NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/article_139.shtml

http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/article_138.shtml

http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/article_13.shtml


Thoughts?

bump

Ive made my stance on the UN clear before...
But Ill do it again 'cause I get to use fun words.

I personaly think that all UN property in the US should be heli-lifted to some island in the Pacific. This island should be nuked until it is glassified. The glass should be covered in salt, the salt should be covered in concrete. Priests, holy men, witchdoctors and so forth should be brought in to bless/seal/whatever the concrete block against the evil forces it contains. This concrete block should be irradiated and encased in ANOTHER concrete block, which should be coated in lead and engraved with holy symbols.
THIS large lead-gilded block should be guarded day and night by crack troops from an international force, perhaps NATO.
Once we have the technology the large lead/concrete block should be launched into the nearest black hole, acompanied by all music made after 1995, whoever directed Starship Troopers, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, France, Belgium and alll traces of Ovaltine.

Oh goody another bash the UN thread.

Oh goody another bash the UN thread.

Amazing how you always rally to defend the U.N., but can never name a single good thing it's ever done.

Right, here goes an attempt to defend the UN:
I started reading the first article, but the comparison with a tumor made me kind of skeptical. I don't know of any tumors that actually do good to the patient.
Something that a lot of Americans seem to ignore are the successes the UN has achieved. The Suez-canal Crisis did not end in a war between the US, France, and Great Britain. None of these are responsible for this, the result was achieved through a function of the General Assembly (where all nations are represented). With a 2/3rds majority, the GA can overrule the SC. This hasn't happened often, but it has worked.
The UN is deeply involved in Nation Building, land mine clearing, education, and many other noble things. Bashing it because there are cases of corruption ignores these acts. Besides, did the US abandon democracy after Watergate?

Its amazing the number of 'Bash-Bush', 'Bash-America', 'Bash-Republican', 'Bash-Christian' and so forth threads that come up here.
I figure its about time somebody bashed the UN.

Ive made my stance on the UN clear before...
But Ill do it again 'cause I get to use fun words.

I personaly think that all UN property in the US should be heli-lifted to some island in the Pacific. This island should be nuked until it is glassified. The glass should be covered in salt, the salt should be covered in concrete. Priests, holy men, witchdoctors and so forth should be brought in to bless/seal/whatever the concrete block against the evil forces it contains. This concrete block should be irradiated and encased in ANOTHER concrete block, which should be coated in lead and engraved with holy symbols.
THIS large lead-gilded block should be guarded day and night by crack troops from an international force, perhaps NATO.
Once we have the technology the large lead/concrete block should be launched into the nearest black hole, acompanied by all music made after 1995, whoever directed Starship Troopers, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, France, Belgium and alll traces of Ovaltine.

What the hell did Belgium ever do to you?

What the hell did Belgium ever do to you?
He's probably jaleous because Belgium has the NATO headquarters.

Waiting for the Leftist to post something about "quit picking on the pedophiles, it's those African kids' fault, walking around looking so sexy...they were asking for it. The UN didn't do anything wrong."

Kick their ass off the North American continent.

What the hell did Belgium ever do to you?
A sad impulse to immitate the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. That and I hear they speak French there.
>_>
<_<

A sad impulse to immitate the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. That and I hear they speak French there.
>_>
<_<
They speak Dutch too... I think its because he found out that it's where French Fries are originally from.

They speak Dutch too... I think its because he found out that it's where French Fries are originally from.
They only speak Dutch around non-Belgians. Its part of a massive conspiracy with Tajikistan.

Where'd the UN-bashers go?
I posted something good its done! Refute me!

I just don't get the anti-UN types.

Lunacy. Sheer lunacy.

Hmm...
Get the US out might not be a bad idea. Then we can finally get a condemnation of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Kick their butts out of the U.S. and cut off all funding, see how much good they will do without american money.

Kick their butts out of the U.S. and cut off all funding, see how much good they will do without american money.

Don't underestimate the UN, the gap would be filled quickly.

Don't underestimate the UN, the gap would be filled quickly.

with what?

Kick their butts out of the U.S. and cut off all funding, see how much good they will do without american money.
The fact that the US wasn't paying its dues in the 90s was more harmful to the US than the UN. The UN at least has a better chance of spending it on reconstruction than on some pentagon project.

The Suez-canal Crisis did not end in a war between the US, France, and Great Britain. None of these are responsible for this, the result was achieved through a function of the General Assembly
Of course, this assumes we would have gone to war over it if the UN hadn't gotten involved, which isn't automatically the case.

The fact that the US wasn't paying its dues in the 90s was more harmful to the US than the UN. The UN at least has a better chance of spending it on reconstruction than on some pentagon project.

Really? who donated the most moeny to the tsunami through government and private donations? The U.N.? It takes alot longer from money to get to the places that need it through the U.N. then it dose then going and giving the money yourself.

Hmm...
Get the US out might not be a bad idea. Then we can finally get a condemnation of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Obviously you've never paid attention when ethnic cleansing was going on in the real world did you? If they're trying to ethnically cleanse the arabs(not palestinians, there was never a group that called themselves that until after israel was created) in the area they're doing a piss-poor job. On the other hand, France and China quite handily blocked the UN from doing anything about the ethnic cleansing ocurring in Sudan to protect their oil contracts.

Of course, this assumes we would have gone to war over it if the UN hadn't gotten involved, which isn't automatically the case.
Might well have been, though. The fact that the UN did something about it reduced the impact of the conflict. It might have saved relations between the countries too.
Besides, the fact that "you can't know whether they would have gone to war" doesn't really matter since the UN did manage to broker a peace.

I have to agree with my friends here, what good would the UN be capable of doing without the largest nations paying there dues and providing troops as peacekeepers? THe answer is simple, not very much. The UN like its predecessor the League of Nations are a wonderful idea on paper, but when implemented they fall short of accomplishing what they set out to. Its part of that whole human failing business.

My personal belief which is not very popular is that the UN affords too much power to nations which have no right wielding it. I mean the United States and her allies have the ability to enforce there will with arms, which has been the basis of true power throughout time. A small country like Switzerland has power because they are a hub of commerce for the globe. But small places which do not produce goods and have no military presence on earth, and for the most part have the US foot there dues, have no right leading the nations of the world on the security council. The UN simply isn't fair to those who support it. I think its clear that the UN either needs to be reformed or replaced, but i would warn of handing a vast military force to any international organization that answers to no one. At least when the US pushes its weight around, there are those who if they wanted to could smack us and help put us in our place. (not that anyone would, but an alliance between several others could have a pretty fair chance.)

Any way, rambled for too long. The moral is, The UN needs to be reformed or replaced, but who would be stupid enough to voluntarily run its replacement?

Really? who donated the most moeny to the tsunami through government and private donations? The U.N.? It takes alot longer from money to get to the places that need it through the U.N. then it dose then going and giving the money yourself.
Who increased their aid tenfold after someone remarked that Western nations were being stingy? I distinctly recall a lot of bashing of the UN guy that said it before Bush increased aid, saying that he had no valid arguements. And guess what the US finally did?
I think it's way overtime that the world's biggest economy makes the highest donations. A lot of this money is being directed by the UN to get where it needs to go, and failure to do that is mainly due to local governments and logistical problems. The UN isn't there to "give" money, they are the ones that use it in the necessary places. Citing corruption only ignores the many efforts where things are actually done right.

Now for those of you anti-U.N. types out there you are probably living in a country backed by a giant ego which gives them the impression that thay are all powerfull and people of the world just adore them.

In case you didn't catch on before I'm focusing in on the United States.

You whine and complain that all the money you send in to the U.N. doesn't seem to be making a difference in the world today. "Why?" you ask. The answer is simple. YOU DON'T PAY YOU'RE DUES TO THE U.N.! Yes that's right, most U.N. member don't believe its making a difference in the world, because all the money the put in to the U.N. is going towards the amount the owe for being a member.

Yes, America, you're billions of dollars you throw in each year is actually going towards the hundreds of billions of dollars you already owe to the U.N.

And the countries that do pay their dues are fed up with your whining and complaining so what I have to say is, sit down, be quiet, and pay off your debt, and then and only then will you see your money making a difference. Then the lives of good men and women won't be as endangered any longer because we can put it to better quality care packages, better equipment and training (to avoid another Rwanda situation), and all around a better world.

At least when the US pushes its weight around, there are those who if they wanted to could smack us and help put us in our place. (not that anyone would, but an alliance between several others could have a pretty fair chance.)

Yeah, that really worked well during the Iraq war...

Who increased their aid tenfold after someone remarked that Western nations were being stingy? I distinctly recall a lot of bashing of the UN guy that said it before Bush increased aid, saying that he had no valid arguements. And guess what the US finally did?
I think it's way overtime that the world's biggest economy makes the highest donations. A lot of this money is being directed by the UN to get where it needs to go, and failure to do that is mainly due to local governments and logistical problems. The UN isn't there to "give" money, they are the ones that use it in the necessary places. Citing corruption only ignores the many efforts where things are actually done right.

Oh yes the U.N. is so good at taking care of other peoples money, remember Oil for food or has everyone already forgotten.

Oh yes the U.N. is so good at taking care of other peoples money, remember Oil for food or has everyone already forgotten.
Citing corruption only ignores the many efforts where things are actually done right.
Tell me, did the US get rid of democracy after Watergate?

Why do people hate the UN so much? It may be spineless and toothless, but at least it exists as some kind of arbitrator. Is it because nations like the US want to throw their weight around even more?

i doubt Britain France and America would have gone to war over Egypt, especially as it was in the middle of the Cold War with Russia.
As for the UN i have nothing but contempt for it. It was created by the United States and Britain (+ the British Commonwealth) in 1943 to enforce democracy and freedom in the world, + the UN charter was a blatant middle finger to the Communists, it was basically saying that the free world would oppose them. Now it is filled with pasifists who use the same logic as the ones in Britain 1933 - and those nice friendly social scientists who are psychitrists to rapists and psychos, namely:-
"Lets appeal to tyrants and monsters better natures, if we give them what they want an appease them then they wont want war"
an obvious case of wishful thinking. THEY HAVE NO BETTER NATURES GRRRRR.
It sits back and watches a bit of ethnic clensing in Bosnia, and does nothing, EVENTUALLY British troops go in using American money with the USAF on stand by and the UN soldiers turn up convieniently when the fighting ends. I mean its not like its the UNs job to prevent ethnic clensing and tyranny, oh wait a sec it is, i must have been mistaken by the massive failure in that objective, i mean what with the misery in Zimbabwe and the Sudan recently....
It was (again) troops from the English speaking world (Britain, America and Australia) who fought in the gulf and once again in the new gulf war and it was us who beat Hitler for that matter, and then opposed the Communists. Personally i think we should expel the UN countries and take that building and make a new UN, The United Nations of the English speaking world, who actually get of their arses and fight for freedom, and wont surrender at the first sign of trouble, the rest of the world had better shut up and get in line whilst we apes sought things out savvy!
ANYWAYS, as for money, if i want to give my money to the UN then i will do so OF MY OWN FREE WILL, my government has NO right to force me to pay taxes to that unrepresentative institution, i pay my taxes to improve my country and the society in which i live NOT foreign lands. The UN has no national rights in my country and no representation of the global populace, therefore i regard it as tyranical.

[QUOTE=The Romacian Alliance] what good would the UN be capable of doing without the largest nations paying there dues and providing troops as peacekeepers?

Largest nation paying their dues and providing troops for peacekeepers? Not only do you not pay you're dues when you're suppose to, you rarely pay them at all. As for your troops, rarely is the United States invited along for peacekeeping missions. Canada here is a model U.N. member, pays their dues on time and always actively participates in U.N. peacekeepings missions. It's better to have a faulty U.N. around than to let the United States play their game of show of force to attempt at peacekeeping, hint hint Vietnam, and they lost that war disgracefully.

Our troops, rarely is the United States invited along for peacekeeping missions. Canada here is a model U.N. member, pays their dues on time and always actively participates in U.N. peacekeepings missions.

Wait, we actually have an army?

I thought the Canadian Army was a myth.

Canada City']Wait, we actually have an army?

I thought the Canadian Army was a myth.

Haha nice joke.

But back here in reality Canada has the best trained army in the world, not necessarily the largest. It just so happens that Great Britain, France, United Statesm and Canada have a little military competition every year, and guess who comes out on top. TA DA! the Canadians.

Why do people hate the UN so much? It may be spineless and toothless, but at least it exists as some kind of arbitrator. Is it because nations like the US want to throw their weight around even more?

1) Religious conservatives think that any world government is indeed the work of the devil, as they take a literal interpretation of St John's Apocalypse.

2) American people are fiercely independent. They don't want any authority over their head. In fact, they are even fond of imposing their OWN laws to other nations... because they are "right" and others are "wrong". Not more than one nation can be right, eh?

3) Again, some religious conservatives don't accept having a moral authority or any regulation body over their government. Why? Because they think that only God should be over the government, which is god-created (or god-appointed, or god-supported). This is not very humble.

4) The UN encourage multilateralism. Unless you're a Jimmy Carter aficionado, you prefer unilateralism... simply because it gives you SO MUCH MORE power.

5) Being forced to sit at the same table as small countries and engage in one-on-one dialogue at a common level. Let's spit on any country that's less powerful than the US. Oh wait, it's ALL of them. The Bush government is well known for sending low-level government officials to deal with other countries' presidents! It's clearly not an example of respect, and one can wonder how equal are "mutual treaties" negociated in such an asymmetrical way.

Sarkasis, you make a good point, if the U.S. wants the people of the world to look up to them and stop people in the streets dancing around with flaming flags and chanting "death to america," then they should start treating other nations of the world with respect. Where "no" means no and lunch with a countries president means president to president/prime minister/king/prince....etc. not president to the guy who irons Bush's dress shirts.

2) American people are fiercely independent. They don't want any authority over their head. In fact, they are even fond of imposing their OWN laws to other nations... because they are "right" and others are "wrong". Not more than one nation can be right, eh?


*nods*

I think that's the core of the problem. The whole "we will do unto everyone else what we will allow no-one to do unto us" attitude of the US.

a "reform" would transform the UN into some US style organization.

an "abolishment" of the UN would allow Bush to ransack the whole country.

As we all know, it's easier to destroy something than to build something. But the UN belongs to the world, not the US.

If the USians are so hot and bothered to make with the rubble, might I suggest they take a backhoe to Mt. Rushmore, rather than break something that's not really theirs to break?

Where'd the UN-bashers go?
I posted something good its done! Refute me!

They have redistributed social services to places charities were already active. They make resolution after resolution but rarely act in the defense of oppressed peoples. Sudan chaired the Human Rights Council. Darfur?

I just don't get the anti-UN types.

Lunacy. Sheer lunacy.Lunacy?

You're right, you don't get us.

snip

Exactly, though personally I have to say that reform is unlikely to work. Either a new alliance/UN type forum needs to be put in place or the current UN needs to be completly overhauled.


Who increased their aid tenfold after someone remarked that Western nations were being stingy? I distinctly recall a lot of bashing of the UN guy that said it before Bush increased aid, saying that he had no valid arguements. And guess what the US finally did?

Your just assuming thats the reason Bush increased aid. (I'm not denying that comments like that played a role) but remember when he made the first aid donation no one really realized the full extent of the damage. When we did realize how bad it was, Bush increased the ammount of aid accordingly. Remember, the president can only act one what he know's about or is told about.

Yeah, that really worked well during the Iraq war...
Oh, I think the Iraq war has shown the world that the US is definately not infinately powerful, despite more military spending than the entire rest of the world (when you include foreign military aid). In a war against the rest of the world, we'd lose.

Why do people hate the UN so much? It may be spineless and toothless, but at least it exists as some kind of arbitrator. Is it because nations like the US want to throw their weight around even more?That is not my problem with the UN. During previous US presidencies, the UN fully supported or lead the elective wars waged by the US. My opposition has much to do with this fact. There are people that intend for the UN to have ultimate government power over the whole world (the way the US has complete control over it's member states), and there are people who wish to establish the United States of Earth. I don't support either of these groups.

But back here in reality Canada has the best trained army in the world, not necessarily the largest. It just so happens that Great Britain, France, United Statesm and Canada have a little military competition every year, and guess who comes out on top. TA DA! the Canadians.
Oh wow. Oh WOW! You're going to need to provide evidence for these claims. Because they're so laughable I'm about to fall out of my chair.

That being said, Canada does have a very strong tradition of participation in peacekeeping operations, and are trained as such - peacekeepers, not soldiers.

4) The UN encourage multilateralism. Unless you're a Jimmy Carter aficionado, you prefer unilateralism... simply because it gives you SO MUCH MORE power.
That's actually not true. I studied this in extensive depth this year - many people believe the US can only exercise its hegemony in a world where it acts multilaterally. Why? There are a few main reasons:

1. Cooperation - the US can't be everywhere, at every time. It needs the supplementary aid of other countries.

2. Counterbalancing - if the US isn't willing to deal with other countries through institutions like the UN, they're going to start building up their own military capacities to counter the US'.

3. Influence (or "soft power" if you prefer): If other countries don't see the US as a team player, our ability to influence countries without military threat or force will decrease dramatically. This hurts the US (and the world) in a variety of ways which I can enumerate if necessary.

There are more reasons that are much more specific than these three, but you get the idea.

That's actually not true.
LOL -- I KNOW!

But I'm giving you the point of view that is often presented by UN-bashers.

In UN threads, there are usually many asking why UN opposers oppose the UN. It's a tall order to explain this to everyone since so many people have so many differing views. For instance, if you view the centralization of power as a good or neutral thing, it won't bother you if I can show that the UN is a partially successful attempt to centralize world power. But if you really want to know how I feel, I detailed part of the basis for my opposition to the UN in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9076310&postcount=115).

In UN threads, there are usually many asking why UN opposers oppose the UN. It's a tall order to explain this to everyone since so many people have so many differing views. For instance, if you view the centralization of power as a good or neutral thing, it won't bother you if I can show that the UN is a partially successful attempt to centralize world power. But if you really want to know how I feel, I detailed part of the basis for my opposition to the UN in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9076310&postcount=115).
Except the UN could never evolve into a world government. It's too tainted by past failures and biases. So you have basically nothing to worry about.

This, however, saddens me. I think a world government would be good.

Ive made my stance on the UN clear before...
But Ill do it again 'cause I get to use fun words.

I personaly think that all UN property in the US should be heli-lifted to some island in the Pacific. This island should be nuked until it is glassified. The glass should be covered in salt, the salt should be covered in concrete. Priests, holy men, witchdoctors and so forth should be brought in to bless/seal/whatever the concrete block against the evil forces it contains. This concrete block should be irradiated and encased in ANOTHER concrete block, which should be coated in lead and engraved with holy symbols.
THIS large lead-gilded block should be guarded day and night by crack troops from an international force, perhaps NATO.
Once we have the technology the large lead/concrete block should be launched into the nearest black hole, acompanied by all music made after 1995, whoever directed Starship Troopers, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, France, Belgium and alll traces of Ovaltine.

And we must destroy the Black Hole

This, however, saddens me. I think a world government would be good.

Hitler tried it, it didn't work. So did Stalin. And Napoleon.

My reasons for opposing the UN, in a nutshell:

Philosophically
*Undermimes a country's soveriegnty (ability to rule itself)
*Takes leaders and their accountability further away from the governed
*"The government that governs the least, governs best" (paraphrased)

Examples in real-life
*Oil-for-food
*Inability to condemn genocides of Sudan, Rwanda
*"Peacekeeping" troops' rape of Congolese
*Too much bureaucracy, nothing gets done anymore

Hitler tried it, it didn't work. So did Stalin. And Napoleon.
No, that's one country having the world as a colony. That's like saying the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim, so all Muslims are evil.

Oh, and Napoleon? He was the good guy in that war.

Napoleon was a facsits digusing himself as a republican, he installed sister government in everywhere he conquoured and butcherd hundreds.

No, that's one country having the world as a colony. That's like saying the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim, so all Muslims are evil.

Oh, and Napoleon? He was the good guy in that war.

Exactly. ;)
You can never have an international organisation like the UN that becomes a world government that is truly neutral. It will alwayse look like an extension of one nation and will be subject to the same kind of corruption. Whenever you have one giant government over many peoples, there is clash because certain groups can't get along. Think Austria-Hungary and Iraq right now. Big world governments undermine regional and individual self-determination and soverignty.

Napoleon was a facsits digusing himself as a republican, he installed sister government in everywhere he conquoured and butcherd hundreds.
Grammatical and spelling errors in bold.

Napoleon actually broke open thousands of Jewish Ghettoes. While he was an autocrat, he wasn't a totalitarian. Napoleon's rule, in NS terms, is probably most like a Libertarian Police State or a Benevolent Dictatorship. The people who stopped him were firmly against any sort of social change and that's why they were afraid of Napoleon; ever heard of the Concert of Vienna? Or Klaus von Metternich? I'd like to see credible evidence towards the Napoleon-as-mass-murderer thesis.

Exactly.
You can never have an international organisation like the UN that becomes a world government that is truly neutral. It will alwayse look like an extension of one nation and will be subject to the same kind of corruption. Whenever you have one giant government over many peoples, there is clash because certain groups can't get along. Think Austria-Hungary and Iraq right now. Big world governments undermine regional and individual self-determination and soverignty.
As we don't have any empirical evidence on this front, we can only discuss this concept theoretically. But we can discuss the modern system of realist power politics in concrete terms:
- Over 200 Million in the 20th century were killed alone in interstate wars or state-based persecution.
- The system is inherently unstable. Even its proponents admit that the only way the system sustains itself is through power wars. What if that war was between the US and China and Russia? How many would die?
- Nations destablize people and create boundaries between individuals. We tend to identify other people by their nationality, and their nationality in opposition to our own. This justifies the slaughter of that population in the name of national security, because 20th and 21st century wars aren't interstate wars, but interpopulation wars. It's not that we're fighting Iraq as a nation so much as we're fighting the terrorist elements of the population.

Further, if democracy functions, than your argument is patently ridiculous. A world government in democratic form would be no less biased than a national government in democratic form.

The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that democracy could function on such a massive scale without forming an autocracy or at best a corrupt bureaucracy. In a world government, if one leader is a failure or evil or corrupt, the whole planet is damned, not just one country.

The fact seems to be, that since the beginning of recorded history, humans have arranged themselves into competing units and have not created a trend towards unification. Why should we fight this apparently natural tendency when we have millenia of nations against us?

Amazing how you always rally to defend the U.N., but can never name a single good thing it's ever done.
Here is one:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/223248_fisk08.html

The problem is, there is no evidence to suggest that democracy could function on such a massive scale without forming an autocracy or at best a corrupt bureaucracy. In a world government, if one leader is a failure or evil or corrupt, the whole planet is damned, not just one country.
There's no evidence to suggest it couldn't. But as the probability of mass human suicide via nuclear weapons increases, the alternatives look better. National armies are destructive. Plus, people would united behind an outside threat. Conjure up some alien stuff, make it seem indefinite, and then bam!

The fact seems to be, that since the beginning of recorded history, humans have arranged themselves into competing units and have not created a trend towards unification. Why should we fight this apparently natural tendency when we have millenia of nations against us?
Because that tendency is inching toward self-destruction. Unless you think human extinction or at the least mass death is good (as you didn't answer the warrants in my last post), you should think that we should try to move toward a more unified political system.

During the last century, the number of civil wars and persons killed via their government were astounding. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Hussein, Mussolini, Tojo, the list goes on. Do we really want to take the chance that one of these might rule the world someday?

Most of the wars between nations that you were refering to were caused by dictatorships and other autocracies. Already, the trend is towards world democratization without forming one mass government. This seems to be preventing the problems you forsee. Since the Cold War, there have been relatively few wars between nations that have produced mass casualties.

Oh, I think the Iraq war has shown the world that the US is definately not infinately powerful, despite more military spending than the entire rest of the world (when you include foreign military aid). In a war against the rest of the world, we'd lose.

I looked it up on globalsecurity.org thinking "this guys got his numbers screwy" I was suprised at the closeness to the truth.

Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)

$500 Billion rest of the world
$466 Billion in the US

During the last century, the number of civil wars and persons killed via their government were astounding. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Hussein, Mussolini, Tojo, the list goes on. Do we really want to take the chance that one of these might rule the world someday?
You misunderstand world government. It's not one nation taking control of international edifices of power. Nations would be independent as much as states in the United States are independent. National armies would cease to exist. And do you really think the world populace would elect a Stalin or Hitler? Yeah, right.

Most of the wars between nations that you were refering to were caused by dictatorships and other autocracies. Already, the trend is towards world democratization without forming one mass government. This seems to be preventing the problems you forsee. Since the Cold War, there have been relatively few wars between nations that have produced mass casualties.
But, you see, there are numerous indicators that a war may break out among certain nations that exist now that aren't democratic and the democratic ones. Resource wars in the Spratelys, tensions on the Indian/Pakistani border, Balkan expansionism, spats over Taiwan - these are all global hot spots that could escalate. Not to mention the threat of a genocidal war sparked by terrorism.

Not only that, but the state system can't do jack about genocide. See Rwanda. These are damn bad things.

I'm not saying this system is likely to come about, I'm just saying the world would be better if it did.

I looked it up on globalsecurity.org thinking "this guys got his numbers screwy" I was suprised at the closeness to the truth.

Global Security (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)

$500 Billion rest of the world
$466 Billion in the USWhat I said isn't close to the truth. It's true. If you subtract the parts of the rest of the world's military budgets that are paid for by the US and add them to the US total, it is over half the world total. That's what I meant.

I just don't get the anti-UN types.

Lunacy. Sheer lunacy.
It has serious problems. There's the case of sex abuse by Peacekeepers, there's the case of the UN refugee camps in Kosovo located next to a lead smelting plant, and other such problems. But on the other hand, they do a lot of good for the poor in the third world, mine clearance, and such.

For those who want to destroy the UN: what should replace it?

It has serious problems. There's the case of sex abuse by Peacekeepers, there's the case of the UN refugee camps in Kosovo located next to a lead smelting plant, and other such problems. But on the other hand, they do a lot of good for the poor in the third world, mine clearance, and such.

For those who want to destroy the UN: what should replace it?
UN2: This time it's personal.

You misunderstand world government. It's not one nation taking control of international edifices of power. Nations would be independent as much as states in the United States are independent.

You dont live in the US, do you? States are pretty weak, and have been getting progressively weaker ever since the Civil War.

National armies would cease to exist. And do you really think the world populace would elect a Stalin or Hitler? Yeah, right.

Pss.....Hitler was elected by the Germans, so yes, yes I do think its very possible, if not inevitable that someone brutal would take power.


But, you see, there are numerous indicators that a war may break out among certain nations that exist now that aren't democratic and the democratic ones. Resource wars in the Spratelys, tensions on the Indian/Pakistani border, Balkan expansionism, spats over Taiwan - these are all global hot spots that could escalate. Not to mention the threat of a genocidal war sparked by terrorism.

And you think a global government would solve these fights? Many of them are cultural or resource wars that no overlording world government could effectively deal with. You underestimate how much people in other areas can not care about far away problems.

Not only that, but the state system can't do jack about genocide. See Rwanda. These are damn bad things.

Oh yes, the UN dealt with that issue sooo well, didn't it now?

I'm not saying this system is likely to come about, I'm just saying the world would be better if it did.

I wouldn't look for it either, as long as national governements keep brains in their collective skulls.

I do not like the UN's future ability to override our soverienty, nor do I like how we get involved in world affairs because of the UN. (Pre-9/11)

not[/b] care about far away problems.


Exactly. This isn't classical warfare were talking about like in WWI. Nations don't go to war because of a "balance of power" anymore. Most wars are regional in nature and can be trased to a direct clash between alternate cultures and ideologies. The Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are a prime example. If we were to have one giant world government there would be possibly multiple civil wars going at once.

Also, who would we look to for world leadership? The US can't even agree on who should be president, and we are much more closely related to each other than to someone in say, Japan. Instead of the Florida Recount, we might have the 2 year long South American recount. The logistics would be impossible to even have 7 billion people voting. Koffi Annan? He's the closest thing we have right now to a world leader, and look where his popularity is. Can you say Oil for food times 10?

You dont live in the US, do you? States are pretty weak, and have been getting progressively weaker ever since the Civil War.
Actually, I do. And actually, that was my point. Read the context in my post and think about the perspective I'm coming from.

Pss.....Hitler was elected by the Germans, so yes, yes I do think its very possible, if not inevitable that someone brutal would take power.
Why was Hitler elected? Economic tensions caused by a war between nations, right? People don't need to find a scapegoat if there never was a problem.

Futher, it's impossible for me to believe that a voting body as diverse as Earth's (as opposed to a desperate, homogenous Germany of the 1930s) would elect a genocidal dictator that would suppress the rights of all and slaughter many.


And you think a global government would solve these fights? Many of them are cultural or resource wars that no overlording world government could effectively deal with. You underestimate how much people in other areas can not care about far away problems.
And do you realize how irrelevant all of this is when an overriding body with the world's only military force tells them they have to take a particular course of action. You can't have a resource war if the world's only army is distributing those resources. You can't have a cultural fight when you don't have the weapons to do it and the rest of the world is peacekeeping points of contention. And it doesn't matter if disparate people don't care if it's enshrined in the government's Constitution.

Oh yes, the UN dealt with that issue sooo well, didn't it now?
Thank you for bashing something I've already stated is ineffective. The UN, as it exists, more or less blows. Any effective supranational organization has to have a much stronger Charter, or, dare I say, a Constitution?

Those who are criticising the UN obviously have no concept of a) the good it does, b) its purpose and c) why there are problems with it. American hatred of the UN is born out of you not getting you own way with Iraq, just like the critisism of France, like spoilt brats throwing tantrums because they haven't been allowed to play.

The UN was Created to keep the four major powers left standing at the end of the second world war from going at it again. The British and French Empires, America and Soviet Russia all had huge standing armies and the power politcs in Europe, Africa and the Middle east could have ended in a major conflagration, just as the Cuban missile crissis, Suez, Hungary and Germany could have ended in a global war. The UN was designed so that global ambitions of any one power would be offset by the others through debate. Suez for example was sorted because the Anglo-Franco-Isreali conflict with Egypt threatened to draw the Russians in and America refused to side with the Brits and French (Like France refused to side with America two years ago) and the whole escapade had to be called off.

Also the aid work that the UN does could not be done by nation states.

The UN was Created to keep the four major powers left standing at the end of the second world war from going at it again. The British and French Empires, America and Soviet Russia all had huge standing armies and the power politcs in Europe, Africa and the Middle east could have ended in a major conflagration, just as the Cuban missile crissis, Suez, Hungary and Germany could have ended in a global war. The UN was designed so that global ambitions of any one power would be offset by the others through debate. Suez for example was sorted because the Anglo-Franco-Isreali conflict with Egypt threatened to draw the Russians in and America refused to side with the Brits and French (Like France refused to side with America two years ago) and the whole escapade had to be called off.


This is all very true. However, it refers to the world as it existed 50 years ago, and demonstrates that the UN is apparently unable to modernize. The problem that the US has with France and, for that matter, Russia in the UN is that they were given veto power. The reasons for this are as you stated, they were 2 of the only surviving 5 powers after WWII. However, neither France nor Russia has as much international power as they did then. Following the Cold War, Russia has collapsed and France is just a shell of what it was before WWII. Thus, why should these countries have veto power when they don't really matter anymore?

Destroyed 1 100.00%

First vote?

I think the one thing that is holding it back is veto power. No nation should have veto power, otherwise the UN is dominated a large superpower who shall remain nameless that is the world's largest practicer of state terrorism (and it ain't China or the Soviets)

Destroyed- 4
Reformed- 2
Let's keep the lead!

Veto power is a major problem with the UN. However, if you get rid of it, you are still left with a collection of hundreds of nations some of which will be constantly at each others throats deciding on issues. Many of these are very insignificant on the international scene because of there size, yet under the current system get one vote just like the US and China. The whole idea of a worldwide international organisation like the UN undermines soverignty and is predestined for corruption.

Many of these are very insignificant on the international scene because of there size, yet under the current system get one vote just like the US and China.

Blatantly not true. The US and China have the right of veto; countries like San Marino, Togo or Kiribati have not.

It's perfectly right for all nations to have one vote in the General Assembly. Every nation should have the right to be heard. (And 'size' has nothing to do with it, btw. The UK is much smaller than Canada, Kazakhstan or Brazil, but is much more influent.)

As for sovereignty, most of those who oppose the UN do so merely because they want the US to be able to violate other countries' sovereignty freely. It's an appalling and incoherent double standard.

Problems with most of the arguments against the UN is that they only target a very small section of the UN, that being the Security Council. And of course the Security Council is inherently corrupt, inefficient, etcetera when it’s disagreeing with the United States.

With regard to sovereignty arguments:
-It is a sovereign choice to be a member of the UN
-American invasions of other countries barely count as pillars of state sovereignty
-Since when did sovereignty become so important?
-A nation would have to be doing great harm to have its sovereignty directly overwritten by its charter; in which case, what right does the government have to a sovereignty argument.

I actually had a list of good things the UN has done in its other bodies, but it is mildly misplaced at the moment. The UN also pays very well.

And do you realize how irrelevant all of this is when an overriding body with the world's only military force tells them they have to take a particular course of action. You can't have a resource war if the world's only army is distributing those resources. You can't have a cultural fight when you don't have the weapons to do it and the rest of the world is peacekeeping points of contention. And it doesn't matter if disparate people don't care if it's enshrined in the government's Constitution.Stop it. You're making me cry. :(
Why do you hate freedom?
Were did/do you go to school?

Those who are criticising the UN obviously have no concept of a) the good it does, b) its purpose and c) why there are problems with it. American hatred of the UN is born out of you not getting you own way with Iraq, just like the critisism of France, like spoilt brats throwing tantrums because they haven't been allowed to play.Absolute fucking nonsense. 1. If our war-waging leaders were actually anti-UN, they'd act to get out of it.
2. I detest the UN. I did before the Iraq war, and have opposed it since before it started.
3. The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) has been calling for the US to get out of the UN practically since it first got in.

And spare me the history lesson. It's pretty snobby of you to assume that those who disagree with you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

Absolute fucking nonsense. 1. If our war-waging leaders were actually anti-UN, they'd act to get out of it.
2. I detest the UN. I did before the Iraq war, and have opposed it since before it started.
3. The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/) has been calling for the US to get out of the UN practically since it first got in.

And spare me the history lesson. It's pretty snobby of you to assume that those who disagree with you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

You sir have no right to becalling things nonsense.

1) The US doesn't have "war-waging" leaders. As under the Constitution, which your John Birch Society wants to restore, Congress decides when we go to war.

2) That's nice but it doesn't matter

3) Never heard of them, and there are groups for everything. Some things which are socially unacceptable (NAMBLA)

Stop it. You're making me cry. :(
Why do you hate freedom?
Were did/do you go to school?
First, get it through your head that freedom is not the same thing as national sovreignty. In fact, an internationally codified set of rules on individual freedom would probably leave individuals a lot more freedom than certain laws (the Patriot Act) in the United States.

I can't believe you're seriously using the "you hate freedom" canard. It's ridiculous to say that I hate freedom because I think the nation-state is more dangerous than a world government.

Born and schooled in the United States.

I'd like to see the U.N. reform into a world government (Under a federal system similar to the USA). That would be better than the halfway house we have now.

It would also be a pinniacle of achevement for humanity, where we can really can abolish dictatorships, war and enjoy would democracy and equality.

You sir have no right to becalling things nonsense.Really?
1. As a human being, I have a right to speak freely.
2. I'm 100% correct anyway. Rhoderick claimed that the baisis for anti-UN sentiment among Americans stems from us "not getting our way" regarding the Iraq war. That's false. It's an overt strawman argument. It's not true for me, and it's not true for the John Birch Society, among others.

The US doesn't have "war-waging" leaders. As under the Constitution, which your John Birch Society wants to restore, Congress decides when we go to war.
Umm, the Bush administration has most certainly launched a war in Iraq, and they've done so without a congressional declaration of war. And while the administration might not have been happy with the UN's stance on Iraq, they weren't so upset as to suggest the US get out of the UN.

First, get it through your head that freedom is not the same thing as national sovreignty. In fact, an internationally codified set of rules on individual freedom would probably leave individuals a lot more freedom than certain laws (the Patriot Act) in the United States.You envision a world with a single military force capable of enforcing the will of a single governing body on a wholly disarmed populace. That is not freedom. That is tyranny.

I can't believe you're seriously using the "you hate freedom" canard. It's ridiculous to say that I hate freedom because I think the nation-state is more dangerous than a world government.I couldn't help it. I used to assume that everybody, at least every American, was in favor of freedom. I now know better, but I don't quite understand why. I also don't know why anyone would assume that the answer to the problems of having a powerful centralized government is to have a more powerful more centralized government.

Born and schooled in the United States.Well, that certainly narrows it down.

Tell me all you want about how you love freedom, you're not going to convince me as long as you continue seeing things the way you do.

1. You envision a world with a single military force capable of enforcing the will of a single governing body on a wholly disarmed populace. That is not freedom. That is tyranny.
2. I couldn't help it. I used to assume that everybody, at least every American, was in favor of freedom.
You my friend make me laugh.
1. No, that is a government.
2. What in the world is your definition of "freedom"?