacht...damn nazis

Conneticut , right thats New York, go down and turn left about 500 miles later. My geography is pretty hazy but I can get a lot of the states. Its embarrassing i can almost get more of the states than i can get english counties.


Connecticut- Start in NY city, take 10 steps south, cross the Hudson River and your in CT. Yep ur geography is a little hazy, seeing how 500 miles east is in Lake Erie but your from the UK so ill let you go on that one


You're both wrong...

Starting in New York City, going south would end up in the Atlantic Ocean (it's located on an island...)

Connecticut is actually north of New York City, right next to that little sliver of a state, Rhode Island.

As for that 72 oz. steak...all I can claim being able to eat is a 52 oz steak... and that was a hell of an eat... it's a good thing I have a fast metabolism.

Oh, and I'm not the so called typical American. I'm not obese, I have a pretty decently fit body...I used to wrestle, and I try to exercise when I have the free time to do so. I'm often very busy with either work or school.

i really really hope it doesn't break up. this is the best organisation we've had of this sort (well the only other was the pathetic League of Nations back in the inter-war days, so not much competition....) and i'd hate to see it go, largely because i cannot imagine what to replace it with. without the UN all sorts of horrible things may be more likely to happen (WW3 for eg :eek: )

horrible things may happen ? How about genoicde.. From reading the UN charter, i belive that was the primary purpose it was created.. to prevent genoicde.... yet it is incapable of doing so.. it is Clear the UN is an antiquated organization good for nothing more then a forum for world leaders to meet each other in a neutral setting... even though that sense of neutrality has now been forever tarnished after the food for oil scandel..

People say it will only survive if the Veto goes.. i can tell you now it will require an entirely new organization to remove the idea of the veto.. Powerful nations have no need to remove it, nor should in my opinion. It is only to benifit their citizens, to be sure they are better represented.. what nation would give up the opprotunity to have such a power.