NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Day
So this day is supposedly dedicated to spreading word of the goals and acheivements of the UN. Must be a very short list then...And, as you all know of my utter disdain for the UN, I wish you all an UNhappy UN Day. :D

Since the goals of the UN are to spread peace, I guess you are all for nuking the world, eh?

Happy UN day everyone! :)

It's an official Flag Day here, which is nice. I like seeing the Swedish and UN flags next to each other. They're nice.

Since the goals of the UN are to spread peace, I guess you are all for nuking the world, eh?
No, we can get the job done with conventional weapons.:D

It's an official Flag Day here, which is nice. I like seeing the Swedish and UN flags next to each other. They're nice.

Yellow and blue... I fucking love that flag, man. It's got nothing to do with the country, either (though Sweden is very nice). It's just how the colors go together.

Happy UN day everyone! :)

Happy UN day! :D

Yellow and blue... I fucking love that flag, man. It's got nothing to do with the country, either (though Sweden is very nice). It's just how the colors go together.

I guess. At least it's better than Denmark's white and red. Ours is a lot more pleasing to the eyes.

Shows you how important the UN seems to be, I've never heard it was UN day until just now.

Shows you how important the UN seems to be, I've never heard it was UN day until just now.

See, that's why it's so practical to make it a Flag Day. Hard to forget that way.

I guess. At least it's better than Denmark's white and red. Ours is a lot more pleasing to the eyes.

Beats the hell out of our flag.

Beats the hell out of our flag.

Yours is pretty, too, but you worship it a bit too much sometimes.

Yours is pretty, too, but you worship it a bit too much sometimes.

At least I don't worship it. :D

At least I don't worship it. :D

What are you, a pinko? O_o

Sweden's flag is simplistic, but pleasing to the eye.

What are you, a pinko? O_o

If by "pinko" you mean Internationalist (rather than Nationalist), then yes.

If by "pinko" you mean Internationalist (rather than Nationalist), then yes.

Nationalism is bad, that's true. The pinko thing was just in jest. I like pinkos.

Wow, I thought I was the only one who counted myself as an Internationalist!
PS: did you read the novelizations, or is that your own word?
I know I've posted this about three times already, but...

"Together you can do this,
together you can succeed,
together you will survive...
There are many voices,
but it is all one world...
a world where there is a need for peace,
now... and in the future..."

Life is only what we choose to make it,
Let's just take it,
Let us be free.
We can find the glory we all dream of
And with our love,
We can win.

Still,
We must fight or face defeat -
We must stand tall and not retreat.
With our strength we'll find the might,
There's no fight we can't fight
Together
Oh together
We can win.

Blessed
With strong hearts that beat as one,
Watch us soar,
And with love that conquers all
We'll win this battle,
This last battle,
We will win
We must win
We will win
We can win
We can win

As the battle goes on we feel stronger,
How much longer
Must this go on?
Each and every day we dream of winning
And beginning
A new life.

Still,
We must fight or face defeat -
We must stand tall and not retreat.
With our strength we'll find the might,
There's no fight we can't fight
Together
Oh together
We can win.

Blessed
With strong hearts that beat as one,
Watch us soar,
And with love that conquers all
We'll win this battle,
This last battle,
We will win
We must win
We will win
We can win
We can win

Now that we have reached this last encounter
Where are we now?
What shall be now?
How could we have come so far to give up?
We won't give up
We can win.

Still,
We must fight or face defeat -
We must stand tall and not retreat.
With our strength we'll find the might,
There's no fight we can't fight
Together
Oh together
We can win.

Blessed
With strong hearts that beat as one,
Watch us soar,
And with love that conquers all
We'll win this battle,
This last battle,
We will win
We must win
We will win
We must win
We will win
We can win.

I want YOU for the UN Spacy!

http://www.theshadowchronicles.com/info.php?id=un

I don't see why we need a special day to remind the people of a corrupt, beaureaucratic mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Day
So this day is supposedly dedicated to spreading word of the goals and acheivements of the UN. Must be a very short list then...And, as you all know of my utter disdain for the UN, I wish you all an UNhappy UN Day. :D

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_4_13.gif

I'll drink to that :)

I don't see why we need a special day to remind the people of a corrupt, beaureaucratic mess.
How about a special day for us not having nuked each other into oblivion?

How about a special day for us not having nuked each other into oblivion?

October 28th seems like a good day for this one :D

How about a special day for us not having nuked each other into oblivion?

and how exactly is the tootheless UN responsible for this?

and how exactly is the tootheless UN responsible for this?
It served (and still does) as a forum where the parties could meet and discuss stuff.
From Korea over Cuba to the first Iraq, it did the job it was supposed to do - it was meant to stop WWIII from happening. It didn't always do it well, but it evolved over time.
Nonetheless, it will always be toothless unless it gets support from member nations.
You can't expect them to act strongly if all you do is accuse them of not doing so and boycott and weaken whatever they try to do.

In my opinion (and this will sound radical to the average American perhaps) the UN should have its own army. Every nation should provide a regiment or two of troops, field hospitals, peace keepers and the like - and that regiment should no longer be under the local governments authority.
It may be stationed there, but if the UN (my plans for reform of the security council, or rather the abolishing of it, are another matter) decides to send them somewhere, they go. Regardless of what that government wants.

Boo! Fuck the UN! Fuck the UN!

>UN:eek: :sniper:Me<

>UN:eek: :sniper:Me<
You>:cool: :mp5:<Anti-Terror SWAT Team

:D

You>:cool: :mp5:<Anti-Terror SWAT Team

:D

No, truly anti-terror people would want to help fight the UN.

No, truly anti-terror people would want to help fight the UN.
I'm not sure political considerations would matter much if a sniper is shooting diplomats on the streets of Manhattan...

I'm not sure political considerations would matter much if a sniper is shooting diplomats on the streets of Manhattan...

I wasn't shooting diplomats per se, but rather the UN itself and the ideals upon which it was founded.

booo to the U.N. as the first poster said...unhappy u.n. day

I wasn't shooting diplomats per se, but rather the UN itself and the ideals upon which it was founded.
But why?
I agree that many people can think that it's not doing its job very well. I happen to agree myself that they need very extensive reforms.

But which of these ideals can you possibly disagree with?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

But why?
I agree that many people can think that it's not doing its job very well. I happen to agree myself that they need very extensive reforms.

But which of these ideals can you possibly disagree with?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The UN was founded by communists, socialists, Soviet agents, and other dregs of society. Their long-term goal was a one-world socialistic world government.

The UN was founded by communists, socialists, Soviet agents, and other dregs of society. Their long-term goal was a one-world socialistic world government.
I'm afraid you're going to have to give some evidence for that.

Even only a few years after its foundation, when that communist agenda should be strongest, the UN went to Korea, right?
The Soviets decided to boycott it (and their reasons sound so familiar now...), and that's what they got. If the US was to boycott it, things could happen that you don't anticipate.

I'm afraid you're going to have to give some evidence for that.

Even only a few years after its foundation, when that communist agenda should be strongest, the UN went to Korea, right?
The Soviets decided to boycott it (and their reasons sound so familiar now...), and that's what they got. If the US was to boycott it, things could happen that you don't anticipate.

The secretary general at the founding conference was none other than Soviet spy Alger Hiss.

The UN went into Korea, but the Soviets, who were also in the UN, had access to all the UN's military plans, at all times, and often gave said plans to the enemy.

It served (and still does) as a forum where the parties could meet and discuss stuff.

ALl that it is good for. No wonder its always windy in New York City and its not even called the windy city.

From Korea over Cuba to the first Iraq, it did the job it was supposed to do - it was meant to stop WWIII from happening. It didn't always do it well, but it evolved over time.

Ok, Korea and Iraq I can grant but the UN really didn't do anything in the terms of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and the USSR settled that one by themselves.

Nonetheless, it will always be toothless unless it gets support from member nations.

It has that but no one wants to subjegate their military to UN personnel and I don't blame them. Why do you think the forces used in Korea and the 1st Iraq War had to go through national parliments and congresses?

You can't expect them to act strongly if all you do is accuse them of not doing so and boycott and weaken whatever they try to do.

They had their chance with the 2nd Iraq War and blew it. Not to mention Somalia, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan (Soviet Invasion), and others. Come to think of it, they are in the Congo and they are still fighting there.

In my opinion (and this will sound radical to the average American perhaps) the UN should have its own army. Every nation should provide a regiment or two of troops, field hospitals, peace keepers and the like - and that regiment should no longer be under the local governments authority.
It may be stationed there, but if the UN (my plans for reform of the security council, or rather the abolishing of it, are another matter) decides to send them somewhere, they go. Regardless of what that government wants.

I love this idea. To bad nations on Earth wont tolerate that. Most nations want to keep their troops under their own commanders.

The secretary general at the founding conference was none other than Soviet spy Alger Hiss.

The UN went into Korea, but the Soviets, who were also in the UN, had access to all the UN's military plans, at all times, and often gave said plans to the enemy.

Now I"m going to have to ask you for proof of your last statement. The USSR Boycotted the vote to authorize troops for Korea. Not to mention that it was Taiwan and NOT China that was on the Security Council.

Now I"m going to have to ask you for proof of your last statement. The USSR Boycotted the vote to authorize troops for Korea. Not to mention that it was Taiwan and NOT China that was on the Security Council.

Ask any Korean War vet, and they'll tell you the same. And as I said, the USSR didn't send troops, but as a member of the Security Council, they had access to all the UN's military plans.

Read also The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin for details.

Ask any Korean War vet, and they'll tell you the same. And as I said, the USSR didn't send troops, but as a member of the Security Council, they had access to all the UN's military plans.

Read also The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin for details.

Ok, I'll ask again! Can I see proof of your statement?

Ok, I'll ask again! Can I see proof of your statement?

I gave you a source. Go to the library, maybe they'll have it.

I gave you a source. Go to the library, maybe they'll have it.

I don't want a book. I don't have time to read it. I'm a very busy fellow with schoolwork.

So show me full, undeniable proof that it has occured.

I gave you a source. Go to the library, maybe they'll have it.
That's not how debate works. The source given must be immediately accessible by the other party. If he has to go to the library for the source, you have not provided an adequate source.

Most of my sources are books, many of which I do not personally own but have borrowed, etc. If you're looking for an online source that can be instantly reached, sorry, but you're asking the wrong guy.

The UN is a pointless organization to be a part of. All it is is a toothless talking shop where it's leaders come together to pat themselves on the back and brag about how great they are. 90% of it's actions are either meaningless (as in the multiple Task Forces that have no forces and do no tasks) or actively harmful (as in assuring people in Rwanda and Srebrenica that they would try and protect them). Only one nation has ever been called "totalitarian" by a Secretary General, and when Boutros Boutros-Ghali uttered it he was talking about...guess who? Of all the theocratic regimes and rogue states where talking about the leader in a bar can get you executed, he chose to focus his ire on TEH EVIL AMERIKKKA.

So the UN is little more than a sclerotic, wheezing, anti-American talking shop. And all reforms would do is turn it into a lean, mean, functioning anti-American talking shop.

So the UN is little more than a sclerotic, wheezing, anti-American talking shop. And all reforms would do is turn it into a lean, mean, functioning anti-American talking shop.
Which is all we could ask for! :D

Which is all we could ask for! :D

And then you go and wonder why Americans like me don't like the rest of the world.

Noticed that like 4 hours ago. I printed off a little UN flag and hung it in my dorm for decoration.:)

Happy UN day to all!

And then you go and wonder why Americans like me don't like the rest of the world.
I can't talk about what you personally think, but with the few Americans I have met around here, and with the various Anti-Americanists, it's simply an issue of not knowing anything about the other side.

You have an overly nationalistic pride in your country, which makes you defensive as soon as someone criticises US politics. I'd have to look at huge archives, and I won't bother, to find out whether it is true that the UN never criticised another nation for its political system. I doubt it.
Nonetheless, you have to consider that US foreign policy is not popular in much of the world, and ultimately the UN cannot but represent that somewhat.
So at some point the UN said something that offended you, you offended the UN in return, and so the cycle started.

But whatever you think, you should be pragmatic enough to realise that boycotting the UN has never benefitted anyone.

And then you go and wonder why Americans like me don't like the rest of the world.

That's telling the truth! LOL

Not to mention, the UN is rather anti-Israeli too.

Not to mention, the UN is rather anti-Israeli too.
Could it be because Israel has said exactly that from Day One of its existence?
That Israel has used that excuse for decades so as not to adhere to resolutions (like Iraq?)?
Or because it was an Israeli who killed the UN's chief negotiator who was supposed to make this workable in 1949?

No, it can't be. It must be teh evil UN.

Could it be because Israel has said exactly that from Day One of its existence?
That Israel has used that excuse for decades so as not to adhere to resolutions (like Iraq?)?
Or because it was an Israeli who killed the UN's chief negotiator who was supposed to make this workable in 1949?

No, it can't be. It must be teh evil UN.

Not to mention that they didn't punish the Arabs for sparking the 1st Arab/Israeli War.

We could play this game all night long but frankly, I'm not in the mood to do so.