NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_682.shtml

Why should we go back again? The UN is a first attempt to a better world. At the moment we just have to do with it, there are no alternatives.

bump

And by what, pray tell, would the UN need to be replaced by ? The ideals of George W. Bush, "leader of the free world" perhaps, since his country has the biggest muscles ?

And by what, pray tell, would the UN need to be replaced by ? The ideals of George W. Bush, "leader of the free world" perhaps, since his country has the biggest muscles ?

That's like asking somebody with cancer, "But if we cure your cancer, what will we replace it with?"

Crap like that article never states any of the good things the UN has done, just the garbage.

We of course cant have peace keepers from 3rd world countries or the USA as they will screw it up or think its a war.

Its up to the rest of the developed world to actually take some action.

That's like asking somebody with cancer, "But if we cure your cancer, what will we replace it with?"
Wrong, comparing the UN to cancer is a sad opinionated insult and isn't true in the real world, AIDS is a cancer on the world, War is a cancer on the world, a national organisation to oversee all nations is not a cancer. If so, the federal government is a cancer on the states, the state governments are a cancer on counties and county governments are a cancer on cities.

Crap like that article never states any of the good things the UN has done, just the garbage.

What little good the UN has supposedly done (which is probably nothing) is far, far, far outweighed by the bad.

That's like asking somebody with cancer, "But if we cure your cancer, what will we replace it with?"

So you believe that in this age of global terrorism, invasions of foreign countries, nuclear weaponry, mass disasters and global economy the world *doesn't* need something resembling a "world government" ?

Wrong, comparing the UN to cancer is a sad opinionated insult and isn't true in the real world, AIDS is a cancer on the world, War is a cancer on the world, a national organisation to oversee all nations is not a cancer. If so, the federal government is a cancer on the states, the state governments are a cancer on counties and county governments are a cancer on cities.

What I meant was, "why replace something dangerous with something else dangerous?"

So you believe that in this age of global terrorism, invasions of foreign countries, nuclear weaponry, mass disasters and global economy the world *doesn't* need something resembling a "world government" ?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Countries should mind their own businesses, and never meddle in other countries' affairs.

What I meant was, "why replace something dangerous with something else dangerous?"
That's not what you said, and I repeat, how is an organisation to serve as a world government dangerous? Federal, state, county.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Countries should mind their own businesses, and never meddle in other countries' affairs.

And what of the global affairs ? And what to do about the countries that do meddle - by e.g. invading their neighbours ?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Countries should mind their own businesses, and never meddle in other countries' affairs.
The Middle Ages weren't such a great era.

What little good the UN has supposedly done (which is probably nothing) is far, far, far outweighed by the bad.

Thats complete bullshit. :mp5:

The only "bad" thing the UN has done is it's inaction and using untrained third world peacekeepers.

The UN has stoped wars, helped famine etc etc etc.

The current leaders are corrupt of course and need to be replaced but making a silly statement like that is just plain crap.

The world does not want US troops cleaning up conflicts, whether the USA even would want to help or not. Peacekeepers can make a huge difference, they just have to be trained and come from countries that dont have a "warmonger" rep.

And what of the global affairs ? And what to do about the countries that do meddle - by e.g. invading their neighbours ?

Let other countries deal with it. Or bring in a genuinely neutral third party (Switzerland, for example) to bring the two sides together.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Countries should mind their own businesses, and never meddle in other countries' affairs.


hellllo? coff coff genocide coff coff jackass coff....

hellllo? coff coff genocide coff coff jackass coff....

Please leave my thread right now, thanks.

Let other countries deal with it. Or bring in a genuinely neutral third party (Switzerland, for example) to bring the two sides together.

Allright - that solves the invasions part to a degree.
Now the global affairs. Most of the economies of developed countries are linked. Coorporations are international. Extremely complex trade treaties exist. Should this stop ? Do note that answering yes would have *severe* impact. The US economy e.g. will be almost completely crippled. As would many European countries.
Other example: many countries believe in global warming. Suppose it was proven without a doubt that Kyoto is necessary - well, that would be too bad then without international relations..

Allright - that solves the invasions part to a degree.
Now the global affairs. Most of the economies of developed countries are linked. Coorporations are international. Extremely complex trade treaties exist. Should this stop ? Do note that answering yes would have *severe* impact. The US economy e.g. will be almost completely crippled. As would many European countries.
Other example: many countries believe in global warming. Suppose it was proven without a doubt that Kyoto is necessary - well, that would be too bad then without international relations..

Trade is fine. Diplomatic relations are fine. But running around the world jumping into other nations' affairs is NOT fine.

Please leave my thread right now, thanks.


Your Ultra right wing piece on the UN is paramount to trolling dude dont bitch at me, what are u expecting?

Your Ultra right wing piece on the UN is paramount to trolling dude dont bitch at me, what are u expecting?

What am I expecting? Maturity and good manners, both which you obviously lack. Now, get lost before I bring in the mods.

Trade is fine. Diplomatic relations are fine. But running around the world jumping into other nations' affairs is NOT fine.

The problem with this reasoning is that you're placing the right of national governments to do what they wish over human rights. Without an organization to see to human rights - and to make certain that national governments abide by them - said human rights tend to be forgotten by the more extreme nations.

You're arguing from the point of view that the sovereignty of a national government is more important than the rights of it's citizens. I disagree fundamentally. The rights of mankind supercede the rights of the government.

EDIT: That's part of the idea of the U.N., I should note. A semi-neutral body of nations that can make sure nothing like the obscene violations of human rights that led to the Third Reich would ever occur again. It is fundamentally flawed because it is a human creation and it is run by humans; yet it is still better than nothing.

You're arguing from the point of view that the sovereignty of a national government is more important than the rights of it's citizens. I disagree fundamentally. The rights of mankind supercede the rights of the government.

Agreed, I just don't think we should play globocop. We don't have nearly enough manpower, resources, or money to police the entire world and get everyone to respect human rights.

The problem with this reasoning is that you're placing the right of national governments to do what they wish over human rights. Without an organization to see to human rights - and to make certain that national governments abide by them - said human rights tend to be forgotten by the more extreme nations.

You're arguing from the point of view that the sovereignty of a national government is more important than the rights of it's citizens. I disagree fundamentally. The rights of mankind supercede the rights of the government.

EDIT: That's part of the idea of the U.N., I should note. A semi-neutral body of nations that can make sure nothing like the obscene violations of human rights that led to the Third Reich would ever occur again. It is fundamentally flawed because it is a human creation and it is run by humans; yet it is still better than nothing.

Another thing to note is that the U.N. has zero regard for human rights. That's why we see nations like Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, and men like Castro, Mugabe, etc. lauded and praised.

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with current U.N. politics to respond to you on that ground, Roach. I'm familiar with the history and charter of the U.N., though, as well as the purposes that were intended for it.

If corruption is rampant and the U.N. is losing sight of it's true purpose, perhaps it simply needs new leadership, instead of simply dying. The same could have been said of the United States at several points in our history, after all.

So you believe that in this age of global terrorism, invasions of foreign countries, nuclear weaponry, mass disasters and global economy the world *doesn't* need something resembling a "world government" ?

the UN is by no measure of the word a world government.. at best it resembles intergovernmental cooperation and in my opinion not even that.. IT is nothing more then a political tool being used by every side to perpetuate their own ambitions and (now that the veto holding countries are at odds with each other) has become so inefficent and ineffective its almost counter productive!

With no legitimacy, and no means by which to enforce their own laws, can anyone expect this institution to be accepted as some sort of supranational government ?!? ...

I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with current U.N. politics to respond to you on that ground, Roach. I'm familiar with the history and charter of the U.N., though, as well as the purposes that were intended for it.

If corruption is rampant and the U.N. is losing sight of it's true purpose, perhaps it simply needs new leadership, instead of simply dying. The same could have been said of the United States at several points in our history, after all.

Even leadership changes does not alter the inherent built in falicies within the organization, and if you know its history you know its been plauged by failor since its inception.

Its failor in dealing with the Israeli/palestinean land issues, its failor in dealing with the refugee crisises withing this situation, its failor in dealing withi just about every major global crisis during the cold war, its failor in bosnia, in somolia, in Iraq (genocide of Kurds), its failor in rwanda, and now in sudan (dahfur). Its system of peace keepers is yet another travesty as in many instances throughout Africa Peace keepers can do nothing more then stand aside as whole villages and towns are burnt and pilliaged, women raped and murdered.

The UN itself is built upon structural problems which cannot be changed easily or at all. Countries having Veto powers in the SEcurity council is but the beginning of the endless problems. The fact that countries are admited into the UN with few if any requirements is a travesty, countries like the Iran, China, even the previous Soviet Union all of whom are countries with no respect to the very laws the UN is suppose to protect "human rights" are given free pass to mingle and partake in UN processess..

this is more then just a leadership question, it is an institutional one.

The UN has to be striped to its base and built again

The fact that no one listens or does anything (I know) UN says
isn't UNs fault.

Or maybe it is... UN should be armed to the teeth...
Or...

What am I expecting? Maturity and good manners, both which you obviously lack. Now, get lost before I bring in the mods.


Sure buddy :fluffle: lol

this is more then just a leadership question, it is an institutional one.

The UN has to be striped to its base and built again

What would you suggest, then?

Even leadership changes does not alter the inherent built in falicies within the organization, and if you know its history you know its been plauged by failor since its inception.

Its failor in dealing with the Israeli/palestinean land issues, its failor in dealing with the refugee crisises withing this situation, its failor in dealing withi just about every major global crisis during the cold war, its failor in bosnia, in somolia, in Iraq (genocide of Kurds), its failor in rwanda, and now in sudan (dahfur). Its system of peace keepers is yet another travesty as in many instances throughout Africa Peace keepers can do nothing more then stand aside as whole villages and towns are burnt and pilliaged, women raped and murdered.

The UN itself is built upon structural problems which cannot be changed easily or at all. Countries having Veto powers in the SEcurity council is but the beginning of the endless problems. The fact that countries are admited into the UN with few if any requirements is a travesty, countries like the Iran, China, even the previous Soviet Union all of whom are countries with no respect to the very laws the UN is suppose to protect "human rights" are given free pass to mingle and partake in UN processess..

this is more then just a leadership question, it is an institutional one.

The UN has to be striped to its base and built again

What you and 10,000 quote man fail to realize is that we would be all dead without the UN. ;)

The U.N helped the commies and the states have a forum to discuss issues. It also helped problems like Timor, the suez crisis, it did contain the war in bosnia to yugoslavia, that war would have flared outside of the balkans, not to mention it helps solve the multitude of terroritory + trade disputes going on in the world today.

Of course it has lots of problems, but destorying it totally is very poor judgement.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Countries should mind their own businesses, and never meddle in other countries' affairs.


Like that 'ell ever happen. Countries have been fighting since the concept was created (country) and long before that. What is going to stop them from continuing to do that. By that suggestion, the West shouldn't have stopped the Nazis or the holocaust. What a wonderful idea!

Like that 'ell ever happen. Countries have been fighting since the concept was created (country) and long before that. What is going to stop them from continuing to do that. By that suggestion, the West shouldn't have stopped the Nazis or the holocaust. What a wonderful idea!

Yes, we should have stopped the Nazis, but not by fighting a war. We should have sponsored a coup d'etat against Hitler.

Agreed, I just don't think we should play globocop. We don't have nearly enough manpower, resources, or money to police the entire world and get everyone to respect human rights.

I agree, I am sick of my country (US) Sticking its nose in other peoples business. It just makes more and more people hate us.

I agree, I am sick of my country (US) Sticking its nose in other peoples business. It just makes more and more people hate us.


Who? The Extremists? They already hate us! What, big whoop they hate us even more, who cares. I for one am happy that the USA is out there spreading democracy, and getting rid of crazy despots. I don't care if their only doing it for the oil... i'm just happy someone is finally doing it, i wish the french weren't so damn chicken, and help...then we could help Iran, Syrian and Re-Unite North Korea. Not much worry about China... they've eased up over the years.

Still i applaud Bush's decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the UN, it is was a good concept...but screw the vetos, and 5 powers and all that...the UN should be meant for Global Interchange of what is happening in their world, people condemning Israel for defending itself Left and Right...people ignoring Sudan and Zimbabwe...the UN is entirely useless.

Who? The Extremists? They already hate us! What, big whoop they hate us even more, who cares. I for one am happy that the USA is out there spreading democracy, and getting rid of crazy despots. I don't care if their only doing it for the oil... i'm just happy someone is finally doing it, i wish the french weren't so damn chicken, and help...then we could help Iran, Syrian and Re-Unite North Korea. Not much worry about China... they've eased up over the years.

Still i applaud Bush's decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

They hate us already why?

They hate us already why?


Those Religious Extremist's have it hard-wired in their brains to hate anyone that doesn't follow their path of Islam. They don't need a reason to hate us other then that, just look at the PLO, they tried to take over Jordan!

Yes they are all evil too right?

Those Religious Extremist's have it hard-wired in their brains to hate anyone that doesn't follow their path of Islam. They don't need a reason to hate us other then that, just look at the PLO, they tried to take over Jordan!


Well jordan historically used to be part of palestine after all..

In the 1920 British Mandate, all of Palestine and Jordan was to be Jewish land... then after that Just all of Modern day Israel, with Jordan being Palestine... Then Jordan became it's own country, and they Split Israel in half.

Why should we go back again? The UN is a first attempt to a better world. At the moment we just have to do with it, there are no alternatives.

Actually, that was the League of Nations. The UN was a big improvement on that one. Hopefully, we don't need a WWIII to disband *it* and create something better.

bump