NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally i think the UN wants world government or world dictatorship thus making it evil. you get the point

I think: Meh.
The idea is good, but the implementation hasn't been going very well. It needs some big changes.

The UN, it needs change, it doesn't do anything, then again it is a "peace keeping" organization. But what did they do when people in Rwanda were being slaughter? Well pretty much nothing.

I don't really care. Like all human follies, it has both good points and bad.

That said, what's wrong with one world government? People say it's bad, but really can't come up with a reason that doesn't amount to worthless pride. The few I have seen that have point towards Revelations in the Bible, and that case could easily be talking any number of items, including the possible interpretation it was talking about Rome.

Ineffective, corrupt, elitest, borderline anti-semitic... in a word: useless.

I think the UN is an anti-US, pro-Tyranny, anti-capitalist, corrupt organizations, filled with rapists and scammers. It is quite frankly a waste of tax payer money. I mean we give these guys two billion dollars a year and let them have their headquarters in our country (which by the way is a huge inconvenience, think parking fines) and all they do is sit around and insult us while sending “peace keepers” to Africa to molest little kids and further perpetuate the sex trade in children. The US should leave the UN kick them out of the country and then see how long they last.

I don't really care. Like all human follies, it has both good points and bad.

That said, what's wrong with one world government? People say it's bad, but really can't come up with a reason that doesn't amount to worthless pride. The few I have seen that have point towards Revelations in the Bible, and that case could easily be talking any number of items, including the possible interpretation it was talking about Rome.

world governmet means corruption, when a country is evil it has other countries to beat it down such as the nazi. but if there is only one government that becomes evil who is to stop it? also Revelation is not about Rome, if you studied Revelation, much less read it you would know that

You would think an organization located in America, acquiring most of its funds from America, originally constructed mostly by America, and empowered by the American military would support American endeavours. Especially ones that are just. But no. The organization has served its purpose and now is actually a hinderance and impediment to freedom instead of an entity dedicated to the spread of freedom. I say we abolish it and create a new one. That, or let it continue to exist until we are all dominated by an international government.

I think the UN is an anti-US, pro-Tyranny, anti-capitalist, corrupt organizations, filled with rapists and scammers. It is quite frankly a waste of tax payer money. I mean we give these guys two billion dollars a year and let them have their headquarters in our country (which by the way is a huge inconvenience, think parking fines) and all they do is sit around and insult us while sending “peace keepers” to Africa to molest little kids and further perpetuate the sex trade in children. The US should leave the UN kick them out of the country and then see how long they last.

I couldnt agree more. UN BASTARDS!!!

This thread should have a poll...definitely.

This thread should have a poll...definitely.

I concur.

What do I think of the UN? Well, they're bastards, really.

i think the un is a do nothing know nothing pos that can acomplish NOTHING, NOTHING!!!!!!

they suck

This has become a UN bashing thread. AWESOME!

The UN is simply a mechansim by which the virtually socialistic countries of Europe can excersise dominance over the world even though their international influence has been declining since WWII. It's just an antiquated reminent from a time when France, Germany, and Russia actually mattered.

You would think an organization located in America, acquiring most of its funds from America, originally constructed mostly by America, and empowered by the American military would support American endeavours. Especially ones that are just. But no. The organization has served its purpose and now is actually a hinderance and impediment to freedom instead of an entity dedicated to the spread of freedom. I say we abolish it and create a new one. That, or let it continue to exist until we are all dominated by an international government.

In other words. It should be utterl subservient to the will of the US. Personally, I'm against that, as is the whole point of the UN.

Not that I like the UN any either, I'm jus scared by the way you think.

A good idea on paper, bad in reality.

world governmet means corruption, when a country is evil it has other countries to beat it down such as the nazi. but if there is only one government that becomes evil who is to stop it? also Revelation is not about Rome, if you studied Revelation, much less read it you would know that

You're missing the world government point - it would have to be a confederation of all, and for someone evil to come to power, it would mean that not a majority of his nation but a majority of the planet would support him, which effectively becomes the check/balance -

If he was a racist, well he has a whole continent of blacks or asians or latinos that would vote against him, plus plenty of non-racist white people. He couldn't by definition be a warmonger, because in a world with only one nation, whos to war against? He could be oppressive, but if a majority of people support him, is he really oppressing them if they democratically choose it? If he were a dictator who usurped power, well the confederation would probably shatter, or suffer a revolution, as a destruction of it's core fundamentals of unified world democracy would kind of annull it.

It might bring about the apocalypse... but then again it might not. Hell, I might bring about the apocalypse. I find it more likely that a tribalistic nation-state system armed with nuclear weapons is more likely to destroy the world ala WWIII than a world government whose goal is peace and cooperation.

Well, that was massivly off-topic, and I apologize, but my pro-world government side got the better of me.

As to the UN - good idea, not enough powers, too much reliance on the US, not enough authority to enforce rules, not respected by US, shouldn't be stationed in the US, Security council shouldn't be a WWII victors club. I do and will support international governing bodies, but the UN has many holes that I would love to see patched up.

The UN is simply a mechansim by which the virtually socialistic countries of Europe can excersise dominance over the world even though their international influence has been declining since WWII. It's just an antiquated reminent from a time when France, Germany, and Russia actually mattered.

politically otherwise germans are nice

You're missing the world government point - it would have to be a confederation of all, and for someone evil to come to power, it would mean that not a majority of his nation but a majority of the planet would support him, which effectively becomes the check/balance -

If he was a racist, well he has a whole continent of blacks or asians or latinos that would vote against him, plus plenty of non-racist white people. He couldn't by definition be a warmonger, because in a world with only one nation, whos to war against? He could be oppressive, but if a majority of people support him, is he really oppressing them if they democratically choose it? If he were a dictator who usurped power, well the confederation would probably shatter, or suffer a revolution, as a destruction of it's core fundamentals of unified world democracy would kind of annull it.

It might bring about the apocalypse... but then again it might not. Hell, I might bring about the apocalypse. I find it more likely that a tribalistic nation-state system armed with nuclear weapons is more likely to destroy the world ala WWIII than a world government whose goal is peace and cooperation.

Well, that was massivly off-topic, and I apologize, but my pro-world government side got the better of me.

As to the UN - good idea, not enough powers, too much reliance on the US, not enough authority to enforce rules, not respected by US, shouldn't be stationed in the US, Security council shouldn't be a WWII victors club. I do and will support international governing bodies, but the UN has many holes that I would love to see patched up.

Germans gave up their liberties to Hitler with applause. if a man had power over the world... people are naturally evil

World governing organisations like the UN breed only corruption through their bureaucracy. The problem with world government is that it creates more government wich erodes individual and regional liberties.

A good idea on paper, bad in reality.

Yeah, kinda like Communism.

The UN is simply a mechansim by which the virtually socialistic countries of Europe can excersise dominance over the world even though their international influence has been declining since WWII. It's just an antiquated reminent from a time when France, Germany, and Russia actually mattered.

You just put a big smile on my face. :D

The UN:
-is corrupt
-is biased towards corrupt nations
-cannot acknowledge genocide
-overrides national soveriegnty, taking politcal power further away from the governed
-should be removed from the US and the US removed from the UN

World governing organisations like the UN breed only corruption through their bureaucracy. The problem with world government is that it creates more government wich erodes individual and regional liberties.
This bureaucracy even shows on the Federal governmental level. I mean, look at the US; we were supposed to be a confederation, but since that failed we had to resort to Federal government. That worked well (kept small, governed little compared to states) but then we get the Civil War and the Feds become all the more powerful

Good point. In general, the larger and more extensive the organisation, the more bureaucratic it becomes. Therefore, international organisations like the UN are basically doomed to failure if they are not continuously regulated by some objective force.

The UN is simply a mechansim by which the virtually socialistic countries of Europe can excersise dominance over the world even though their international influence has been declining since WWII. It's just an antiquated reminent from a time when France, Germany, and Russia actually mattered.

Hehe.
You know nothing, yet you are loud enough to have people listen to you.

Your antiquated belief in a world of "good" and "evil" is going to get all of you killed, your statues decapitated and your memory tainted. So far it happened to everyone who thought like you do.
Empires come and go, only people remain.

The Spirit of Teutoburg lives on!

Your antiquated belief in a world of "good" and "evil" is going to get all of you killed, your statues decapitated and your memory tainted. So far it happened to everyone who thought like you do.
The relativism which you seem to imply championing is self-defeating. "All ideas are relative" is an absolute statement, so how can an "all ideas are neither good or bad" (hey look, another absolute statement) ideology be absolute?

The UN needs tuff leaders, today it's useless and a waste of money.
In the future it should be restricted to a few areas so not to step on indevidual nations right to govern them selfes.

The relativism which you seem to imply championing is self-defeating. "All ideas are relative" is an absolute statement, so how can an "all ideas are neither good or bad" (hey look, another absolute statement) ideology be absolute?

Don't get caught up in semantics.
Point is that there is neither good nor bad on this planet, there is only colonys of cells trying to begat each other...
Somehow assuming that America is a force for "good" in this world is the very same idea that all other empires before have championed.
The definition for good has changed from "defeating the evil Pharaoh" to "bringing Greek culture" to "romanising the barbarians (and killing Christians)" to "spreading christianity" to "defeating the Nazis" to "spreading liberty and democracy".
There is no difference between any of these statements. It is all purely subjective.
Following the implication of being a "force of good" in this world, all that disagree must be "evil" and must therefore be defeated. Which will only lead to your empire becoming weak and corrupt, being overthrown and history going on as it always has, just with another "good" (teaching Chinese to everyone maybe?)

I didn't say that group A/B is embodiment of good/evil. I'm just asking why can't the notions of good and evil exist?

Don't get caught up in semantics.
Point is that there is neither good nor bad on this planet, there is only colonys of cells trying to begat each other...
Somehow assuming that America is a force for "good" in this world is the very same idea that all other empires before have championed.
The definition for good has changed from "defeating the evil Pharaoh" to "bringing Greek culture" to "romanising the barbarians (and killing Christians)" to "spreading christianity" to "defeating the Nazis" to "spreading liberty and democracy".
There is no difference between any of these statements. It is all purely subjective.
Following the implication of being a "force of good" in this world, all that disagree must be "evil" and must therefore be defeated. Which will only lead to your empire becoming weak and corrupt, being overthrown and history going on as it always has, just with another "good" (teaching Chinese to everyone maybe?)

You hit the nail on the head, its all perception. Kind of funny because it makes me think of Star Wars, and how Anikan was pulled over, when hewas trying to explain to padme.... ahhh nevermind. Some might know what I'm saying.

<<In the future it should be restricted to a few areas so not to step on indevidual nations right to govern them selfes.>>

Which would make it impotent. Worse than it is already.

I didn't say that group A/B is embodiment of good/evil. I'm just asking why can't the notions of good and evil exist?

Because they are subjective. They are just words, and I can call you evil and you can call me evil.
Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Killing someone isn't evil, for killing is what nature does.
So what do you suggest to be good, and what is evil? I can guarantee you that there will be people who disagree.
What makes your definition of good superior to a psychopathical rapist's definition of good?

world governmet means corruption, when a country is evil it has other countries to beat it down such as the nazi. but if there is only one government that becomes evil who is to stop it? also Revelation is not about Rome, if you studied Revelation, much less read it you would know that

Humanity means corruption. Humanity means people getting beaten down. The one fact of life you have to realize is that in all forms of corruption that deal with human inventions, humanity is the cause. It doesn't take much of a leap to understand that the extermination of corruption is really the extermination of humanity.

As for Revelations: I have studied it. I have studied it in more ways than you can imagine, and every time I find another new interpretation, another way of looking at it. You want an example that supports the Rome theory? Try comparing the seven-headed beast with the seven hills of the city of Rome, back around in the time the prophesy was written. Here's a little secret about dealing with the Bible: You have no clue what Revelations is really speaking of. Neither do I or anyone else. So while you may believe it doesn't deal with Rome, you cannot say for a fact that it does not. Until the day you die, you will never know the truth of the matter. Thus, theories abound.

Now, that was just an example. Let's get back to the topic.

The UN isn't a bad concept. Americans keep discrediting it because it's a world community effort, and most of the world doesn't approve of the continued American attempts at running it into the ground.
Most people simply don't like the idea of a global American hegemony. Would Americans like a global Chinese hegemony I wonder?
Likewise, many people/nations don't fancy the US using it's financial and military might to force it's own economic interests on others. Nor does most people like how Americans bribe UN members to vote in favour of their initiatives, or how the US witholds owed UN funding.... It's another one of those endless lists.
And the concept of the security council is completely fooked. 5 members only? And it just happens to be the 5 most universally feared countries on the planet... The ones who, for the last 100+ years, have forced their will upon others continuesly.

There's no doubt the UN doesn't work very well. But it's a helluva lot better than not having it. The best example is perhaps how it's solely down to UN effort the number of humans below the age of 13 who die each year because their basic human rights are violated, have halved over the last 15 years.

And... Frankly speaking, I'm for anything that pisses off the US rightwing. Sharing the world with you guys is more nervewrecking than beating on a live bomb with a sledgehammer.

Which would make it impotent. Worse than it is already.


Which would be a good thing. Tis better to have a powerless corrupt regime than a potent one :D

Because they are subjective. They are just words, and I can call you evil and you can call me evil.
Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Killing someone isn't evil, for killing is what nature does.
So what do you suggest to be good, and what is evil? I can guarantee you that there will be people who disagree.
What makes your definition of good superior to a psychopathical rapist's definition of good?


Let's say there is a rock floating around in space somewhere....some people say it exists...some people say it doesn't...however, it DOES exist. Just because someone believes you are wrong does not make you wrong. Just because you believe you are right does not make you right. You are either right or wrong based upon fact. Same for Good and Evil. (This is coming from my Christian beliefs so bear with me) There is an absolute standard imposed by God. Whether we acknowledge its existence or not is entirely irrelevant, as the the truth is that it does exist. Humans do not determine whether something is true or not, it simply is true or it simply is false.

Of course the US has always been a great "team player" when it comes to building a stronger more viable UN? :rolleyes:

1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year -----Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

Not counting the immense support of Israel by the US in these vetoes, it is clear that the US has helped tie the hands of the UN and make it a less effective organization. :(

If all the money spent on and given to the UN by all members were given to charitable organizations to fight hunger and poverty in the world we could seriously diminish hunger and poverty. The UN is too inefficient and corrupt to do much good. What have they done in Darfur except talk about it while people die.

It is time to abolish the UN. It is useless.

If all the money spent on and given to the UN by all members were given to charitable organizations to fight hunger and poverty in the world we could seriously diminish hunger and poverty. The UN is too inefficient and corrupt to do much good. What have they done in Darfur except talk about it while people die.

It is time to abolish the UN. It is useless.
The UN is there to promote peace, and help the less fortunate countries in the world.

While your suggestion is a noble one, perhaps you could consider the possible results of a country such as the US spending money for peaceful purposes instead of pissing it away in Iraq (a war BTW that the UN tried to prevent).

The War in Iraq Costs the United States (http://costofwar.com/index-world-hunger.html)

$176,093,956,549

Instead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 7 years.

Without the UN, the chances are that more pre-emptive wars would increase, due to lack of accountability.

I like the priciples of the UN but I don't like its ineffectiveness.

They have shown their ineffectiveness in one to many wars starting with the Arab/Israeli war of 1948 to the 2nd Persian Gulf War.

In many, if not all, of these cases, one side or another disregarded the UN as well as UN Resolutions from the Arab States and Pakistan in 1948-1949 to Iraq from 1990-2003.

The UN has only enforced its resolutions in for the Korean War and The Persian Gulf War.

It is time for the UN to be reformed so that the principles stated in the UN Charter can come back to the for front and turn the Organization back into a viable one.

The UN is there to promote peace, and help the less fortunate countries in the world.

The idea is they are supposed to. The reality is they haven't.

The UN is there to promote peace, and help the less fortunate countries in the world.

Promote Peace is right but how many times have they failed in that regard? I can only handle so many failures before I start to lose faith in something.

The UN has done nothing to make sure that peace happens. They failed in Israeli/Arab conflict., they failed in Africa, they failed with the Inda/Pakistan affair, they failed with Iraq.

They also haven't stopped any genocides that I know of.

So tell me how the UN is promoting peace and how are they helping the less fortunate countries when genocide is happening in most of them?

Personally i think the UN wants world government or world dictatorship thus making it evil. you get the point
The UN is far too weak and disorganized to ever accomplish anything remotely approaching what you indicate it seems to want.

The UN is far too weak and disorganized to ever accomplish anything remotely approaching what you indicate it seems to want.

That explains why they don't enforce a single resolution! LOL

The UN is far too weak and disorganized to ever accomplish anything remotely approaching what you indicate it seems to want.
And remember it is so by design. The powerful countries that made it, and for which it is still useful were not going to make something that could effectively oppose them in the future.

All of the shortcomings of the UN that have been posted in this thread are by design.

When it started out, the UN was very effective, but now it's just extremely corrupt and basically all it does is give little insignificant third-world countries as much say in the world as European and America.

Ah yes, and the only real purpose it serves nowadays is to criticize the USA and Israel. I'm of the opinion that if the USA and Israel dropped out of the UN it would fall apart because they wouldn't have anyone to blame everything on.

When it started out, the UN was very effective, but now it's just extremely corrupt and basically all it does is give little insignificant third-world countries as much say in the world as Europe and America.

Ah yes, and the only real purpose it serves nowadays is to criticize the USA and Israel. I'm of the opinion that if the USA and Israel dropped out of the UN it would fall apart because they wouldn't have anyone to blame everything on.

When it started out, the UN was very effective, but now it's just extremely corrupt and basically all it does is give little insignificant third-world countries as much say in the world as Europe and America.

Ah yes, and the only real purpose it serves nowadays is to criticize the USA and Israel. I'm of the opinion that if the USA and Israel dropped out of the UN it would fall apart because they wouldn't have anyone to blame everything on.

When it started out, the UN was very effective,

I'm sure that Israel and India will disagree with you here.

but now it's just extremely corrupt and basically all it does is give little insignificant third-world countries as much say in the world as European and America.

Yep. Pretty much accurate. Actually, I would go as far as to say that the NonAligned Movement and the Arab League have more say than the Western Developed World.

Ah yes, and the only real purpose it serves nowadays is to criticize the USA and Israel. I'm of the opinion that if the USA and Israel dropped out of the UN it would fall apart because they wouldn't have anyone to blame everything on.

It won't fall apart if we both drop out though I wish it could.

The UN should be shut down, it just stops us right-wing types doing what we want

What do you think of the UN?

It needs less of the USA. They certainly shouldn't hold veto power. Their uses of that power are of the most significant reasons that the UN is ineffective. They won't support anything that even remotely affects them negatively, regardless of how it could help everyone else.

And overall, the veto system today is outdated. Completely abolishing it might not be good. But it shouldn't be up to a few, specific nations. Maybe smaller regions should have it (if all within a region agrees on it, they'd use their veto. There wouldn't be vetoes made solely out of national interest).

It needs less of the USA. They certainly shouldn't hold veto power. Their uses of that power are of the most significant reasons that the UN is ineffective. They won't support anything that even remotely affects them negatively, regardless of how it could help everyone else.

Nice job bashing America.

And overall, the veto system today is outdated. Completely abolishing it might not be good. But it shouldn't be up to a few, specific nations. Maybe smaller regions should have it (if all within a region agrees on it, they'd use their veto. There wouldn't be vetoes made solely out of national interest).

And how would you define a region?

Nice job bashing America.

Why, thank you.

And how would you define a region?

A group of nations, in the same geographical area, with a certain amount of people (close to the size of the other hypothetical regions).

Why, thank you.

:rolleyes:

A group of nations, in the same geographical area, with a certain amount of people (close to the size of the other hypothetical regions).

Good luck in getting this implemented. It'll get tossed out so fast it'll make your head spin.

world governmet means corruption, when a country is evil it has other countries to beat it down such as the nazi. but if there is only one government that becomes evil who is to stop it? also Revelation is not about Rome, if you studied Revelation, much less read it you would know that


based on Revelation, it talks about one world government being bad because its really the Satan using the Anti-Christ to turn the world against all that is good. It also points out that the restored Kingdom of David will usher in a world of peace, and it will be one world government, only difference is that during that time the Devil is bound and held in captivity.

The Prophecy of Revelation dosesn't support or deny one world government, just that the intentions of the people running it will decide if its for the better or not.

Good luck in getting this implemented. It'll get tossed out so fast it'll make your head spin.

I'm not trying to implement it. I barely have any say in my own nations politics (first time voter in some months). I'm just making suggestions... to other people who can't do anything about it directly, either.

So why wouldn't it work, then?

I'm not trying to implement it. I barely have any say in my own nations politics (first time voter in some months). I'm just making suggestions... to other people who can't do anything about it directly, either.

So why wouldn't it work, then?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. For starters, the veto holding nations won't give them up. Second, Europe would have the most to lose since they currently have 4 members on the Security Council and 3 of them with Veto power. Turn it to regional, and they'll have only 1. The US stands to gain because they are the only North American nation with Veto power though there are 2 nations from N.A. on the Security Council (US and Mex) Asia is a conundrum because how would you divide it up and where will China (Veto nation) fall into it.

This is what I can come up with for starters.

I do have to thank you though for giving me food for thought. It is a good idea and one that might work. I thank you for giving this to me to think about :)

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. For starters, the veto holding nations won't give them up. Second, Europe would have the most to lose since they currently have 4 members on the Security Council and 3 of them with Veto power. Turn it to regional, and they'll have only 1. The US stands to gain because they are the only North American nation with Veto power though there are 2 nations from N.A. on the Security Council (US and Mex) Asia is a conundrum because how would you divide it up and where will China (Veto nation) fall into it.

Well, the current situation wasn't a concern, when suggestion how it should be. But of course, realistically it would have to be dealt with. And that's another problem with the vetoes. Few would be willing to vote away their own power. A revolution is probably required, to sort that one out...

The Security Council-setup would have to be changed as well, when changing the veto-system. Maybe increase the number of both members, and slightly the number of vetoes.

Also, requiring several nations for a veto, doesn't mean all the nations in a region only get one vote in total. It could be that all the nations in region A gets one vote each, but they would have to be in unity to use their veto.

Two theoretical setups:
#1 (disregarding the inequality in size, and any other difference that isn't about location):
Region A: France*, Germany*, Switzerland, Italy.
Region B: USA*, Canada*, Mexico, Cuba.
Region C: Brazil*, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina*.
Region D: Australia*, New Zealand, Indonesia*, Papua New Guinea.
Region E: China*, Japan*, South Korea, India.
Region F: Egypt*, Sudan, Saudi Arabia*, Israel.
Not part of a veto-region: Russia*, Spain*, Iraq*, Norway*, Pakistan*, South Africa*, Malaysia*, Madagascar*.

Only those with an asterisk are actually in the council, and they each have equal say in it. But for Region A to use their veto, not only France and Germany would have to agree to it, but Switzerland and Italy, as well.

France and Germany doesn't have permanent seats, but there's always two nations from Region A in the council. Same for every other region, and there are 8 additional members that aren't part of any veto-region.

#2:
Region A: France*, Germany*, Switzerland*.
Region B: USA*, Canada*, Mexico*.
Region C: Brazil*, Uruguay*, Paraguay*.
Region D: Australia*, New Zealand*, Indonesia*.
Region E: China*, Japan*, South Korea*.
Region F: Egypt*, Sudan*, Saudi Arabia*.

All those who are part of a veto, are in the council. There aren't any members in the council, who aren't part of a veto-region. So only the three currently in the council, have to agree to use a veto. But, the regions are much larger, and no single nation has a permanent seat in the council. Region A is all of Europe. So it could be either [Norway, Ireland, Spain], [United Kingdom, Greece, Belarus], or [Poland, Ukraine, Portugal] who are in the council from Region A, and have to agree to use A's veto.

In #2, the total size of the members currently in the council wouldn't matter, but the total of the region, would.


Yeah, I don't see it necessary to have the most powerful (economically/militarily) nations, in power at all times. Just having someone to prevent one specific region from being voted down in the council. Though in #1, it would be possible to put the most militarily powerful nations in a region, together in the veto-group. #2 might be better for a council not dealing with military-issues...

Not that this was a direct reply to your post. I might even be heading off-topic.

How to actually get a change like this through, is a different matter. And might not even be possible, without ignoring vetoes.

I do have to thank you though for giving me food for thought. It is a good idea and one that might work. I thank you for giving this to me to think about :)

Hope this post made some sense, as well.

Well, the current situation wasn't a concern, when suggestion how it should be. But of course, realistically it would have to be dealt with. And that's another problem with the vetoes. Few would be willing to vote away their own power. A revolution is probably required, to sort that one out...

The Security Council-setup would have to be changed as well, when changing the veto-system. Maybe increase the number of both members, and slightly the number of vetoes.

Also, requiring several nations for a veto, doesn't mean all the nations in a region only get one vote in total. It could be that all the nations in region A gets one vote each, but they would have to be in unity to use their veto.

Two theoretical setups:
#1 (disregarding the inequality in size, and any other difference that isn't about location):
Region A: France*, Germany*, Switzerland, Italy.
Region B: USA*, Canada*, Mexico, Cuba.
Region C: Brazil*, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina*.
Region D: Australia*, New Zealand, Indonesia*, Papua New Guinea.
Region E: China*, Japan*, South Korea, India.
Region F: Egypt*, Sudan, Saudi Arabia*, Israel.
Not part of a veto-region: Russia*, Spain*, Iraq*, Norway*, Pakistan*, South Africa*, Malaysia*, Madagascar*.

Only those with an asterisk are actually in the council, and they each have equal say in it. But for Region A to use their veto, not only France and Germany would have to agree to it, but Switzerland and Italy, as well.

France and Germany doesn't have permanent seats, but there's always two nations from Region A in the council. Same for every other region, and there are 8 additional members that aren't part of any veto-region.

#2:
Region A: France*, Germany*, Switzerland*.
Region B: USA*, Canada*, Mexico*.
Region C: Brazil*, Uruguay*, Paraguay*.
Region D: Australia*, New Zealand*, Indonesia*.
Region E: China*, Japan*, South Korea*.
Region F: Egypt*, Sudan*, Saudi Arabia*.

All those who are part of a veto, are in the council. There aren't any members in the council, who aren't part of a veto-region. So only the three currently in the council, have to agree to use a veto. But, the regions are much larger, and no single nation has a permanent seat in the council. Region A is all of Europe. So it could be either [Norway, Ireland, Spain], [United Kingdom, Greece, Belarus], or [Poland, Ukraine, Portugal] who are in the council from Region A, and have to agree to use A's veto.

In #2, the total size of the members currently in the council wouldn't matter, but the total of the region, would.


Yeah, I don't see it necessary to have the most powerful (economically/militarily) nations, in power at all times. Just having someone to prevent one specific region from being voted down in the council. Though in #1, it would be possible to put the most militarily powerful nations in a region, together in the veto-group. #2 might be better for a council not dealing with military-issues...

Not that this was a direct reply to your post. I might even be heading off-topic.

How to actually get a change like this through, is a different matter. And might not even be possible, without ignoring vetoes.

Very interesting set up. I know a professor that might want to have a look at this. Would you mind if I copied this and email it to him and see what he has to say about it?

Hope this post made some sense, as well.

Actually it does make some sense.

Let's say there is a rock floating around in space somewhere....some people say it exists...some people say it doesn't...however, it DOES exist. Just because someone believes you are wrong does not make you wrong. Just because you believe you are right does not make you right. You are either right or wrong based upon fact. Same for Good and Evil. (This is coming from my Christian beliefs so bear with me) There is an absolute standard imposed by God. Whether we acknowledge its existence or not is entirely irrelevant, as the the truth is that it does exist. Humans do not determine whether something is true or not, it simply is true or it simply is false.

But a rock is a phyisical thing. It exists because it is made of matter, and no other thing can be in it's place at the same time. You can measure it.
Good or evil are concepts. You can't measure them, and they don't occupy a place in spacetime.
Whether or not you believe in a god is irrelevant in this matter. Since you cannot measure them, it is a matter of belief, and therefore not absolute, unless you claim your beliefs to be more absolute than mine, in which case I would ask for justification.
And especially important: You cannot base policy on a relative thing when the other side disagrees about your definition. It happens all the time, but that is the reason crime and so on actually exists. People define their deeds differently.

-snip-

How about democracy?
Wouldn't that be a good idea? We abolish the security council and all nations get one vote (possibly with weighting for population differences - kinda like in the EU Constitution). The majority wins.
The security council was only established for the victors of WWII to keep a tab on how the world's going. I reckon we can do without that.

Thomas Hobbes, anyone?

It's so hard to get stuff done in the UN...nobody agrees on anything, and resolutions don't resolve anything.

The UN is basically an agent of Satan, everyone relys on this weak innefectual organisation to bring peace to the world, when it does through its apathy the exact opposite, any country wanting to correct an injustice in its region must go through this organisation first to get anything done.
To hell with it, what a great day when the US identifys it publically for what it is, and leads the way out by recognising it to be a socialist and dictatorship supporting organisation.

The UN is basically an agent of Satan, everyone relys on this weak innefectual organisation to bring peace to the world, when it does through its apathy the exact opposite, any country wanting to correct an injustice in its region must go through this organisation first to get anything done.
To hell with it, what a great day when the US identifys it publically for what it is, and leads the way out by recognising it to be a socialist and dictatorship supporting organisation.
So why hasn't the US left the membership in the UN, which is 'basically an agent of Satan'?

So why hasn't the US left the membership in the UN, which is 'basically an agent of Satan'?

It will soon.

It will soon.
What makes you think so? The bill to that effect has not been put to Congress vote yet.

What makes you think so? The bill to that effect has not been put to Congress vote yet.

Maybe he believes his will (or is it god's will) is enough to convince the PotUS that the rest of the world is evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil) and socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).
Maybe these links will help clear things up for him...

What makes you think so? The bill to that effect has not been put to Congress vote yet.

It mighten go to Congress.

Maybe he believes his will (or is it god's will) is enough to convince the PotUS that the rest of the world is evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil) and socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism).
Maybe these links will help clear things up for him...

As definitions of evil here are subject to the opinion of who ever writes them into a dictionary, I therefore dont place much faith in them.

And I'll stand by my belief in the UN being evil, you simply not agreeing for the sake of an arguement, will not change that at all.

How about democracy?
Wouldn't that be a good idea? We abolish the security council and all nations get one vote (possibly with weighting for population differences - kinda like in the EU Constitution). The majority wins.
The security council was only established for the victors of WWII to keep a tab on how the world's going. I reckon we can do without that.

Democracy won't work with the UN because of all the dictatorships there. As for the EU Constitution, its been defeated and now they are thinking about scrapping the whole Constitution and starting over.

1. Democracy won't work with the UN because of all the dictatorships there.
2.As for the EU Constitution, its been defeated and now they are thinking about scrapping the whole Constitution and starting over.

You mean domestic dictatorships. Does the political system in a country justify exclusion from the world stage? I think not.
You seem to think a dictatorship will conduct its' foreign policy somehow differently to a democracy.
Or is it just that your particular political system (which is not superior or inferior to any other system on this planet) somehow needs a greater weight than another?

As definitions of evil .....-snip-.....will not change that at all.
Fair enough, there is other threads for that debate.
You do realise though that the majority of the people on this world do not believe in Satan, and that Satanic rituals are a seldom sight in the Security Council?
You cannot possibly see the world that crassly black and white.

You mean domestic dictatorships. Does the political system in a country justify exclusion from the world stage? I think not.
You seem to think a dictatorship will conduct its' foreign policy somehow differently to a democracy.
Or is it just that your particular political system (which is not superior or inferior to any other system on this planet) somehow needs a greater weight than another?

The political system in a country certainly justifies it being excluded from the UN or any other organization. The fact is that dictatorships, far more often than democracies, violate basic human rights for the vast majority of their populations.

Good theory. Flawed Practice. Needs reform.

Done in time for scones... ;)

The UN, it needs change, it doesn't do anything, then again it is a "peace keeping" organization. But what did they do when people in Rwanda were being slaughter? Well pretty much nothing.
That's not true. If the UN wasn't involved in the first place, it never would've happend.

The political system in a country certainly justifies it being excluded from the UN or any other organization. The fact is that dictatorships, far more often than democracies, violate basic human rights for the vast majority of their populations.

I vehemently disagree. Democracy is not the one and all of governments. It is a good way to get consensus, but in many countries, democratic governments and all the things that go with it are impossible to implement and would only further stall development of a nation.

"Human Rights" is a matter of definiton as well. The UN was drafting a declaration for Universal Rights of the Child (evil satanic fiends, they are), and the US was against including the right to food in there. I have never heard of a reason, and my usually quite creativ imagination has failed as well.

What you believe to be a human right may not mean anything to someone in a thrid world country (unless it's the basics, like torture and the like).
But I refuse to believe that there cannot be a dictator who will actually move a nation forward.

That's not true. If the UN wasn't involved in the first place, it never would've happend.

Care to elaborate?

I vehemently disagree. Democracy is not the one and all of governments. It is a good way to get consensus, but in many countries, democratic governments and all the things that go with it are impossible to implement and would only further stall development of a nation.

I suppose that makes sense. And I guess we can’t exclude a significant portion of the planet just because of their governments. However, appointing the biggest human rights violators to the human rights council (or whatever its called) is ridiculous.

"Human Rights" is a matter of definiton as well. The UN was drafting a declaration for Universal Rights of the Child (evil satanic fiends, they are), and the US was against including the right to food in there. I have never heard of a reason, and my usually quite creativ imagination has failed as well

I suppose the reason is because our government felt it wasn’t plausible. For instance, if a nation has a drought that results in famine, this is not a violation of human rights but an unforeseeable event. In short, you can’t enforce it. Oh, and Chewbaculla was banned, so you can stop making fun of his ridiculous comments, unless you like to, of course. :p

What you believe to be a human right may not mean anything to someone in a thrid world country (unless it's the basics, like torture and the like).

I am referring the basics. Dictators violate these far more than elected officials, though there are exception. The Nazis were elected, after all.

But I refuse to believe that there cannot be a dictator who will actually move a nation forward.

True, there are examples of such, many Kings, Otto von Bismarck, some Roman Emperors, etc. Democracies tend to do things a bit more stably, though. But why are you so defensive of dictatorship? You have ambitions or something? ;)

That was a relief. And here I thought this whole thread was a Bushevik Personality Cult dance.

The United Nations (and the League of Nations) were created in response to two World Wars where several nations decided that they could do whatever the hell they wanted and start taking over other countries.

The only reason the United Nations has trouble enforcing laws is because it does not have its own standing military force. And let's be real, America would throw a bitchfest and Veto any serious proposal for the UN to create a standing military force.

The Oil for Food scandal? The documents were submitted to the Security Council for approval. Guess which nation is the Permanent Head of the Security Council. Guess what? Those documents passed.

My opinion is that like Cuba, the United Nations is refusing to be America's convenient penis receptable and so is suffering accordingly.

Personally i think the UN wants world government or world dictatorship thus making it evil. you get the point

If every American accepted it, we would lose our soverienty to the organization over time and our citizens would be succeptable to a new world order where we have even LESS representation than we do in our OWN government. We need to stop, back away, and keep it at arms length.

Its just a place to debate and have diplomacy with foreign nations. As soon as it starts imposing real laws and backing them up with its own force, we need to remove ourselves from the organization and keep our independence.

You mean domestic dictatorships. Does the political system in a country justify exclusion from the world stage? I think not.

This is a very ignorant statement to make and an illogical one to boot. Don't you think that the dictators will frown upon a democracy? They want to hold on to their power and if they have to listen to a democracy, that'll be a threat to their power. Sorry. Welcome to the facts of life.

You seem to think a dictatorship will conduct its' foreign policy somehow differently to a democracy.

Hitler did (dictator) and Hussein did (Dictator). Kim Jong Il is (dictator) Do you see a pattern here?

Or is it just that your particular political system (which is not superior or inferior to any other system on this planet) somehow needs a greater weight than another?

Since Democracy is the only way to go.....

The political system in a country certainly justifies it being excluded from the UN or any other organization. The fact is that dictatorships, far more often than democracies, violate basic human rights for the vast majority of their populations.

Undelia,

You are 100% Correct

*hands you a cookie*

theoretically its a good idea...in practise however it isnt living up to standard

That's not true. If the UN wasn't involved in the first place, it never would've happend.

Battery, I think you contradicted yourself here.

The UN, it needs change, it doesn't do anything, then again it is a "peace keeping" organization. But what did they do when people in Rwanda were being slaughter? Well pretty much nothing

Are you saying that if the UN wasn't involved in Rwanda, then the genocide wouldn't happen or that if the UN was involved in Rwanda it wouldn't have happened?

Since Democracy is the only way to go.....
You're reverting to absolutes again, my friend.
If you're gonna be like that, I won't bother replying. You already made up your mind, and my arguments are not gonna be considered.
And have a look at Undelia's next post. He seems to be more ready to compromise than you are.

You're reverting to absolutes again, my friend.
If you're gonna be like that, I won't bother replying. You already made up your mind, and my arguments are not gonna be considered.
And have a look at Undelia's next post. He seems to be more ready to compromise than you are.

Actually, it was the UN that said that.

Personally i think the UN wants world government or world dictatorship thus making it evil. you get the point

A world government is the only way world peace could ever be achieved.
Dictatorship is such a strong word.

You mean domestic dictatorships. Does the political system in a country justify exclusion from the world stage? I think not.

This is a very ignorant statement to make and an illogical one to boot. Don't you think that the dictators will frown upon a democracy? They want to hold on to their power and if they have to listen to a democracy, that'll be a threat to their power. Sorry. Welcome to the facts of life.
So, are you suggesting that China, with one sixth of the world’s population, should be excluded from the UN? Leonstein’s statement was quite logical and if there is any “ignorance”, it would be in your reply?

It is through membership in democratic organizations, such as the UN, that China is emerging from her isolation and is embracing new realities and concepts. As China moves forward in the competitive marketplace, her citizens are enjoying new freedoms and a better standard of living. It may not be perfect in your eyes, but it is growth none the less.

The “facts of life” are not simply black and white, and perhaps you should take time to reflect upon the many shades in between? Just what are they teaching you in your political science course?

So, are you suggesting that China, with one sixth of the world’s population, should be excluded from the UN?

Yes they should be. They shouldn't even be on the Security Council. Taiwan should've stayed since they were ORIGINALLY there to begin with.

Leonstein’s statement was quite logical and if there is any “ignorance”, it would be in your reply?

Liberals stick together.

It is through membership in democratic organizations, such as the UN, that China is emerging from her isolation and is embracing new realities and concepts. As China moves forward in the competitive marketplace, her citizens are enjoying new freedoms and a better standard of living. It may not be perfect in your eyes, but it is growth none the less.

And then hopefully they'll toss off the Communist yoke and actually embrace Democracy. Until that happens, they shouldn't even be a permanent member of the UNSC. France, Russia (now though I'm skeptical) Britain, and the US are democracies. China is not.

The “facts of life” are not simply black and white, and perhaps you should take time to reflect upon the many shades in between? Just what are they teaching you in your political science course?

Everything I need to know about the real world. Something apparently that Liberals keep forgetting.

The UN has presided over, or indirectly approved of, the massacre of more people since its inception than the German and USSR governments ever killed in WW II.

More ethnic cleansing.

And its avowed purpose of preventing wars has not been realized at all.

It is a weak, toothless, and impotent organization by design. It is nearly as moribund as its predecessor, the League of Nations.

It is, in the final analysis, not only a waste of money and time, but a direct danger to many people in the countries afflicted by conflict. In a time of war, the arrival of blue helmeted UN troops means that the party with the upper hand will have free reign to kill whoever they want, for as long as they want, and consolidate their political gains.

The UN has presided over, or indirectly approved of, the massacre of more people since its inception than the German and USSR governments ever killed in WW II.
Can we blame the UN for Chinese land reform and the Great Leap Forward? I don't think so.

...
It is a weak, toothless, and impotent organization by design. It is nearly as moribund as its predecessor, the League of Nations.
The UN is as good as its members are. No better, no worse.

It is, in the final analysis, not only a waste of money and time, but a direct danger to many people in the countries afflicted by conflict. In a time of war, the arrival of blue helmeted UN troops means that the party with the upper hand will have free reign to kill whoever they want, for as long as they want, and consolidate their political gains.
If they are straightjacketed by the Secretary General - yes, quite possibly. But I don't think that keeping the UN peacekeepers on Israeli border with Syria, for example, is a bad idea.

Yes they should be. They shouldn't even be on the Security Council. Taiwan should've stayed since they were ORIGINALLY there to begin with.
If you were my history student, that kind of comment would earn you an "F".

"F" as in failure to recognize that the world does not consist solely of the US, her people, and their aspirations.

Liberals stick together.
This is the best you could come up with? Somehow, I think you missed the point entirely.

And then hopefully they'll toss off the Communist yoke and actually embrace Democracy. Until that happens, they shouldn't even be a permanent member of the UNSC. France, Russia (now though I'm skeptical) Britain, and the US are democracies. China is not.
It appears that McCarthyism is alive and well in your brain? The world is full of communists and dictators and to prove that your system is a much better way of life, that would necessitate that you lead by example, and no, that doesn't mean invading countries at will and forcing democracy on them.

The world is full of ignorance and intolerance and excluding half of the worlds' population from democratic organizations such as the UN will do nothing to improve their chances of shedding the "yoke" of Communism or enable them to "embrace" democracy.

You truly have a difficult time seeing the big picture?

Everything I need to know about the real world. Something apparently that Liberals keep forgetting.
Apparently your "real world" consists of 1/2 of America (because the rest of them are "stupid" liberals) and a President who is rooted in black and white principles. Good luck....you will need it.

If you were my history student, that kind of comment would earn you an "F".

"F" as in failure to recognize that the world does not consist solely of the US, her people, and their aspirations.

Now where on earth did you get that from my post? Your seeing something that isn't even written :rolleyes:

This is the best you could come up with? Somehow, I think you missed the point entirely.

Nope! Not at all. I think it is you that has missed the point.

It appears that McCarthyism is alive and well in your brain?

Once again your seeing things that aren't there. Are you sure you don't have a conspiracy theory program running through your head?

The world is full of communists and dictators and to prove that your system is a much better way of life, that would necessitate that you lead by example, and no, that doesn't mean invading countries at will and forcing democracy on them.

If they didn't want democracy, CanuckHeaven, they wouldn't have to dodge car bombs and gunfire to vote. They did that and voted. Now they are putting together a Constitution. Heck, Afghanistan is having elections in September anyway. Iraq will be voting on a New Constitution hopefully in October. If they didn't want democracy, this wouldn't be happening.

The world is full of ignorance and intolerance and excluding half of the worlds' population from democratic organizations such as the UN will do nothing to improve their chances of shedding the "yoke" of Communism or enable them to "embrace" democracy.

How is the UN Democratic when most of its members are dictatorships?

You truly have a difficult time seeing the big picture?

Actually I see it just fine. It is you that is not seeing the big picture.

Apparently your "real world" consists of 1/2 of America (because the rest of them are "stupid" liberals) and a President who is rooted in black and white principles. Good luck....you will need it.

And I'm wondering where you are getting this from when I haven't stated ANYTHING to this fact.

It appears that McCarthyism is alive and well in your brain? The world is full of communists and dictators and to prove that your system is a much better way of life, that would necessitate that you lead by example, and no, that doesn't mean invading countries at will and forcing democracy on them.

The world is full of ignorance and intolerance and excluding half of the worlds' population from democratic organizations such as the UN will do nothing to improve their chances of shedding the "yoke" of Communism or enable them to "embrace" democracy.

Unless they have an effective way of shedding said yoke it's not going to work in today's day and age. Ironically, one of the major things that would allow many countries to decide their own fate are banned by the self-same UN. This category of things would be small arms. You want to stop the genocidal ethnic cleansing happening in Sudan and the political genocide beginning to go down in Zimbabwe then the answer would be to arm the persecuted party. But that would be logical and therefore is not something the UN will approve of.

Now where on earth did you get that from my post? Your seeing something that isn't even written :rolleyes:
Go back and re-read the comment and perhaps you will have a better understanding?

Nope! Not at all. I think it is you that has missed the point.
The point is that you seem to believe that if someone doesn't get YOUR point (or doesn't want to), is somehow "ignorant", and yes you missed the point entirely.

Once again your seeing things that aren't there. Are you sure you don't have a conspiracy theory program running through your head?
You really do seem to be having a problem understanding the points that are being raised. Slow down and read the post and that will improve your comprehension level.

If they didn't want democracy, CanuckHeaven, they wouldn't have to dodge car bombs and gunfire to vote. They did that and voted. Now they are putting together a Constitution. Heck, Afghanistan is having elections in September anyway. Iraq will be voting on a New Constitution hopefully in October. If they didn't want democracy, this wouldn't be happening.
Yeah, all is well in lala land. In Afghanistan, democracy = "narco state":

Bitter-Sweet Harvest: Afghanistan's New War (http://www.plusnews.org/webspecials/opium/default.asp)

Conditions in Afghanistan, however, are not comparable and for some experts Afghanistan has effectively already become a narco-state: a state where regional strongmen hold more power than central government.

And of course, we all know that everything is under control in Iraq?:

Suicide Bombers Kill 28 in Northern Iraq (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME)

How is the UN Democratic when most of its members are dictatorships?
I really can't believe that you made this statement. If the UN is not a democratic organization, then please explain what type of organization it is.

Actually I see it just fine. It is you that is not seeing the big picture.
You are blinded by your own rhetoric. Just so you don't lose sight of the point, I will post it again just for you:

"It is through membership in democratic organizations, such as the UN, that China is emerging from her isolation and is embracing new realities and concepts. As China moves forward in the competitive marketplace, her citizens are enjoying new freedoms and a better standard of living. It may not be perfect in your eyes, but it is growth none the less."

By barring countries such as China from the UN, how would YOU help them to understand the workings of democratic principles, and how would YOU help them to shed the "yoke" of Communism? How can they "embrace democracy" if YOU wouldn't let them participate, even though they have 4 times the population of the US?

Here's another reason to begin to question the UNs judgement:

Memo may tie U.N. chief to oil-for-food deal (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8216602/)

Here's another reason to begin to question the UNs judgement:

Memo may tie U.N. chief to oil-for-food deal (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8216602/)
Guilty before proven innocent? Is that the way democracy works in the US?

Guilty before proven innocent? Is that the way democracy works in the US?

No and I never said that I believed what was being said either. Oil-For-Food itself is a reason I question the UNs judgement regarding Iraq.

I have actually started a thread on this CH so I would prefer to debate it there.

You mean domestic dictatorships. Does the political system in a country justify exclusion from the world stage? I think not.
You seem to think a dictatorship will conduct its' foreign policy somehow differently to a democracy.
Or is it just that your particular political system (which is not superior or inferior to any other system on this planet) somehow needs a greater weight than another?Interesting. If every nation in the world was an absolute totalitarian dictatorship and every so often the dictators all met together to discuss "world affairs" and vote on resolutions affecting the whole world, would you find anything wrong with that? We should not encourage corrupt governments to collude with each other.

Actually, I think it would be great if we ordinary people could get our governments to fight one another instead of them getting us to fight each other.

If every nation in the world was an absolute totalitarian dictatorship and every so often the dictators all met together to discuss "world affairs" and vote on resolutions affecting the whole world, would you find anything wrong with that?
Nope.

I vehemently disagree. Democracy is not the one and all of governments. It is a good way to get consensus, but in many countries, democratic governments and all the things that go with it are impossible to implement and would only further stall development of a nation.

"Human Rights" is a matter of definiton as well. The UN was drafting a declaration for Universal Rights of the Child (evil satanic fiends, they are), and the US was against including the right to food in there. I have never heard of a reason, and my usually quite creativ imagination has failed as well.

What you believe to be a human right may not mean anything to someone in a thrid world country (unless it's the basics, like torture and the like).
But I refuse to believe that there cannot be a dictator who will actually move a nation forward.You can't grant anyone so-called positive rights without deprive others of their so-called negative rights. A negative right is a right that can be protected or infringed, while positive rights are enforced (or not). To enforce the positive right of food for some, governments must deprive others of their right to property (either by taking the food they have or by taking their money to buy food with). If there isn't enough food to go around, there is nothing a government can do to fix the problem.

-snip-
Is that all it comes down to again? Base, I-got-mine-now-you-all-fuck-off libertarianism?
Do you want me to go into a thing called the "Prisoner's Dillemma"? It's the most basic proof I can think off that shows that everyone for themselves is a crappy way to go.

Is that all it comes down to again? Base, I-got-mine-now-you-all-fuck-off libertarianism?
Do you want me to go into a thing called the "Prisoner's Dillemma"? It's the most basic proof I can think off that shows that everyone for themselves is a crappy way to go.

I'm fond of pointing out that the Prisoner's Dilemma is a hypothetical.

In a real situation, the police would grant good things to the first prisoner who cooperated - not both. In order to win, you not only need to rat out the other prisoner, but you need to do it before he does it to you.

In addition, in any centrally controlled system that is going to arbitrarily decide distribution based on its own perceptions of "need", there are major inefficiencies, major corruption, and in the end, it is the system itself that benefits, not any of its wards. In such a system, you are definitely better off learning to cheat the system, and in fact, become appointed as a ruling member of the system, so that you can derive maximum benefits - at the expense of everyone else.

Failing to gain such a position of power - by mere cooperation with the system - is a self-screwjob. Once again, do it to them before they do it to you.

In a decentralized system, where power is not concentrated in the middle, you're not under the same incentive to screw everyone who comes along. You're not rewarded for gaining power - there's only so much you can gain. And in your daily dealings, you're better off getting a reputation for being fair - and developing this reputation - or no one will deal with you.

1. I'm fond of pointing out that the Prisoner's Dilemma is a hypothetical.

In a real situation, the police would grant good things to the first prisoner who cooperated - not both. In order to win, you not only need to rat out the other prisoner, but you need to do it before he does it to you.
...
2. And in your daily dealings, you're better off getting a reputation for being
fair - and developing this reputation - or no one will deal with you.

1. Both prisoners are kept apart. They don't know who says what first. So if you have to alleged terrorists (call them OBL and AAZ), and they both tell you about what the other has done wrong, you'd let one go?
We may be misunderstanding each other here. It's not about winning. It's about both shutting up being better than both talking, although talking is seemingly the best thing for an individual to do.

2. Yay, more game theory, yay!!!

3. This is not the place to go into market vs regulation arguments. I'm still waiting on when anyone pulls out the big guns in Utilitarianism vs Objectivist, but so far they're just yelling definitions at each other.
I'm a social democrat. I also saw myself what happened to my family when my father couldn't get a job (not out of laziness, I assure you, and not even because he wouldn't have taken a slave-job. There just wasn't any)
The people who oppose social welfare are those who have never needed it. Who have a nice life and a nice job and rich parents. I have yet to meet the long-term unemployed who will tell you about how great libertarianism is.

Battery, I think you contradicted yourself here.



Are you saying that if the UN wasn't involved in Rwanda, then the genocide wouldn't happen or that if the UN was involved in Rwanda it wouldn't have happened?I'm saying that had the UN never gotten involved in Rwanda in the first place, there would have been no genocide in 1994 (or 1992, 1993, or 1995,etc.). I'm not prepared to back that up with any sources though.

I'm saying that had the UN never gotten involved in Rwanda in the first place, there would have been no genocide in 1994 (or 1992, 1993, or 1995,etc.). I'm not prepared to back that up with any sources though.

Would you care to give a brief summary about how the genocide happened then?
Did the UN put the Hutu and the Tutsi together and say: "I demand you kill each other now."?

I'm saying that had the UN never gotten involved in Rwanda in the first place, there would have been no genocide in 1994 (or 1992, 1993, or 1995,etc.). I'm not prepared to back that up with any sources though.
Why is that? I've read that Habyarimana's government was planning massacres for several years, and the planning started long before the coming of the 'blue helmets'.

Is that all it comes down to again? Base, I-got-mine-now-you-all-fuck-off libertarianism?
Do you want me to go into a thing called the "Prisoner's Dillemma"? It's the most basic proof I can think off that shows that everyone for themselves is a crappy way to go.Oh, I know what that is. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. You can make all the arguments about how cooperation is better than competition. It often is, especially in imaginary games where it's supposed to be, but I'm not talking about cooperation. I'm talking about force. If you want me to feed starving children, talk me into it.

Actually, I think it would be great if we ordinary people could get our governments to fight one another instead of them getting us to fight each other.

I've always thought that war would be more interesting if:

1. The government legislators and executives had to fight to the death as gladiators on international television.
2. The families of the losers were sold into slavery.

The idea is this:

Let's say a country's legislature and president authorize war. We go to a major Olympic venue, set up a grand melee. Each team would be composed of all of its members - including those who voted against the war.

Two countries - each puts up a team, led by its President or Prime Minister.

Two countries go in - one country comes out. The loser nation is the sole and complete property of the winner nation.

Oh, I know what that is. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. You can make all the arguments about how cooperation is better than competition. It often is, especially in imaginary games where it's supposed to be, but I'm not talking about cooperation. I'm talking about force. If you want me to feed starving children, talk me into it.

I'm not gonna bother, believe me. You'd probably poison the food anyway, just to show me.

Two countries - each puts up a team, led by its President or Prime Minister.

Yeah, but you end up getting huge dumb people who can fight good as Leaders...

The U.N.'s demise would be beneficial to all who cherish liberty.

The U.N.'s demise would be beneficial to all who cherish liberty.I completely agree. I'm often troubled by what I see in these threads. So many people say "good idea, bad execution" or something similar. Is it really a good idea? Do you really know what the idea is? Sure, the UN charter is filled with all sorts of good sounding goals, but those are really just excuses. The UN is, always has been, and always will be a forum for the most powerful of corrupt men to trade the elements of power - blood for guns, money for death. That there are powerful corrupt men in the US who are unhappy with it, does not change this fact.

The UN is the ultimate centralization of power (so far). It's leaders, the people who actually write the resolutions, want to be in control of everything. They don't want just anyone to be able to buy, sell, and posess firearms. They support an international version of the war on drugs. They are unhappy that Americans can buy dietary suppliments and herbs at health food stores without a doctor's prescription. They've made it clear that they strive to attain and maintain minimally socialist nanny states throughout the world. And these are only some of the things that they speak openly about. These are empty worthless human beings driven by their need to feel important and "make the world a better place." Further empowerments will only lead to further death and destruction.

Freedom is incompatible with centralized power.

-rant-
Why do you not prove this whole corruption thing?
I hear this all the time: It's corrupt, it's socialist, it's anti-freedom, it's anti-Israel, it's evil.
The UN is just a forum, people. Just like this one. NS doesn't have an opinion, only its' members do.
Those corrupt people you are talking about are the embassadors of the nations of this world.

And what's your problem with
a) people not being able to shoot each other
b) people not being able to buy drugs (although I'd favour policies directed at Demand rather than Supply)
And socialism doesn't imply "nanny-state" :rolleyes:

Why do you not prove this whole corruption thing?
I hear this all the time: It's corrupt, it's socialist, it's anti-freedom, it's anti-Israel, it's evil.
The UN is just a forum, people. Just like this one. NS doesn't have an opinion, only its' members do.
Those corrupt people you are talking about are the embassadors of the nations of this world.The UN is not just a forum. The members vote on and pass resolutions which are more or less enforced internally by the member states on their own people and/or externally by the military force of some members on the people of other nations.

Proving my opinion on the UN to people like you is futile. You see the world a different way. I would probably not feel the way I do if I did not hold certain views on economics, power, and human action.

For instance I have many problems with the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), while you probably see nothign wrong with it. While having rights is a good thing, the UN presumes authority to determine what rights you have that are to be protected by the state. Starting with Article 22, the 'rights' listed become socialist entitlements. They necessitate infringing upon Article 17's right to property. One that really bother's me is Article 23:

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.There is no such thing as free education. Someone must pay always for it. Mandating that elementary education be compulsary deprives children and their parents of the right to determine the children's lives and ensures that there will indeed be something pay for. This may seem as a purely good thing, but in the poorest parts of the world, squandering wealth on 'free education' may not be the wisest use of the limited wealth of the people when they lack sanitation.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Not only does the UN presume to tell our national governments that they must provide 'free education', but it's even deciding what is to be taught in these schools. They even demand that schools act as indoctrinating agents for the UN itself. Fuck that. :upyours:

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.Really? Then why make the school compulsory?

Also, this little gem pretty much sums it all up:

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Okay, so basically this whole document is saying, all the world's people have rights that deserve to be protected... unless they're get in our way.

And what's your problem with
a) people not being able to shoot each other
b) people not being able to buy drugs (although I'd favour policies directed at Demand rather than Supply)
And socialism doesn't imply "nanny-state" :rolleyes:
a) I have a problem with people not being able to shoot back. The UN is fine with governments having weapons, it's the 'illicit' trade of firearms that they don't like and they intend to disarm ordinary people in the aftermath of bloodshed. It is this type of disarming the permits genocide to take place.
b) What say do I or anyone else have in what free people choose to do to/with their own bodies? Thousands and thousands of lives have been cut short or otherwise ruined by drug prohibition throughout the world.
The United States federal government is a good example of a nanny-state. It's a system where the government and the people have a parent-child relationship, where the people turn first to the politicians to solve their own problems. FDR's New Deal, and the social welfare programs of the Johnson and Nixon administrations are good examples of what I'm talking about. Anyway, I'm saying that the UN wishes to impose governments that are at least this socialistic on every part of the globe, including in places where there nowhere near enough wealth and productivity to sustain the parasitic waste.

Finally, the wording of this document along with other UN papers is such that it can be very loosely interpreted. Does Article 4's ban on "slavery or servitude" prohibit the use of forced prison labor? What about voluntary servitude? What about military conscription? And what is 'social progress' anyway?

1. Proving my opinion on the UN to people like you is futile. You see the world a different way. I would probably not feel the way I do if I did not hold certain views on economics, power, and human action.

2. There is no such thing as free education. Someone must pay always for it. Mandating that elementary education be compulsary deprives children and their parents of the right to determine the children's lives and ensures that there will indeed be something pay for. This may seem as a purely good thing, but in the poorest parts of the world, squandering wealth on 'free education' may not be the wisest use of the limited wealth of the people when they lack sanitation.

3. The United States federal government is a good example of a nanny-state.
1. Probably. I am an Economics student though, so if you feel like trying go ahead, I've probably heard your arguments before.
I do take your dismissal of simple game theory as ideologically motivated against you though. Nash wasn't ideological, he was shizophrenic, he had his own problems.

2. Arguable. Most Economists would tell you that for long term growth investment in human capital is more beneficial than investment in physical capital. Depends on the case by case basis though.

3. Now, I don't know how much you actually know about Keynesian Economics, and I suggest you read up about it rather than dismissing it as "nanny-state". There were very good reasons for starting the New Deal program, and continuing to provide social welfare is easily justifiable, depending on what philosophical background you come from.
Regardless, as I said before, the people who are against welfare are those who never needed it and never will. The kind with nice jobs, rich relatives and a trustfund.

3. -snip-
Perhaps I can help you understand where Battery is coming from, and his argument against strong Federal govts. When the Constitution was drafted, it created quite the controversy. Originally we (the original 13 colonies) planned to be fully soveriegn states united by a Confederation. The Constituion took away a good portion of state soveriegnty and strengthened the natn'l/federal government. From then on we've had the conflict between state v federal govt. Heck, we fought a civl war over it.

Those who object to the strong, centralized national government would probably object to a strong centralized national government too.

-snip-
So does that mean he's a Southerner? One of those truckies with the Confederation Flag hanging in his wooden house in the Swamp I saw on TV?
;)

1. Probably. I am an Economics student though, so if you feel like trying go ahead, I've probably heard your arguments before.
I do take your dismissal of simple game theory as ideologically motivated against you though. Nash wasn't ideological, he was shizophrenic, he had his own problems.I dismissed simple game theory? I don't even know what that is. I've heard of it, but I don't really know what it says. Now if game theory somehow shows that the Prisoner's Dilema actually relates to what we're talking about, that's news to me.

2. Arguable. Most Economists would tell you that for long term growth investment in human capital is more beneficial than investment in physical capital. Depends on the case by case basis though.Your damn right it depends, and that's why a central governing body has no buisness telling it's member states how to spend their people's money.

3. Now, I don't know how much you actually know about Keynesian Economics, and I suggest you read up about it rather than dismissing it as "nanny-state". There were very good reasons for starting the New Deal program, and continuing to provide social welfare is easily justifiable, depending on what philosophical background you come from.
Regardless, as I said before, the people who are against welfare are those who never needed it and never will. The kind with nice jobs, rich relatives and a trustfund.I'm familiar with Keynes. The fact that he was ever taken seriously is one of the reasons I'm so cynical towards government. That you seem to have respect for his theory disappoints me. A serious look at what happend in the US during the '70s should show that his whole complicated theory was fundamentally flawed. My use of the term 'nanny-state' is not just me regurgitating a buzz word I heard somewhere. It accurately conveys how I see it, and I have looked. You can call it a mixed-economy if you wish, but that just doesn't do it justice for me.

When I was a little turd, my mom used WIC to buy milk, cheese, and Cheerios. She married my dad when I was 3, but still used WIC, and later I qualified for reduced price school lunches because we apparently were poor. Although, by the time my siblings were in school, we didn't qualify anymore. There may have been other welfare things going on there, but I wasn't really old enough to understand. When I was 16 she left my dad, got her own place, and I moved in with her. She was working, but had a new baby with her new boyfriend (oops) and spent a few months on food stamps. Later, she moved into subsidized housing. At 18, I joined the Army and became a tax-eater myself for 4 years. You may not see it this way, but some people see the military partly as a social welfare program. Since I got out, I did spend 3 weeks collecting unemployment. Anyway, I'm not and never have been rich, but I don't hold it against people who are unless they've gotten rich off taxpayers like Dick Cheney.

I've taken the widely unpopular position of opposing virtually all social-welfare spending, although I'm not one of those people who think it's the worst thing government can do.

...
So does that mean he's a Southerner? One of those truckies with the Confederation Flag hanging in his wooden house in the Swamp I saw on TV?I do side with the confederacy in that terrible unecessary bloody war for the same reasons I side with the colonists who rebelled against the British. It's unfortunate that confederate leaders used the slavery issue to gain popular support for secession and rebellion. But I'm not a southerner. I'm from Minnesota, which wasn't a state yet. Hardcore southerners see me as moderately yankee. I don't own a rebel flag nor do I hold any animosity toward those who do. Let me leave you with two quotes:

"I will say, then, that I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now, nor never have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriage with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. Inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1858 speech in Illinois

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." -- President Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address

So does that mean he's a Southerner? One of those truckies with the Confederation Flag hanging in his wooden house in the Swamp I saw on TV?
;)
First of all, it's Confederate. And the media stereotypes everything, *including* Southerners...most Southerners I've met couldn't be any nicer.

First of all, it's Confederate. And the media stereotypes everything, *including* Southerners...most Southerners I've met couldn't be any nicer.

I wish I could live in the South because they are much nicer people than the folks up here in the North.

Fair enough, there is other threads for that debate.
You do realise though that the majority of the people on this world do not believe in Satan, and that Satanic rituals are a seldom sight in the Security Council?
You cannot possibly see the world that crassly black and white.

I do, your either good or evil, there is no grey area, there is no in between.
There are good people who do more good than others, and there are evil people who do alot more evil than others, but noway, do these people ever do the opposite of good or evil.
Your either good or evil.
The UN is infiltrated deeply by evil, and has been since it began.

I do, your either good or evil, there is no grey area, there is no in between.
There are good people who do more good than others, and there are evil people who do alot more evil than others, but noway, do these people ever do the opposite of good or evil.
Your either good or evil.

Sure, there is definite white and black, but there is a lot of Gray. People who normally go good are also capable of great evil, and those that usually do evil are capable of doing great good for the world.

The UN is infiltrated deeply by evil, and has been since it began.

Yeah, creating the state of Israel was so evil. :rolleyes:

By the way, weren’t you banned?

[QUOTE=Undelia]Sure, there is definite white and black, but there is a lot of Gray. People who normally go good are also capable of great evil, and those that usually do evil are capable of doing great good for the world.

Thats utter bullshit, your either good or evil, any 'good' an evil person does, is usually for an evil purpose.
Its also impossible for a good person to be evil, there is no grey, except in your head.


Yeah, creating the state of Israel was so evil. :rolleyes:

You dont follow current affairs much do you?

By the way, weren’t you banned?
I'm back baby!!! Yeayyyyyyyyyhhh!!! :) :) :) :) :)
And Ill be back again and again and again!
And theres not a goddammned thing you can do about it worm.

I do, your either good or evil, there is no grey area, there is no in between.
There are good people who do more good than others, and there are evil people who do alot more evil than others, but noway, do these people ever do the opposite of good or evil.
Your either good or evil.
The UN is infiltrated deeply by evil, and has been since it began.

Let me guess:

Good = you see the world my way.
Evil = you don’t see the world my way.

Sorry, but that is a gross over-simplification of the real world. The world is in colour – not black and white.

Remember that one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Good and evil is a question of perspective…

Thats utter bullshit, your either good or evil, any 'good' an evil person does, is usually for an evil purpose.
Its also impossible for a good person to be evil, there is no grey, except in your head.

I recall you debating quiet vehemently (though incompetently) for Christian creationism in a thread, which I believe led to your banning. So, what about Saul. He killed people for their beliefs, but then he converted to Christianity (or The Way as it was known then) and changed his name to Paul. He went on to be one of the most successful missionaries for the faith.

You dont follow current affairs much do you?

Actually, I do. And although I do not agree with everything they do, they ultimately are only defending themselves. Just because they would go on to do some unsavory things, doesn’t mean that the UN could have known that back in the 40’s. Besides, the Israelis are getting rid of their illegal settlements, what more do you want?

[QUOTE=Brickistan]Let me guess:
Good = you see the world my way.
Evil = you don’t see the world my way.

Wrong oh so wrong, evil is evil, good is good, there is no my way in this.


Sorry, but that is a gross over-simplification of the real world. The world is in colour – not black and white.

Colour? Not when it comes to good or evil, your either one or the other, you cannot be both, if you believe that then you must be evil and not realise it yet, or your just playing possum.


Remember that one mans terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Good and evil is a question of perspective…

Rubbish, your either a terrorist or a freedom fighter, anyone who brings perspectives into it, have to have a good look at the issues first.

[QUOTE=Undelia]I recall you debating quiet vehemently (though incompetently) for Christian creationism in a thread, which I believe led to your banning. So, what about Saul. He killed people for their beliefs, but then he converted to Christianity (or The Way as it was known then) and changed his name to Paul. He went on to be one of the most successful missionaries for the faith.

And the only way he changed, was to become good, not evil.
I havent said that you cant change, but it has to be a change for the good, you cannot go from good to becoming evil, as that means you were never truly good in the first place, but you can go from evil to becoming good, by simply never lying to yourself or others.


Actually, I do. And although I do not agree with everything they do, they ultimately are only defending themselves. Just because they would go on to do some unsavory things, doesn’t mean that the UN could have known that back in the 40’s. Besides, the Israelis are getting rid of their illegal settlements, what more do you want?

I believe the UN put them their,to start all the trouble in the first place, they are truly an organisation to do evil.

I believe the UN put them their,to start all the trouble in the first place, they are truly an organisation to do evil.

Really? I always thought it was because Palestine is their ancestral homeland. Go figure.

Really? I always thought it was because Palestine is their ancestral homeland. Go figure.

Maybe, but they left it emmasse 2000 years ago.
The UN putting them back enmasse, into an established population, was the equivelant of releasing a herd of bulls into a chinese porcelin making factory.

Maybe, but they left it emmasse 2000 years ago.
The UN putting them back enmasse, into an established population, was the equivelant of releasing a herd of bulls into a chinese porcelin making factory.

The Zionist movement began in the early 1900’s. Jews continued to move to Palestine throughout the first half of the century, picking up markedly after the Holocaust. The UN simply chose to recognize them as a nation and gave them boundaries. So you see, things are rarely as simple as you would seem to like to make them.

The Zionist movement began in the early 1900’s. Jews continued to move to Palestine throughout the first half of the century, picking up markedly after the Holocaust. The UN simply chose to recognize them as a nation and gave them boundaries. So you see, things are rarely as simple as you would seem to like to make them.

Or as you would either, there was a trickle of jews moving back to Israel before WW2, the shock of WW2 turned it into a flood of millions.

Rubbish, your either a terrorist or a freedom fighter, anyone who brings perspectives into it, have to have a good look at the issues first.

But good and evil are, in themselves, subjective terms. They cannot be as rigidly defined as you’re trying to do. Hence the freedom fighter example.
You might have your world spilt into good and evil, but do your neighbors agree with you? Do I?

I might not subscribe to your definition of good. Does that make me, by default, evil?

But good and evil are, in themselves, subjective terms. They cannot be as rigidly defined as you’re trying to do. Hence the freedom fighter example.
You might have your world spilt into good and evil, but do your neighbors agree with you? Do I?

I might not subscribe to your definition of good. Does that make me, by default, evil?


NO! You will NOT change the thread topic to good vs. evil! Bad boy! Bad! *hits his hand with a rolled up newspaper*

Personally i think the UN wants world government or world dictatorship thus making it evil. you get the point

I think the UN wants to stop countries going to war for no good reason. To protect humanity from itself.

Or as you would either, there was a trickle of jews moving back to Israel before WW2, the shock of WW2 turned it into a flood of millions.

The de-facto Jewish community existed there already, long before WW2. And its not as if the Palistians who lived there were "displaced" as many would believe. The very most that were moved were only in the four digit numbers, and thats at the higher end of the estimates. Far fewer people than were moved by the Aswan dam construction for example. And its not as if Palistine was a massively populated area. Most of it was unoccupied land owned by absentee landlords who lived in Egypt or Syria. Jew's bought that land off them fair and square.

bump

What do I think about the UN?

OK. Here's my rant.

A funny story.

First you create a wordwide organization where all nations can debate and give their opinion and talk "in all equality" (which means, bigger nations have as many delegates and weight as small nations). Of course it's fair and it's not fair at the same time. But some well-known federal countries use this principle (Canada, for example -- province population range from 10 million to 300 000).

Next, make the worldwide organization NON-EQUAL by creating a "security council", which is really about a few nations being special & superior to the other ones.

And next, give this so-called security council veto power, so the whole organization comes to a grinding halt. Thousands of resolutions are vetoed. The ones that finally pass are so edited that they're rendered useless.

Oh wait, there's more. Install the headquarters in one of the said security council members' country, just to make sure it's even more ambiguous.

The UN was created as a cold war tool to keep our eyes on the Soviets. Now that the cold war is over, the whole thing is descending into a farce.

Problem is... if we replace the UN with something else, it will probably be even more flawed and partial than the original. It's almost certain that in a unipolar world (such as ours), the only superpower would influence it and make it a pawn to its own politics.

So what should we do? We can't reform the UN (it is too deeply flawed), we can't make it work, and we don't want to replace it. We're screwed.

What a can of worms.

Do we need the UN? Well, we need some place where governments can sit together and discuss. I think it's much needed in a connected world. And since business people can get together regularily at business summits, I don't see why governments couldn't do some talking and negociate.

The worst would be to have no public forum; all the deals would be done one-to-one, secretly. Now I don't pretend that it's any different now, but at least we have a public forum, so we can (maybe) use it -- we have the option.

Now, did anything positive ever came out of the UN?
Of course yes, even though we tend to focus on the more negative stuff. Not that anything positive happened recently, for that matter.
During the cold war, important debates were done at the UN between the 2 superpowers. It has really defused a lot of crisis. And it has led to nuclear test bans and other "population-friendly" actions.
The UN authorized some important defensive wars, such as the Korean War.
UN observers were dispatched at important locations, from Cyprus to the Golan Heights. The UN observers helped defuse many conflicts by manning a neutral zone of some sorts.
These were some of the most glorious moments.

Now I won't name ALL the non-glorious moments, as there are too many of them. :headbang:
The worse were probably Bosnia and Rwanda.

Do we need the UN? Well, we need some place where governments can sit together and discuss. I think it's much needed in a connected world. And since business people can get together regularily at business summits, I don't see why governments couldn't do some talking and negociate.


The problem is, all governments are ever going to do in such an organisation is discuss. The real problem with the UN is its scope is too vast. It attempts to include every nation on the planet, some of which have very little in common with each other and less desire to discuss with each other. Secondly, you have nations like Naru and Mauritius that are so insignificant on the international scene in the first place, they have no right to have an influence comparable to China or the US.

If an international organisation is to be created that really works, it needs to be regional in nature and thus composed of nations that have common goals and security issues. Secondly, it needs real power to act and veto power sould be less absolute.

Secondly, you have nations like Naru and Mauritius that are so insignificant on the international scene in the first place, they have no right to have an influence comparable to China or the US.
You've just insulted my Mauritian friends. :rolleyes:
But I understand your point.

Otherwise... I don't know how we would say to a nation "oh sorry, you have 300 000 inhabitants and the NUN (New UN) requires you to have 500 000 in order to be a member". How would we draw a line? How small a nation, so that it's irrelevant?
(Anyway, for the biggest nations in terms of economy, there is always the G8.)

And don't forget that international problems can arise in or around small nations. For example, Nauru had a row with Australia about refugees in 2001. I remember it was about asylum seekers from Afghanistan, who arrived in Australia by boat. Australia didn't want them, Nauru proposed something,
See... three countries involved, two of them being small ones.
Here's an article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1553918.stm

Lots of nations have disputed boundaries, for example there's a group of tiny islands that are disputed by Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines (Spratly Islands).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands.

Australia, Indonesia and East Timor have "fuzzy" sea borders, in a zone where there are gas deposits. Trouble ahead.

The UN has helped brokering land and border disputes in the past. One famous instance is the border between Somalia and Erythera. After years of war and hundreds of thousands of deads, the UN has sent a neutral party to investigate, and the proposed border was accepted. Peace is shaky but the proposed delimitation seems to hold.

Same thing in Cyprus (but the proposed deal is awefully complicated and was rejected by a margin. Let's see how it evolves.)

I think the UN is at its most useful when used to rule or give advice when there is a litigation AND both parties accept to ask for a neutral ruling. If both parties are willing, it's a good start.

But the UN is an useless mess when it comes to condemning actions or going to war against some country.

Small nations do have disputes as noted and are sometimes in need of action by the UN. However, I don't think that they deserve the same influence on insues in which they are a third party than larger nations.

We quit the UN because all that came of it was the imposition of constant badgering to adhere to the latest resolution about some inane socio-economic or politico-military initiative.

It became tedious beyond words. Much happier not being a member.

Hmmmm? Oh. You mean the REAL UN?

Same thing, I'd say.

[QUOTE=Brickistan]But good and evil are, in themselves, subjective terms. They cannot be as rigidly defined as you’re trying to do. Hence the freedom fighter example.
You might have your world spilt into good and evil, but do your neighbors agree with you? Do I?

Thats crrrap that is, are you saying then that if a country like Hati declares to the world that they do not see eating babies as evil, then you will agree with their subjective view?
Evils evil m8, and good is good.


I might not subscribe to your definition of good. Does that make me, by default, evil?

No just a bit mixed up probably.

Thats crrrap that is, are you saying then that if a country like Hati declares to the world that they do not see eating babies as evil, then you will agree with their subjective view?
Evils evil m8, and good is good.

I never said that you had to agree with other people’s view of good and evil. I only said that good and evil are subjective terms.

If Haitians started to eat babies, then I would think that it was evil. However, since the Haitians are doing it, they would probably see it as good (or, at least, as socially acceptable).
Clearly, in this case, there is no agreement on whether or not eating babies is good or evil.

No just a bit mixed up probably.

So, unless I see the world your way, I’m mixed up…?



Anyway – we’re getting quite OT here. How about we simply agree to disagree…?

[QUOTE=Brickistan]I never said that you had to agree with other people’s view of good and evil. I only said that good and evil are subjective terms.

No, terms such as these, are objective, not subjective to different opinion.

If Haitians started to eat babies, then I would think that it was evil. However, since the Haitians are doing it, they would probably see it as good (or, at least, as socially acceptable).
Clearly, in this case, there is no agreement on whether or not eating babies is good or evil.

So, you seem to be saying here, as the Haitans here view baby eating as good, then you would not see it as evil.




So, unless I see the world your way, I’m mixed up…?

Yes, nothing is subjective, only objective.

I think the UN wants to stop countries going to war for no good reason. To protect humanity from itself.Why do you think that? Because that's what they say?

Why do you think that? Because that's what they say?

And so far have done a very very poor job of doing! Define no good reason too while your at it. What may not be a good reason for one maybe a good reason for the other.