NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just wondering what others think. I have always thought that the UN has pretty much gone the way of the League of Nations and really lost all credibility as an International Intermediary, It seems to me that the corruption is only getting worse and that we need to either start from scratch or not even have an International system of Mediation. What does everyone else think?

Corruption culminated in the US with Watergate and no one thought of getting rid of the Republic.

I don't agree the US has cleaned up its act and there is no accountability in the UN like there is in the US.

Corruption culminated in the US with Watergate and no one thought of getting rid of the Republic.

Meh, I think that wasn't a culmination, merely a press feeding frenzy.

Besides, plenty of folks have had exact thought. Like, all of Texas. Just mention the word "Republic" and they're on about how Texas should seceed from the corrupt federal oppress-o-matic! :p

I don't agree the US has cleaned up its act and there is no accountability in the UN like there is in the US.The US? Cleaned up its act? Accountability? It seems your proposal is more of a un-bashing than an honest dislike of corruption.

The US? Cleaned up its act? Accountability? It seems your proposal is more of a un-bashing than an honest dislike of corruption.

The US at least has step to remove a corrupt president. I have seen no such attempts in removing a General Secretary who "lost" billions of dollars.

i definately think the UN needs to be democratized. that the world is held hostage by the 5 members of the security council stacks it a bit much for my tastes toward the nations that need the UN least.

The US at least has step to remove a corrupt president. I have seen no such attempts in removing a General Secretary who "lost" billions of dollars.Just because you haven't seen any attempts to remove a "corrupt" Secretary General doesn't mean it isn't possible. I have yet to see Bush removed from office. Does that allow for the entire US Federal and State governments to be abolished? If a President actually had committed a blatantly corrupt act, would such action be warranted?

Just because you haven't seen any attempts to remove a "corrupt" Secretary General doesn't mean it isn't possible. I have yet to see Bush removed from office. Does that allow for the entire US Federal and State governments to be abolished? If a President actually had committed a blatantly corrupt act, would such action be warranted?

Regardless, you cannot compare a National Government that actually does have genuine power over a piece of Land. To an International Body that Nations choose to be a part of but most ignore anyway and has no real power and as I see it no purpose. Except to waste money maybe.

Regardless, you cannot compare a National Government that actually does have genuine power over a piece of Land. To an International Body that Nations choose to be a part of but most ignore anyway and has no real power and as I see it no purpose. Except to waste money maybe.That "power" arguement would only be valid if the UN actually sat around doing nothing.

That "power" arguement would only be valid if the UN actually sat around doing nothing.

That's my point they can't do anything on their own and it's only by the grace of a small minority of the member nations that they can do anything. They also have to have permission from the country to do anything. I see no power whatsoever without individual nations. I say it either needs teeth or it is useless.

America have again destroyed attempted unity in the world by pursuing their selfish money making agenda. Strange how they wrecked the LoN as well as the UN. Despite both being their idea. No wonder people hate them when they use other countries this way.

America have again destroyed attempted unity in the world by pursuing their selfish money making agenda. Strange how they wrecked the LoN as well as the UN. Despite both being their idea. No wonder people hate them when they use other countries this way.

Actually, The United States was not even a part of LoN so I don't see how they destroyed it. What destroyed it was the lack of ambition of the European Nations. Who at this time had the power to do something.

I think the UN needs a major overhaul. As in a UN House of Representatives, a UN Army, a UN Navy, and a UN Air Force. If they choose to paint their helicopters black... so be it.

I'm a fan of Pournelle's Co-Dominium. At least as a short-range stopgap.

Not being in the League Nations was part of how they wrecked it. If you've got a body that's meant to stand above the bounds of the state and have the authority to arbitrate between nations, then its credibility is going to be severely damaged. Throw in the fact that Russia (which was already a big power at the end of WWI and kept getting bigger afterwards) declined to join as well*, and Germany pulled out during the mid-30s so that it could avoid having to even pretend to care about the League's rulings, and you've basically got a situation where the equivalent of the United Nations is being deliberately ignored by two of the most powerful countries on Earth. Neither Russia nor America were as powerful compared to the rest of the world as they would be during the cold war, but it still proved a major blow to the credibility of the body.

*actually Russia did join eventually in the late 30s, but it was purely to spite the Germans who'd recently withdrawn their own LoN membership. By that stage of course the League was completely irrelevant since neither Germany, Japan, Italy, or Russia were going to let it get in the way of their territorial ambitions.

Actually, The United States was not even a part of LoN so I don't see how they destroyed it. What destroyed it was the lack of ambition of the European Nations. Who at this time had the power to do something.

it could be argued that the fact that the US didn't join the LoN was what destroyed it.

Edit: in fact, it was argued that. it was argued that in the time it took me to post this. never mind.

Not being in the League Nations was part of how they wrecked it. If you've got a body that's meant to stand above the bounds of the state and have the authority to arbitrate between nations, then its credibility is going to be severely damaged. Throw in the fact that Russia (which was already a big power at the end of WWI and kept getting bigger afterwards) declined to join as well*, and Germany pulled out during the mid-30s so that it could avoid having to even pretend to care about the League's rulings, and you've basically got a situation where the equivalent of the United Nations is being deliberately ignored by two of the most powerful countries on Earth. Neither Russia nor America were as powerful compared to the rest of the world as they would be during the cold war, but it still proved a major blow to the credibility of the body.

*actually Russia did join eventually in the late 30s, but it was purely to spite the Germans who'd recently withdrawn their own LoN membership. By that stage of course the League was completely irrelevant since neither Germany, Japan, Italy, or Russia were going to let it get in the way of their territorial ambitions.

I think the fact that European Nations wanted to avoid pissing anyone off was the reason the LoN failed and besides the US was still highly protectionist at this point and did not want to interfere in other countries affairs. The fact is that Great Britain and France which were the major players in International Politics what with all their colonies and what not, did not want conflict which led to the fall of the LoN. I think the US not joining was secondary to the Apathy of the Member Nations.

Are you people....?(remember Euro's warning) The United Nations is responsable for keeping millions of people from dying every year. That alone is reason to keep them running.

While you were sleeping....,
all you have to do is check the US voting record at the UN.
The US vetoed more security council resolutions than any other
country. In the general assembly it often stands alone. Sometimes with one or two others. Or, the US just ignores it.

I would say that the UN needs to be more democratic, that Security Council should be disbanded as the elitist club of the "former" imperialist countries that it is.
But this would not solve the problem.

US leaders in their arrogance, ignore our own constitution
which states that all international treaties we sign becomes
the law of the land. What is the 'law of the land'? The constitution. Treaties become the equivalent of a constitutional amendment. Read the constitution. It's the law.


The gov't that rules over us, has done all in its power,
regardless of party, to 1)control the UN; 2) make in ineffectual. If they cannot use if for their purposes, they ignore it.

That is true and as long as countries go on Ignoring the UN, especially the US, it will never be a useful organization.

That is true and as long as countries go on Ignoring the UN, especially the US, it will never be a useful organization.Well, it wouldn't matter much if Palau or Timor Leste ignored the UN. I personally believe that sending Bolton to the UN was the wrong thing to do and a sign of Bush wanting to sabotage the UN as an organization.

Here's the problem:

What does someone in China know about the issues that face the US? Culture differences? What does the US know about anyone else, regarding the same questions?

World democracies don't work because of all the cultures on the planet. If we are to respect those cultures, the US (or anyone else for that matter) can't tell any other country how to behave--unless they're attacking someone else.

The UN has to go. It will never work because countries have issues with obeying. They're sovreign, yes? That means they get to determine what they do regarding their own country--not obey the dictates of foreigners that know little about what each country faces.

51% of the world telling 49% how to live doesn't work--it just leads to more wars.

Corruption culminated in the US with Watergate and no one thought of getting rid of the Republic.I don't agree the US has cleaned up its act and....Why are the Gov Files about the JFK assassination still secret?

...Why should any assassination file be held secret for more than 10 years?
...Why should any gov investigation file be held secret..?

51% of the world telling 49% how to live doesn't work--it just leads to more wars.Could you please tell me what you're talking about? As far as I can remember, the General Assembly can't force anyone to adhere to a resolution they didn't vote for (ie not abstain or vote against). The only exception for this is a uniting for peace reso, and that requires a 2/3rds majority and a deadlock of the Security Council on said specific issue.

Could you please tell me what you're talking about? As far as I can remember, the General Assembly can't force anyone to adhere to a resolution they didn't vote for (ie not abstain or vote against). The only exception for this is a uniting for peace reso, and that requires a 2/3rds majority and a deadlock of the Security Council on said specific issue.

Too many people want the UN to be the world government, with member states. I don't want to see that happen.

That is what true democracy is. 51% telling 49% what to do.

Too many people want the UN to be the world government, with member states. I don't want to see that happen.

That is what true democracy is. 51% telling 49% what to do.I'll tell you who doesn't want to see this happen: The heads of state and government that send representatives to the UN. I doubt many people wanting to make the UN a world government will turn it into a legislative body or revamp the idea that International Law usually only applies to those countries that accept it.

the UN works by collective security and democratic process, and idealism - in that the authority of the organisation comes from subjugating sovereignty to it. once nations stop doing this *coughcough the US cough* then its power starts to be diminished.
basically it requires everyone to play by the rules to make it work. the US ignoring it completely was breaking the rules. the rest of us, generally, still want to play by the rules because i think its recognised that the UN is an important actor for peace. so for the country who breaks the rules and spoils it for everyone else to turn around and say "this thing's useless, look what we did" is fucking annoying :rolleyes:


edit: yes i am aware that many countries "break the rules" all the time, but they're generally not the world's only remaining superpower which is SUPPOSED to be at the heart of the organisation and drive for peace :rolleyes:

I think the problem with the UN is that it is an impotent body more or less. If all countries were allowed in (if they desired to be) and equal power was given I think it would serve a purpose. So long as it was mandated that all member nations must follow the ideals that were set forth and ideals could only be passed if 75% to 80% of the nations agreed.

Right now it is just a toold of the big 5 and mostly the US.

Right now it is just a toold of the big 5 and mostly the US.The idea behind that was to take the ones that could actually get things done. (And if it was a tool of the US, there'd have been a UN mandate for the Iraq war ;))

I'll tell you who doesn't want to see this happen: The heads of state and government that send representatives to the UN. I doubt many people wanting to make the UN a world government will turn it into a legislative body or revamp the idea that International Law usually only applies to those countries that accept it.

Not necessarily--look at the first Gulf War. Iraq was a member of the UN at the time, didn't play by the rules that the UN established, and was invaded (admittedly, it was due to Iraq invading Kuwait).

It was a UN operation.

I don't want to see the rest of the world decide they don't like any citizen owning a gun (there are already actions moving inside the UN to get rid of firearms world-wide--at least take them away from non-military personnel). If 2/3 of the body decides for banning them, what's to stop those 2/3 from trying to enforce it, if they all agree? No, we haven't seen that kind of action yet, but there's always "progress".

There is one body that can enforce any kind of rules on my country--the US government. There's only one body that can enforce any kind of rules on the UK--the UK government. And so on.

I would love it if the US would pull completely out of the UN, and the US stop messing with everyone else's politics.

Meh. IMO it has NEVER been a viable organization.

As long as the objective of such an organization is "Peace" rather than "Freedom" it will be worse than useless.

The UN sucks! They keep me pirate ships from sailing!

The League of Nations was established as part of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 that (mostly) ended WWI. It was designed as an avenue for nations to resolve their differences without resorting to war. In fact, one article of the V. Treaty explicitly stated so.
When Wilson brought the V Treaty back to the US, he failed to get the required 2/3 majority in the Senate, partly because he had a stroke, but mostly because Senator Henry Cabot Lodge picked up Theodore Roosevelt's idea of expansionism and unilateralism and defeated the treaty. Lodge's idea was that no supranational organization is going to tell my country how to deal with another, despite that the LoN could ONLY advise. There was no teeth there.

The UN, when it was founded after WWII, was an extension of the above idea of renouncing war as policy. However, to back this up, the UN created the Security Council and the Economic and Social Councils. (ECOSOC) The UN could only use FORCE on the agreement of the Security Council - like in KOREA, and the SINAI, but ECOSOC could do mostly what it wanted. ECOSOC is responsible for a few hundred international organizations that administer a range of issues like the IMF, IBRD, WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNESCO, UNHCHR, UNICEF, WMO, ITU, IPU, and so on. The agencies are called "functionalist" agencies as they try to prevent wars from occuring, not by force, but by elminating the causes of war.

So the Security Council can't agree most of the time. You should expect that from having two previously communist nations there (China, USSR). So? That just means the system is working and remaining undominated by any single ideology.
It might need procedural reform to prevent monetary loss, but to call the UN obsolete is absurd and illogical. If anything is obsolete, it is the Westphalian state system of (legally) equal actors.

Meh. IMO it has NEVER been a viable organization.

As long as the objective of such an organization is "Peace" rather than "Freedom" it will be worse than useless.

Yup. Once again, I'll have to agree with ya.

<snip>The UN, when it was founded after WWII, was an extension of the above idea of renouncing war as policy.Murder is Illegal, so noone does it - right? Utopianisim at its finest. However, to back this up, the UN created the Security Council Populated by rogue dictatorships... that's going to be nice and secure... and the Economic and Social Councils. (ECOSOC) The UN could only use FORCE on the agreement of the Security Council - like in KOREA, and the SINAI, but ECOSOC could do mostly what it wanted. [quote]With whose money and on whose authority? Maybe that's why money can go missing? [quote]ECOSOC is responsible for a few hundred international organizations that administer a range of issues like the IMF, IBRD, WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNESCO, UNHCHR, UNICEF, WMO, ITU, IPU, and so on. The agencies are called "functionalist" agencies as they try to prevent wars from occuring, not by force, but by elminating the causes of war.Eliminating Dictatorships and sponsoring Freedom would be a good start...
So the Security Council can't agree most of the time. You should expect that from having two previously communist nations there (China, USSR). So? That just means the system is working and remaining undominated by any single ideology. Like Freedom?
It might need procedural reform to prevent monetary loss, but to call the UN obsolete is absurd and illogical.No, it is Bureaucratic, Utopian and Absurd. It never had enough status to become obsolete. If anything is obsolete, it is the Westphalian state system of (legally) equal actors.The Westphalian system is only obsolete so long as Governments refuse to accept the soverignty of the Individual - i.e. the basis of Freedom. When individuals are finally free to live as they wish - so long as they harm no one - THEN we will have no need for Westphalian states that claim soverignty in an effort to preserve those freedoms for its citizens.

Yup. Once again, I'll have to agree with ya.
Hey, MY Dictatorship is nice and Peaceful. We have no territorial aims at all. Nobody ever gets shot... (though not a few people fail to ever come home after work...) And OpSec provides the People with 120 channels and 4 news papers. What more could anyone want?

:rolleyes: When individuals are finally free to live as they wish - so long as they harm no one - THEN we will have no need for Westphalian states that claim soverignty in an effort to preserve those freedoms for its citizens.

So you advocate Anarchism (in the true meaning of the word- political sense) then?

Yeah, that'll work

Murder is Illegal, so noone does it - right? Utopianisim at its finest.

Yes it is illegal, and yes it does happen. We're not talking about murder, (act by individual) we're talking about war (act by states). To renounce war as an extension of policy doesn't mean everyone loves each other suddenly. It means people shouldn't go to war with other member states, as they will be retaliated against from the rest of the members.

Populated by rogue dictatorships... that's going to be nice and secure...

The Security Council permanent members are... the USA, UK, France, China, and Russia. Which one is the "rogue dictatorship?" I count four democracies and psuedo-capitalist, as the Communist ideals are falling fast.


Eliminating Dictatorships and sponsoring Freedom would be a good start...

That's what functionalist agencies are designed to do. When the USSR failed, every single [edit: satellite] nation lined up at the IMF for handouts. Since the IMF imposes conditionality, those nations are forced towards democracy and capitalism. This has happened in Asia, Africa, and South America.
However, the idea you seem to be espousing - of forcefully disposing of dictators (say PRK) violates the other idea you're encouraging - sovereignty

Like Freedom?
The USSR and the PRC thinks their people are free (enough). I am referring here to the Capitalist-Communist split. The reason the intervention in Korea happened in the 50's was because the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council.

No, it is Bureaucratic, Utopian and Absurd. It never had enough status to become obsolete.
Care to explain this comment? If it never had enough status to become obsolete, why do so many people worldwide depend on the UN? (In terms of blue-helmet security, or food aid, or meterological assistance, or loans)

The Westphalian system is only obsolete so long as Governments refuse to accept the soverignty of the Individual - i.e. the basis of Freedom. When individuals are finally free to live as they wish - so long as they harm no one - THEN we will have no need for Westphalian states that claim soverignty in an effort to preserve those freedoms for its citizens

Anarchy? Anarchy will never work. There's simply too many people that want/need/demand too much. And who's gonna stand up for your "individual sovereignty" when the bully shows up?

Meh. IMO it has NEVER been a viable organization.

As long as the objective of such an organization is "Peace" rather than "Freedom" it will be worse than useless.

Personally, i'd take a thousand years of peace under a benevolent tyrant then
a thousand blood soaked years of holocausts, wars, genocides, nuclear winters and death in the name of 'freedom'.

Personally, i'd take a thousand years of peace under a benevolent tyrant then
a thousand blood soaked years of holocausts, wars, genocides, nuclear winters and death in the name of 'freedom'.
A tyrant, by definition, cannot be benevolent. A Beneveloent Dictator who recognizes Freedom does very little Dictating - rather like the Queen. (not saying the Queen is a Dictator, just that she is technically the absolute Ruler, but does very little Ruling...)

A nonWestphalian (World) government that recognizes individual soverignty would NOT be an anarchy - it would simply be a government that did nothing but punish those who hurt others or break contracts.

As for the other poster's comment about "who would protect me from the bully"? I would. That's called the Freedom of Self Defense, and to facilitate that Freedom, should I be called upon to exercise it, I carry weapons.

Meh. IMO it has NEVER been a viable organization.

As long as the objective of such an organization is "Peace" rather than "Freedom" it will be worse than useless.
What good is freedom if you're dead? Peace is more important.

ot saying the Queen is a Dictator, just that she is technically the absolute Ruler, but does very little Ruling
Sounds like England. England is a constitutional monarchy; a form of representative government, not a dictatorship. Try a different example.

A nonWestphalian (World) government that recognizes individual soverignty would NOT be an anarchy - it would simply be a government that did nothing but punish those who hurt others or break contracts.
non-Westphalian (World)? So now you are encouraging a single world government? How's that going to happen? And if you're not, what happens when those "nonWestphalian" governments interact? They will still be semi-equal actors in an environment without an overarching authority.

As for the other poster's comment about "who would protect me from the bully"? I would. That's called the Freedom of Self Defense, and to facilitate that Freedom, should I be called upon to exercise it, I carry weapons.
Freedom of self-defense exists in every country. Not all allow weapons (sic: firearms), but all permit it. That still raises the question, what happens when the bully has a bigger gun? Or other, lesser, bullies working with him?

What good is freedom if you're dead? Peace is more important.
Ask that to a Slave sometime.

The UN has managed to screw up everything it affects - even online games. Witness the "invasion" sub-game which has come to be because of the U.N. even here.
As for RL, I'd just like to see their faces if we kicked them out of New York. :p

The UN was deseign to help prevent war.
Just after WW2 people recognized the major contributor to war was
poverty and destitution, disease, etc...

The UN was to be a forum to try and help people's countries deal
with such things as illiteracy, wide spread dyssentary, famine,
etc.


War making was never its thing.

Not until Butros-Butros-Butros-Butros Gali was the Sec-General
while Clinton was US prez did it start to do more with war making.


one book:
"Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN"
by Phyllis Bennis
written in the mid-90s
is a good history of the international body that does not try to put
one country above the rest.

A tyrant, by definition, cannot be benevolent. A Beneveloent Dictator

Shit... thats what i meant to says.. dictator...

rats... :p

Sounds like England. England is a constitutional monarchy; a form of representative government, not a dictatorship. Try a different example. Um... are you being intentionally obtuse? One of the reasons the Parlimentary form of Representative Government was developed was to facilitate Individual Soverignty. Thus, The Queen, while technically Absolute Ruler (as can be said of a Dictator) does not actually Rule - because she is not actually soverign - the People are.
non-Westphalian (World)? So now you are encouraging a single world government? How's that going to happen?Without a Westphalian system, there is no need for individual nation states. It's definitional. So Yes, if the Westphalian system ever becomes obsolete, it will be because there is no need for nation states - i.e. a World Government established to enforce Contracts and assaults on personal soverignty.
Freedom of self-defense exists in every country. Not all allow weapons (sic: firearms), but all permit it.I won't go into the semiotic difficulties here, but anywhere self defense is simply "permitted" is not Free. Self defense is a Human Right that precludes any granting of permission. That still raises the question, what happens when the bully has a bigger gun? this simply shows how little you understand about Self defense in general and Firearms in particular. Or other, lesser, bullies working with him?Ditto. Though that is why restricting ammunition magazine capacity is problematic.

I think the UN needs a major overhaul. As in a UN House of Representatives, a UN Army, a UN Navy, and a UN Air Force. If they choose to paint their helicopters black... so be it.

It needs to be reformed and what you suggested here wouldn't even get out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

No one would tolerate a world government and this is what you are implying.

Does the UN need to be overhauled? Do I want it to have teeth? yes but I do not want the UN to be a world government. Why? To many dictators. Get rid of the dictators in the UN and then work from there.

The UN has managed to screw up everything it affects - even online games. Witness the "invasion" sub-game which has come to be because of the U.N. even here.
As for RL, I'd just like to see their faces if we kicked them out of New York. :p

UNESCO, UNICEF, ICJ, UNDP, UNHCR, WFP, WHO.....
Yeah, they're REAL screw ups alright. :rolleyes:

The UN has managed to screw up everything it affects - even online games. Witness the "invasion" sub-game which has come to be because of the U.N. even here.

Game? That reminds me of the UN's Word Food Programme (http://www.wfp.org) game (http://www.food-force.com/). It actually doesn't suck, and it shows how the UN doesn't screw up everything.

Shit... thats what i meant to says.. dictator...

rats... :p

I'm in favor of Benevolent Dictatorships. My countries tend to alternate between Compulsory Consumerist States and Benevolent Dictatorships - but that's primarily a quirk of the game that puts benevolent Dictatorships at a higher economic standing than Libertarian Police States - which is a non sequiter IMO.

The UN has managed to screw up everything it affects - even online games. Witness the "invasion" sub-game which has come to be because of the U.N. even here. :P
UNESCO, UNICEF, ICJ, UNDP, UNHCR, WFP, WHO.....
Yeah, they're REAL screw ups alright. :rolleyes:
I see my sense of humor is far too subtle. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the%20den%20base)

The idea behind that was to take the ones that could actually get things done. (And if it was a tool of the US, there'd have been a UN mandate for the Iraq war ;))

Oh but we did. When Saddam violated the UN Cease-fire. Once a cease-fire is violated, war picks up where it left off. That's international law.

UNESCO, UNICEF, ICJ, UNDP, UNHCR, WFP, WHO.....
Yeah, they're REAL screw ups alright. :rolleyes:
Well, as long as WHO insists on treating things as diseases and diseases as things I would say they are pretty screwed up. And I'm not particularly fond of WTO meddling either.

Not necessarily--look at the first Gulf War. Iraq was a member of the UN at the time, didn't play by the rules that the UN established, and was invaded (admittedly, it was due to Iraq invading Kuwait).

It was a UN operation.

I don't want to see the rest of the world decide they don't like any citizen owning a gun (there are already actions moving inside the UN to get rid of firearms world-wide--at least take them away from non-military personnel). If 2/3 of the body decides for banning them, what's to stop those 2/3 from trying to enforce it, if they all agree? No, we haven't seen that kind of action yet, but there's always "progress".

There is one body that can enforce any kind of rules on my country--the US government. There's only one body that can enforce any kind of rules on the UK--the UK government. And so on.

I would love it if the US would pull completely out of the UN, and the US stop messing with everyone else's politics.

If the UN did remove guns, that would be considered a violation of the US Constitution. The US Senate would never approve of that and we all know it.

I see my sense of humor is far too subtle. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_region/region=the%20den%20base)

No, not subtle. You said As for RL, I'd just like to see their faces if we kicked them out of New York implying they were ineffectual.

In game- well, thats another thing, but this is RL we're talking about.
The UN SC and General Assembly might be ineffectual, but the UN as a whole, as an institution is far from it.

I say all forms of government be abolished.

Well, as long as WHO insists on treating things as diseases and diseases as things I would say they are pretty screwed up. And I'm not particularly fond of WTO meddling either.

Well, i'd rather the WHO being there (and being able to reform) rather then having nothing at all ;)

Didn't put down the WTO for that reason! :p

The UN was deseign to help prevent war.
Just after WW2 people recognized the major contributor to war was
poverty and destitution, disease, etc...

Korea (settled by arms)
3 Arab Israeli Wars
3 Pakistani/Indian Wars
Persian Gulf War (settled by arms)
Iraq/Iran War
Uganda/Kenya War

Not to mention other wars that took place and the UN did nothing on.

Genocides:

Rwanda
Kosovo

These are the two primary genocides that the UN didn't do anything about.

The UN was to be a forum to try and help people's countries deal
with such things as illiteracy, wide spread dyssentary, famine,
etc.

Fine. Let it deal with that and leave Intl Law to those that can actually do something about it.

War making was never its thing.

Korea and the 1st Gulf War

Um... are you being intentionally obtuse? One of the reasons the Parlimentary form of Representative Government was developed was to facilitate Individual Soverignty. Thus, The Queen, while technically Absolute Ruler (as can be said of a Dictator) does not actually Rule - because she is not actually soverign - the People are.

I'm not being obtuse, you simply had a bad example of a tyrant. The Queen, and the Crown since the Glorious Revolution hasn't had absolute control. A better example would be Louis XVI (or XIV?) of France.

Without a Westphalian system, there is no need for individual nation states. It's definitional. So Yes, if the Westphalian system ever becomes obsolete, it will be because there is no need for nation states - i.e. a World Government established to enforce Contracts and assaults on personal soverignty.

A potential future world government would indeed eliminate the need for a Westphalian system. However, that does not make the UN obsolete or absurd.


I won't go into the semiotic difficulties here, but anywhere self defense is simply "permitted" is not Free. Self defense is a Human Right that precludes any granting of permission.
How about "condoned"? "allowed?" "Legal?" "not a convictable offense?" "reserved as a right of the people?"

this simply shows how little you understand about Self defense in general and Firearms in particular.
Your personal attack fails to change, answer, or refute my argument. Lets say Bob has a knife. Nifty. Joe has an AK-74. Who has the bigger problem? Obviously, Bob. We could give Bob a Colt 1911. He still has a problem.

Ditto. Though that is why restricting ammunition magazine capacity is problematic.
In an anarchical system, restrictions are irrelevant.

I'm just wondering what others think. I have always thought that the UN has pretty much gone the way of the League of Nations and really lost all credibility as an International Intermediary, It seems to me that the corruption is only getting worse and that we need to either start from scratch or not even have an International system of Mediation. What does everyone else think?

Consensus is nearly impossible nowadays and few countries respect its authority. Still, I think it's useful, as nations need someplace where they can get together and at least discuss their problems with one another.

BTW, note my correct use of the word "its" ("it's") both times. :)

Just because you haven't seen any attempts to remove a "corrupt" Secretary General doesn't mean it isn't possible. I have yet to see Bush removed from office. Does that allow for the entire US Federal and State governments to be abolished? If a President actually had committed a blatantly corrupt act, would such action be warranted?

Bush hasn't been removed from office because he doesn't deserve to be removed from office.

War on Terror - Necessary move (lest they keep hitting us like 9/11)

Iraq/Afghanistan - honorable move (taking down saddam and taliban and trying to help them become better nations for their people)

Tax cuts - natural economy stimulus

Katrina - not his fault (maybe a little bit, but the mayor, governor and FEMA head all have more blame to face)

Had he stood up and said there were WMDs knowing that there weren't any, then it would have been a lie. But given his conviction to look for them (after Saddam had hidden them in deep dark corners of Iraq or outside the country, apparently), he obviously thought we'd find them in Iraq.

snippidy

And it could have been so much worse if they weren't around- i guess no one will ever know now...

Genocides:

Rwanda
Kosovo

These are the two primary genocides that the UN didn't do anything about.




Try EAST TIMOR.


Another place the UN did nothing about.
And neither did the US.

US policy towards Indonesia, the occupier of East Timor
is soo disgusting. Indonesia invaded and occupied them for 24 years,
killing 1/3 of the pre-invasion population. The largest genocide by proportion
since WW2.



I take that back,
the members of the UN did try to do stuff,
but it was the US that made sure the UN did not work.
Even Security Council resolutions condemming the invasion.

But then US ambassador to the UN had this to say on the topic:

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

In cases of military intervention, the UN can only act on the condition of unanimity from the Security Council. That doesn't happen very often due to its composition.

However the functionalist agencies, (WHO, WFP, and so on) are already on the ground doing their jobs.

I'm not very smart, but it seems the UN are the excuse for the US to sale their crazy democracy and their chewin-gums.
A re-vamping of the UN is comical, it only will re-enforce the power of the US in the UN.
Europe is dead before to exists, maybe the future will come from Asia with a local confederation of the asiatic states.
I should forget Africa still paying the South American game of juvenile dicatorships.

In our Region of Bas Pays our priority is Demagogy in our states and pure anarchy at the region level.
Being left-right-libartarian winged is crap or us.
We have an Emperor, he cashes the dough, that's good, we don't need to change him every 4 years.

All of the joining countries are UN delegates just to prepare some nice bloody real UN matters.
Join us to elaborate some cost effetive resolutions...

That was a small speech from patient number 161 General Psychiatric Hospital in The Free Land of Autolyse. :fluffle:

Fine. Let it deal with that and leave Intl Law to those that can actually do something about it.


International law.
I sure wish our gov't would obey it, as the constitution demands of it.


Article. VI.

Clause 2:
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

(and that's not taken 'our of context')
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html



as towards other countries,
the US selectively criticizes other countries for violations
of international law.
Take the example of Indonesia invading East Timor in my above post.
Allies the US of current US gov'ts, they don't say squat.
If the US gov't doesn't like the politics of a particular gov't,
they will do anything and everything in their power to make life
miserable to them, even beyond the scope of international law.

the US selectively criticizes other countries for violations

You cannot limit yourself to only the US, as the US is not the only country that does this.

Not necessarily--look at the first Gulf War. Iraq was a member of the UN at the time, didn't play by the rules that the UN established, and was invaded (admittedly, it was due to Iraq invading Kuwait).The fact that it was due to a warlike act that the UN Security Council (which is there to maintain peace by force when necessary) that the UN did something makes all the difference. The SC isn't there to make "laws" that have nothing to do with two or more nations not getting along.
I don't want to see the rest of the world decide they don't like any citizen owning a gun (there are already actions moving inside the UN to get rid of firearms world-wide--at least take them away from non-military personnel). If 2/3 of the body decides for banning them, what's to stop those 2/3 from trying to enforce it, if they all agree? No, we haven't seen that kind of action yet, but there's always "progress".The UN is not a legislative body in the way a parliament is. The Uniting for Peace can only be done in the case of a conflict. Banning guns has less to do with conflicts than building walls on palestinian territory. So far, there hasn't been a uniting for peace resolution on that, but there have been resolutions with overwhelming majorities calling on Israel to stop that. Since Israel voted no, they don't have to follow suit, and no one will enforce it. The SC could technically do something like that, but that's why there 5 different nations with veto powers in there, to prevent it from being used in a wrong way.

There is one body that can enforce any kind of rules on my country--the US government. There's only one body that can enforce any kind of rules on the UK--the UK government. And so on.I bet the Kuwaitis would be really thankful if the UN hadn't intervened. You misinterpret the role of the UN. It regulates the dealings between two or more nations, not internal matters, unless theres a serious conflict. And by serious conflict I mean genocide, civil war (though the UN has kept out of those), or something of that scale.

Korea (settled by arms)
3 Arab Israeli Wars
3 Pakistani/Indian Wars
Persian Gulf War (settled by arms)
Iraq/Iran War
Uganda/Kenya War

Not to mention other wars that took place and the UN did nothing on.

Genocides:

Rwanda
Kosovo

These are the two primary genocides that the UN didn't do anything about.



Fine. Let it deal with that and leave Intl Law to those that can actually do something about it.



Korea and the 1st Gulf WarAdd East Timor to the list please.


For me a world without the UN is inconceivable. It does need to undergo MAJOR reform though.

I'm not being obtuse, you simply had a bad example of a tyrant. The Queen, and the Crown since the Glorious Revolution hasn't had absolute control. A better example would be Louis XVI (or XIV?) of France. No, I think you're being obtuse. I was defining a "Benevolent Dictator, not a Tyrant. I specifically stated that a Tyrant could not be benevolent. Please read.
A potential future world government would indeed eliminate the need for a Westphalian system. However, that does not make the UN obsolete or absurd.Incorrect. The UN was already absurd. It was you who stated that Westphalianisim is what should be rendered obsolete. Should Westphalianisim be rendered obsolete, there would be no need for Nation States and thus no need for a United Nations (since there are no Nations) get it?
How about "condoned?" Semantically equivilent "allowed?"Semantically equivilent "Legal?"Semantically equivilent "not a convictable offense?" still an offense "reserved as a right of the people?" better.
The fact remains that there are many places today where defending yourself from agression is a punishable offense, either criminally or civilly.
Your personal attack fails to change, answer, or refute my argument.Statement of observed fact, not an attack. Lets say Bob has a knife. Nifty. Joe has an AK-74. Who has the bigger problem? Obviously, Bob. We could give Bob a Colt 1911. He still has a problem. Maybe so, but then why did we drop thousands of "Liberator" single-shot .45 pistols on the French Resistance? Oh, and in my case, odds are I am better off with a .45 than Jo is with his inherently inaccurate AK.
In an anarchical system, restrictions are irrelevant.
Then 10 thugs, 10 bullets. 20 thugs, 20 bullets. I practice.

*snip*

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success." *snip*

Your source?

International law.
I sure wish our gov't would obey it, as the constitution demands of it.

Article. VI.

Clause 2:
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

(and that's not taken 'our of context')
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Which is precisely why unilateral treaties with the UN that grossly affect the lives of private citizens in the US is so dangerous. The UN mandate on small arms would effectively allow the UN to send troops to the US to confiscate all personally held firearms. Somthing tells me that after the first few major losses the UN would have to call in the US Army to do their job for them (as always) and that just wouldn't fly...

Maybe so, but then why did we drop thousands of "Liberator" single-shot .45 pistols on the French Resistance? Oh, and in my case, odds are I am better off with a .45 than Jo is with his inherently inaccurate AK.

Then 10 thugs, 10 bullets. 20 thugs, 20 bullets. I practice.

Now your being silly.
In an anarchic world- might is right. The strongest bully is top dog- it is a Hobbesian world. Human nature, greed and desires for power, welath and 'glory' take over, especially when there is no overarching laws.

In this case, the bigger gun wins-
"If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun- if he puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue. Thats the Chicago way" ;)

I don't agree the US has cleaned up its act and there is no accountability in the UN like there is in the US.

I didn't read past this post, so sorry if someone already touched on this, but.. there is accountability in the USA????? :confused:

That will come as news to many people.

Shit... thats what i meant to says.. dictator...

rats... :pActually, as far as I can recollect, the Greek term "tyrant" didn't denote an evil man and a tyranny was merely an authoritarian state. In fact, the Greeks were just as open to tyranny as they were to democracy, as long as it was the right guy.

What good is freedom if you're dead? Peace is more important.

What good is peace without freedom? You should watch Braveheart sometime.

Actually, as far as I can recollect, the Greek term "tyrant" didn't denote an evil man and a tyranny was merely an authoritarian state. In fact, the Greeks were just as open to tyranny as they were to democracy, as long as it was the right guy.
True, but the words have semantically shifted since. Thus "tyranny" and "dictatorship". "Tyrannies" are, at this point, definitionally repressive.

You should watch Braveheart sometime.
He.... lost. :p

...Benevolent Dictator, not a Tyrant. I specifically stated that a Tyrant could not be benevolent.
I'm not talking about kindness or benelovence. I'm talking about degrees of control and authority.

Incorrect. The UN was already absurd. It was you who stated that Westphalianisim is what should be rendered obsolete. Should Westphalianisim be rendered obsolete, there would be no need for Nation States and thus no need for a United Nations (since there are no Nations) get it?
I already said that world government doesn't need a UN. However, we don't have a world government. We have a westphalian system, and so the UN is still relevant. Again, how is the UN absurd?

The fact remains that there are many places today where defending yourself from agression is a punishable offense, either criminally or civilly.
That's regrettable, but has little bearing on either a world government, or a Westphalian system. Remember, judicial codes are internal matters, not internationally changed.

Statement of observed fact, not an attack.
How was it observed? From saying bigger guns have an inherent -albeit relative - advantage?

Maybe so, but then why did we drop thousands of "Liberator" single-shot .45 pistols on the French Resistance? Oh, and in my case, odds are I am better off with a .45 than Jo is with his inherently inaccurate AK.

Because thousands of Liberator pistols are better than... nothing. It was an effective means of distributing weapons to a large population using limited cargo space. Furthermore, YOU may be better off against an AK-74 using a .45, but not everyone. Besides, how did you determine these odds? In terms of bullets fired? Damage capacity of the bullet? Reload speed? Or just simply accuracy?

Then 10 thugs, 10 bullets. 20 thugs, 20 bullets. I practice.
Your skill with firearms does not a government make. Simply being able to shoot agressors does not form a political system, let alone a world government.

The UN was deseign to help prevent war.
Just after WW2 people recognized the major contributor to war was
poverty and destitution, disease, etc...

The UN was to be a forum to try and help people's countries deal
with such things as illiteracy, wide spread dyssentary, famine,
etc.


War making was never its thing.

Not until Butros-Butros-Butros-Butros Gali was the Sec-General
while Clinton was US prez did it start to do more with war making.


one book:
"Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN"
by Phyllis Bennis
written in the mid-90s
is a good history of the international body that does not try to put
one country above the rest.

Which it is not real good at (see bold). The UN can't even step in to prevent genocide and famine - yet another example of its impotency. Set aside the UN's failure to follow through on what it says it will do, and look at all it doesn't do that would fit the definition you've just set forth. An objective observer can see the UN is nothing more than a very lage, bloated, beaurocratic debate club.

And it's not even very good at that. :rolleyes:

Now your being silly.
In an anarchic world- might is right. The strongest bully is top dog- it is a Hobbesian world. Human nature, greed and desires for power, welath and 'glory' take over, especially when there is no overarching laws.

But then, I'm not talking about an anarchy, am I? Please read.
In this case, the bigger gun wins- Bigger in what way? Size, capacity, bullet weight, accuracy? Unless you are talking Artillery, "Big & small" have little meaning in the defensive use of firearms. Bullet placement is all important.
"If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun-Good Idea. if he puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue. Thats the Chicago way" That violates personal soverignty and ethics on so many levels I won't go there.

Which it is not real good at (see bold). The UN can't even step in to prevent genocide and famine - yet another example of its impotency. Set aside the UN's failure to follow through on what it says it will do, and look at all it doesn't do that would fit the definition you've just set forth. An objective observer can see the UN is nothing more than a very lage, bloated, beaurocratic debate club.

And it's not even very good at that. :rolleyes:



That is because of the United States Government.
"ours" if you're from the US.

Regarding the Indonesian invasion of East Timor
the members of the UN did try to do stuff,
but it was the US that made sure the UN did not work.
Even Security Council resolutions condemming the invasion.

But then US ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, had this to say on the topic:

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."




Then there's all the CIA messing up other people's countries
at the behest of US presidents, regardless of party.

The UN works, until recently,
for US interests. Or rather those in power's interests.

Which it is not real good at (see bold). :rolleyes:


Actually the UN has done some pretty good stuff with regards to the
stuff you highlighted. Unfortunately, there is a long way to go.

Now your being silly.
In an anarchic world- might is right. The strongest bully is top dog- it is a Hobbesian world. Human nature, greed and desires for power, welath and 'glory' take over, especially when there is no overarching laws.

In this case, the bigger gun wins-
"If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun- if he puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue. Thats the Chicago way" ;)

No, the more accurate gun wins. ;)

The UN often appears to many Americans as a huge, inefficient, corrupt anti-Western Third World circus. And this is no more of a caricature (indeed, far less of one) than many Europeans' views of the US as an overbearing moralistic Machiavellian hegemon. But I think that most fair minded people can see that the UN needs at the least very serious reform, given the rampant corruption (no surprise when a large number of its bureaucrats hail from kleptocracies themselves), its ineffectiveness at military operations (generally using 3rd world militaries as mercenaries in handsomely compensating their governments, like Nigeria, Bangladesh and pakistan, for their use), its top heavy bureaucracy, its overbearing arrogance (one official lambasting Australian and US aid to the victims of the tsunami because it was not offered under the auspices of the UN), and finally its comic-absurd internal contradictions (Sudan and Libya on the Human rights committee). Certainly it is popular amongst the jealous and all-knowing to mindlessly bash the US. but lets keep everything in perspective, shall we?

I'm not talking about kindness or benelovence. I'm talking about degrees of control and authority.So am I, by demonstrating how one can have theoretical absolute authority without practising authoritarianisim/tyranny.
I already said that world government doesn't need a UN. However, we don't have a world government. We have a westphalian system, and so the UN is still relevant. Again, how is the UN absurd?Because it is based upon the simplistic utopian idea that "Peace" simply means "no war" while it essentially disregards the ideas of Freedom and genocide.
That's regrettable, but has little bearing on either a world government, or a Westphalian system. Remember, judicial codes are internal matters, not internationally changed.Not true. As was pointed out by another poster, technically every treaty the US enters into becomes US law. If the UN declares that "Homosexuality shall be banned" then we would have to comply. In what way is that good?
How was it observed? From saying bigger guns have an inherent -albeit relative - advantage?Yep. The advantage is inconsequential compared to the skill of the user. More bullets do not a more lethal gun make.
Because thousands of Liberator pistols are better than... nothing. (Psst - that (universal civillian dsarmament) is exactly what the UN proposes....) It was an effective means of distributing weapons to a large population using limited cargo space. Furthermore, YOU may be better off against an AK-74 using a .45, but not everyone. Besides, how did you determine these odds? In terms of bullets fired? Damage capacity of the bullet? Reload speed? Or just simply accuracy?All of the above. Never fired an AK, have you?
Your skill with firearms does not a government make. Simply being able to shoot agressors does not form a political system, let alone a world government.Never said it did. You asked me how I would deal with Bullies. I answered.

That is because of the United States Government.
"ours" if you're from the US.

Regarding the Indonesian invasion of East Timor
the members of the UN did try to do stuff,
but it was the US that made sure the UN did not work.
Even Security Council resolutions condemming the invasion.

But then US ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, had this to say on the topic:

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."




Then there's all the CIA messing up other people's countries
at the behest of US presidents, regardless of party.

The UN works, until recently,
for US interests. Or rather those in power's interests.

Source?

Timeline?

Which is precicely my point...the UN does a terrible job at what it was intended to do. The UN depends on the powerful members, when it should be able to stand on its own. Flaw in design not easily remedied.

If the UN did remove guns, that would be considered a violation of the US Constitution. The US Senate would never approve of that and we all know it.

They're still trying to circumvent the constitution, however they can. Yes, a blatant attempt would be out of the question, but increased taxes and such...you can price something out of the market--even rights, or the ability to exercise them.

Source?

Timeline?

Which is precicely my point...the UN does a terrible job at what it was intended to do. The UN depends on the powerful members, when it should be able to stand on its own. Flaw in design not easily remedied.




But then it wouldn't be the UN.

The UN is (supposed to be) its member nations.


Like in a democracy it is the citizens.
or a church is actually its believers not some building or institutional heirachy.


I actually think that Moynihan quote is in his own memoirs(sp?).

Source?

Timeline?
Did you ask for a source and timeline when Corneliu posted his list?
Which is precicely my point...the UN does a terrible job at what it was intended to do. The UN depends on the powerful members, when it should be able to stand on its own. Flaw in design not easily remedied.The US Republic is deeply flawed too, as the 2000 election showed. Somehow a man managed to become President even though the majority of the voters had decided against it. "Flaw in design not easily remedied."

Maybe the world would be better off if nations were truly independent of the U.N. It seems to me that the U.N. has no motivation for securing the world or for applying enforcement of U.N. laws/regulations. And with the so-called Oil-for-food scandal, we also can't trust the U.N. to maintain welfare programs. If anything, I believe the United Nations is simply a for-profit militia with no sense of accountability. Peacekeepers? What "peace" are they keeping or promoting? Darfur is a bloody mess, literally. I would like to say the world's governing body could be more effective with some major reorganization, but it seems to me that if there were some actual control within the U.N., any power would be usurped. I don't trust the U.N. anymore than I trust my own government. And what the hell? Who could honestly think that "Eminent Domain" can be justified? Of course that's another topic.

A for-profit militia that is ineffective, corrupt, elitist, anti-American, and unaccountable.

Try EAST TIMOR.


Another place the UN did nothing about.
And neither did the US.

And the US is part of the UN so I just said the UN to ecompass everyone. Nice jab though

I take that back,
the members of the UN did try to do stuff,
but it was the US that made sure the UN did not work.
Even Security Council resolutions condemming the invasion.

Yep but that was all that they did. Its one thing to condemn it, its another to take action. They didn't take action and they should've.

But then US ambassador to the UN had this to say on the topic:

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

And we already know that the UN is ineffective. What's your point?

International law.
I sure wish our gov't would obey it, as the constitution demands of it.

For the most part we have!

\Article. VI.

Clause 2:
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

(and that's not taken 'our of context')
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Yep and if the UN Charter was an actual treaty, you'd have a case. Since it isn't, you don't.

*snip*

And if other nations had the balls to actually enforce something, we wouldn'tbe having this discussion.

Remember that the UN is NOT a world government.

Add East Timor to the list please.


For me a world without the UN is inconceivable. It does need to undergo MAJOR reform though.

Your right, it does need major reform. I'm glad we can come to an agreement on something C6 :)

I'm just wondering what others think. I have always thought that the UN has pretty much gone the way of the League of Nations and really lost all credibility as an International Intermediary, It seems to me that the corruption is only getting worse and that we need to either start from scratch or not even have an International system of Mediation. What does everyone else think?


i agree. gatesville(the largest player-made region in the game) wants to overthrow the UN. i'm thinking of joining them. if you're with me, come on

They're still trying to circumvent the constitution, however they can. Yes, a blatant attempt would be out of the question, but increased taxes and such...you can price something out of the market--even rights, or the ability to exercise them.

I would then have to sue and I'll win based on the Supreme Court decision that private people have the right to own guns. There are ways to keep rights and sueing is one of them.

oh, are we talking about the real UN? :D my bad

Did you ask for a source and timeline when Corneliu posted his list?

Actually, what I posted is public Knowledge. The fact is that the UN didn't prevent Korea(authorized force to expel the N.koreans), Didn't prevent the 3 arab/israeli wars, it didn't prevent the 3 Pakistani/indian wars. It didn't prevent the Ugandan/Kenyan war. It didn't prevent Iraq from Invading Kuwait (though they authorized force to expel him).

It didn't prevent the Rwandan Genocide nor did it get involved in Kosovo. It failed utterly in terms of Iraq. I could go on but these are major instances where the UN failed.

If the UN is incapable of establish order (which it hasn't) then why should it stay the way it is. There are only 2 options:

Reform it

or abolish it.

Besides that, in accordance with the Charter, it can be abolished now.

The US Republic is deeply flawed too, as the 2000 election showed. Somehow a man managed to become President even though the majority of the voters had decided against it. "Flaw in design not easily remedied."

Stop trying to turn this into a bash the US thread. We are talking about the United Nations and NOT the US.

Meh, I think that wasn't a culmination, merely a press feeding frenzy.

Besides, plenty of folks have had exact thought. Like, all of Texas. Just mention the word "Republic" and they're on about how Texas should seceed from the corrupt federal oppress-o-matic! :p

It's "suh-cede from thuh corrupt federal oppress-o-matic" actually. ;)

While you were sleeping....,
all you have to do is check the US voting record at the UN.
The US vetoed more security council resolutions than any other
country. In the general assembly it often stands alone. Sometimes with one or two others. Or, the US just ignores it.

I would say that the UN needs to be more democratic, that Security Council should be disbanded as the elitist club of the "former" imperialist countries that it is.
*snip*

ironic.... how many of the member nations are democratic? You advocate a plan that would place more power in the hands of dictators.The mere fact that the US has vetoed more resolutions does not mean anything, what is IN those resolutions are what matters.

EX.
If i made a resolution that all countries had to shift to a dictatorial form of government you would veto it. (I hope)

the UN works by collective security and democratic process, and idealism - in that the authority of the organisation comes from subjugating sovereignty to it. once nations stop doing this *coughcough the US cough* then its power starts to be diminished.
basically it requires everyone to play by the rules to make it work. the US ignoring it completely was breaking the rules.
*snip*
No country has ever or will ever subjugate its sovereignty to another power willingly, why do you think the EU is having so many problems now? The simple fact of the matter is that countries only care about themself, and a world body would be just a forum for people try to get as many benefits for their own country. Couple that with countries always disagreeing, and not taking into consideration other countries needs (remember the solar panels mandate and the arctic regons in this game?) and you see why i think that any world body is would be inefficient and ineffective. If your country is only affected by a resolution that you vote for, that makes the UN as a body even more ludacris as you can simply mandate that in your own country, without the UN.

local treaties and agreements are the way to go.

When individuals are finally free to live as they wish - so long as they harm no one
how do you determine if your actions harm somebody else....smoking? how bout driving my car 200 mph...that in itself dont hurt anybody, yet, you WOULD agree that it has amazing potential to hurt somebody

Lets say Bob has a knife. Nifty. Joe has an AK-74. Who has the bigger problem? Obviously, Bob. We could give Bob a Colt 1911. He still has a problem.

If i stab you with a knife your still gonna die, getting to hand-hand combat is a bit of a problem, but the 21 foot rule applies anyways (though you probibly dont know what that is). If you gave Bob a colt, then the mere fact that Joe can shoot more bullets faster does not mean that he will win. If i shoot you with a colt you still die. what matters not is the quality of the weapon, but the skill person with the weapon.

according to a Secret Service study the average criminal (with a rifle at 10 meters) will not hit you with the first 3 shots. Full automatic entails recoil which induces less accuracy. Thus if you are serious about defending yourself, you ought not have a problem. And its not like a criminal is going to get an AK-74 anyways.

I would then have to sue and I'll win based on the Supreme Court decision that private people have the right to own guns. There are ways to keep rights and sueing is one of them.

Depends. The views of the constitution, via the supreme court, have changed over the years. They may say that a high price isn't banning or limiting physical access to firearms.

You still have the right, you just can't afford it. But effectively, it still kills the right, without doing it directly.

Either:
a) scrap the UN down to a bare-bones forum (absolutely NO LAWMAKING ABILITY; and none of those BS resolutions either. I refuse for it to compromise our soveriegnty any longer) and place any international action and accountability for it in individual nations
b) League of Democracies (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20031203.shtml)

They're still trying to circumvent the constitution, however they can. Yes, a blatant attempt would be out of the question, but increased taxes and such...you can price something out of the market--even rights, or the ability to exercise them.
What we'd do then is attack the tax laws as unConstitutinal. Or better yet, buy a gun before they can tax your purchase of it (unless of course they disregard the ex post facto clause)

Either:
a) scrap the UN down to a bare-bones forum (absolutely NO LAWMAKING ABILITY; and none of those BS resolutions either. I refuse for it to compromise our soveriegnty any longer) and place any international action and accountability for it in individual nations
b) League of Democracies (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20031203.shtml)
Good idea. I like this particularly damning bit (he says it better than I did):

One of the reasons it fails is that it's pretty much designed to. There is no vision, no set of shared values that truly unites the United Nations. You can't have a civil rights organization where Klansmen are welcomed as members; you can't have a softball team where half the players want to play basketball, and you can't have a global organization dedicated to the spread of human rights and democracy with nearly half the members representing barbaric, corrupt regimes. And because the U.N. feels it must be "fair" to everybody, the worst abusers get to take turns determining policies on human rights and weapons proliferation. Right before the war, Iraq was set to co-chair the U.N. Commission on Disarmament - with Iran! And even now the U.N. Commission on Human Rights is chock-a-block with representatives of nations that treat their own citizens like piñatas.

(PS, I would put the US Republocrat System under "corrupt" since it brooks no challengers on the national stage...)

Besides, how did you determine these odds? In terms of bullets fired? Damage capacity of the bullet? Reload speed? Or just simply accuracy?
all that matters is accuracy of user, there was a story of a ex-cop killing a man with 2 shots from a snub nose revolver (half inch barrel) from half a block away, not supposed to be possible that, shooting accurately with a snub nose because the legnth of the barrel is too short to spin the bullet causing accuracy, but the user was good enough to be able to do it anyways.

if you are accurate, the others dont matter because any bullet has the capacity to kill, you dont have to reload because you still have 9 in the clip, and you dont have to fire as many bullets as fast.

He.... lost. :p

You're not a very deep thinker, are you? :rolleyes:

He WON by fighting for the cause he believed in and inspired the Scots to win their independance from England. Read up on it, it's quite an interesting story.

Did you ask for a source and timeline when Corneliu posted his list?
The US Republic is deeply flawed too, as the 2000 election showed. Somehow a man managed to become President even though the majority of the voters had decided against it. "Flaw in design not easily remedied."

You're incorrect. The US Constitution lays out exactly how it was supposed to be addressed, and it was addressed in that manner.

By the way, this isn't a direct democracy, it's a representative republic. To that end, the electoral college are the representatives who elect the president. States have a certain number of electors based on population. In this system, one can win the election without winning the popular vote. This design is to protect sparsely populated states from more densely populated states dictating the manner of their government. It works quite nicely, as you'll notice there was a seamless transition from administration to administration. No flaw in design.