Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
The UN
    #4045703 - 04/12/05 02:25 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I have noticed a flaw in a commonly held Rightist opinion. ?..Oh my God?.I am going to criticize the American Right.

I have seen such distaste for the sovereignty and legitimacy of the UN when it comes to what the U.S. is allowed to do, is going to do, or already has done. But, a lot of these same people think it is quite acceptable for the UN to exert power on other nations (the sanctions that were levied against Iraq for years are a good example). I think it is hypocritical to say, ?The UN is a joke and they shouldn?t tell us what to do. But, Saddam should have obeyed those sanctions.?

Sanctions against dictators don?t seem to work. The dictator clings to power and the general population suffers.

I don?t think the UN should have the authority to do anything to anybody. I don?t think the US should listen to or care about the UN too much. I think every other country should act in this way as well. I also think Iraq should not have been subjected to the UN sanctions that were levied against it. I do not think that an international body should have the authority to use force or bring about international law.

I disagree with the concept of a world government. There are too many factions, tensions, cultures, interests, and disagreements in this world to make a homogenous body that could deal with it all. There are a few things we can do:

1. Recognize that there are sovereign nations and people who will engage in conflict in this world. Allow sovereign nations to act in whatever manner they deem fit. Inevitably, war and conflict will happen. But overall, order will be maintained.

2. Recognize that there are sovereign nations and people who will engage in conflict in this world. Attempt to make a worldwide body to deal with it. If the body has little power, many won?t listen to it and it will be ineffective (this is the situation that we find ourselves in today).

3. Recognize that there are sovereign nations and people who will engage in conflict in this world. Have a worldwide body that has the power to enforce a homogenous will upon all peoples of the earth. The amount of tyranny, meddling, and oppression that would be necessary for this would be mind-boggling and terrible.

It is a choice between the lesser of three evils. I pick #1.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecb9fl
Senior ChildMolestationExpert
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
Loc: florida
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: The UN [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4045770 - 04/12/05 02:38 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I also think Iraq should not have been subjected to the UN sanctions that were levied against it. I do not think that an international body should have the authority to use force or bring about international law.





I agree. I also believe the US government should not have the right to impose trade restrictions on another country. If a US based business wants to sell to or buy from any other country or a business based in another country it should not be the government's right to interfere.


--------------------
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -Andre Gide

"Generosity is nothing else than a craze to possess. All which I abandon, all which I give, I enjoy in a higher manner through the fact that I give it away. To give is to enjoy possessively the object which one gives."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The UN [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4045887 - 04/12/05 02:59 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I'll just answer the title.

The UN; Is a joke.

World government won't work in terms of the UN as all the members aren't given the same authority as the higher eichelons of the stupid heirarchy associated with a consortium of nations, with no real power to affect much of anything.

4. Give the UN a makeover, tie real power into it's decisions. Provide equal power distribution. Restore power, and those that head it are making decisions without influence from their country, instead in terms of what needs to be done (those that head the discussion/bring about relevant worldwide topics). Additionally, deal with those that defy the UN's decisions in a swift manner, regardless of the country. Make worldwide conventions hold. Make new conventions associated with humane treatment of people, in addition to equality. Countries would have to abide by that if they wish to be a part of it. (sorry Saudi Arabia).

Worldwide trade sanctions, and military support (when necessary) to any country defying anything set forth. Tie a members fee to the UN for upkeep of the military and infrastructure of it's decisions, and the protection of it's rulings. Keep it completely and utterly free of religion, and more so in context of freedom.

.... I'm gonna get a cup of coffee, must've been dreaming when I wrote that.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/12/05 03:13 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The UN [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4046410 - 04/12/05 04:50 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

While I agree the UN is as useless as tits on a bull and much more harmful, I take exception to your straw man argument re supposed critics of the UN --

Quote:

?The UN is a joke and they shouldn?t tell us what to do. But, Saddam should have obeyed those sanctions.?




The point wasn't that Hussein should have "obeyed those sanctions", it's that he should have complied with the conditions set out by the ceasefire which suspended hostilities in 1991. He lost fair and square and to save his hide he agreed to do certain things which he then never did.

At that point, those who went to war against him had a few options:

1) Resume hostilities immediately
2) Apply diplomatic pressure (i.e. write a buncha resolutions hoping to shame him into complying)
3) Apply economic pressure (i.e. impose sanctions in the hopes he would comply to spare the people of Iraq further hardship)
4) Give up and let him get away with it, setting a dangerous precedent and practically daring other nutcases to try the same scam

Anyone with a brain could see that option 1 was the only reasonable one, but this is the UN we are discussing, after all. Eventually, most of the same countries who were involved in kicking his ass in 1991 decided to finish what should have been finished back then, and hostilities resumed. Better late than never, I guess, but if there were no such thing as a UN he would have been chased back to Baghdad and removed from power then and there.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
flip-flop magician
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 56,459
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 9 hours, 9 minutes
Re: The UN [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4046473 - 04/12/05 05:01 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

The UN is a joke and they shouldn?t tell us what to do.
(...)
Sanctions against dictators don?t seem to work.



*snickers*
You're right. Bush went ahead anyway.

I choose for option 2. If a country acts against the UN sanctions are called for and enforced. Since the nations of the world knows Bush will stop at nothing, America is reluctantly allowed to disobey.

IN OUR LIFETIME WE WILL SEE THE UNITED STATES USING THE ATOMIC BOMB AS A WEAPON OF WAR.

I'm strictly anti-globalist, no world government for me thank you, but the UN is nothing then an organisation of the world's more peaceloving nations aimed at preventing war and ensuring international stability.
Option 3 is strictly out, but then again the UN is no government of any kind, just an intermediary between the nations.

A large part of the problem in the Middle East is that the US Gov't blocks the UN from applying pressure to Israel to end the localized conflict. Israel is a rogue nation that uses air-to-ground missiles from fighter planes to hit civilian vehicles they suspect to hold terrorists WITHOUT regard for safety to the bystanders and quite often have they been wrong and blown up palestinian civilians driving their cars. Again it is the US that sucks, but since the US Government wouldn't blink twice before bombing the UN HQ or invading a country or two, they are allowed to bully.

Were it not for the USA violating treaties, the UN would be working much better than it does now.
The UN doesn't make rules, but its member states reach agreement. The UN are little more then a congress centre hosting a conference of the nations of the world. The US should thing a bit more on the value of world opinion and treaties. They maintained an arsenal of chemical warfare agents into the 1990s while they were outlawed by the Geneva convention over 50 years earlier.




--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Edited by Asante (04/12/05 05:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: The UN [Re: Phred]
    #4046755 - 04/12/05 05:58 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
The point wasn't that Hussein should have "obeyed those sanctions", it's that he should have complied with the conditions set out by the ceasefire which suspended hostilities in 1991.

He lost fair and square and to save his hide he agreed to do certain things which he then never did.




I wasn't talking about if he broke the resolutions or if he deserved the sanctions. I was talking about how the UN imposed sanctions. I don't think an international body should have that right. I don't think the US should be subjected to UN pressure or law much like I don't think Iraq should have been subjected to UN pressure or law.

I find force used by a sovereign nation in its own interest to be more justified than a worldwide body appointing rules, regulations, and sanctions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The UN [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4046838 - 04/12/05 06:20 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I wasn't talking about if he broke the resolutions or if he deserved the sanctions. I was talking about how the UN imposed sanctions. I don't think an international body should have that right.




Nor do I. But to claim that Rightists complaining that Hussein ignored UN sanctions are the same Rightists who want to see the UN abolished is to make an unsupported allegation. I personally haven't met any Rightist or read any commentary from any Rightist who holds both positions, so I fail to see this as a demonstration of hypocrisy. Perhaps you could provide for me links to a Rightist who does hold both positions.

As far as the UN having the "right" to impose sanctions, their only "right" is the right to attempt to persuade the member nations to go along with the sanctions. It's not as if those who buck the trend are going to get invaded by a UN coalition or anything, as was seen quite clearly with the UN's non-reaction to those countries (Security Council members at that) who did ignore the call for sanctions -- i.e. France and Russia.

Just to make myself clear, I was against the sanctions from the beginning. I knew they wouldn't work -- they never do in the case of countries run by dictators. The problem is that the UN has outlawed the assassinations of heads of state -- regardless of the legitimacy or lack thereof of said dictator's claim to the position -- which leaves few options available.

Yet another reason to abolish that ridiculous organization.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: The UN [Re: Phred]
    #4047377 - 04/12/05 09:00 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Nor do I. But to claim that Rightists complaining that Hussein ignored UN sanctions are the same Rightists who want to see the UN abolished is to make an unsupported allegation. I personally haven't met any Rightist or read any commentary from any Rightist who holds both positions, so I fail to see this as a demonstration of hypocrisy. Perhaps you could provide for me links to a Rightist who does hold both positions.




:smirk:  You have me there.  I can think of no specific examples.  I was going more on my impressions that I have "picked up" from listening to Right-leaning commentators and such. 

I'll admit it is possible that I am completely wrong.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: The UN [Re: Asante]
    #4047652 - 04/12/05 10:16 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

...the UN is nothing then an organisation of the world's more peaceloving nations aimed at preventing war and ensuring international stability.




:eek:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The UN [Re: Asante]
    #4047844 - 04/12/05 11:07 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I'm strictly anti-globalist, no world government for me thank you, but the UN is nothing then an organisation of the world's more peaceloving nations aimed at preventing war and ensuring international stability.
Option 3 is strictly out, but then again the UN is no government of any kind, just an intermediary between the nations.



ahem...
Quote:

The U.N. thinks about tomorrow's cyberspace
March 29, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


The International Telecommunication Union is one of the most venerable of bureaucracies. Created in 1865 to facilitate telegraph transmissions, its mandate has expanded to include radio and telephone communications.

But the ITU enjoys virtually no influence over the Internet. That remains the province of specialized organizations such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN; the Internet Engineering Task Force; the World Wide Web Consortium; and regional address registries.

The ITU, a United Nations agency, would like to change that. "The whole world is looking for a better solution for Internet governance, unwilling to maintain the current situation," Houlin Zhao, director of the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, said last year. Zhao, a former government official in China's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, has been in his current job since 1999.

Though Zhao is far too diplomatic to state it directly, the ITU's increasing interest in the Internet could presage a power struggle between ITU, ICANN, and perhaps even the U.S. government, which retains some oversight authority over ICANN and appears content with the current structure.

In a series of speeches over the last year, Zhao has suggested that the ITU could become involved in everything from security and spam to managing how Internet Protocol addresses are assigned. The ITU also is looking into some aspects of voice over Internet Protocol--VoIP--communications, another potential area for expansion.

"Countering spam is just one of many elements of protecting the Internet that include availability during emergencies and supporting public safety and law enforcement officials," Zhao wrote in December. Also, he wrote, the ITU "would take care of other work, such as work on Internet exchange points, Internet interconnection charging regimes, and methods to provide authenticated directories that meet national privacy regimes."

CNET News.com recently spoke with Zhao about the ITU's increased interest in the Internet and its involvement in a series of meetings that will conclude in November with a U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.
Q: How do you see the ITU becoming involved in Internet governance over the next few years?
Zhao: As you know, Internet governance was one of two hot topics left from the first phase of the U.N. world summit. Unfortunately we did not have a clear definition of Internet governance. Therefore the group established by Mr. Kofi Annan still has to work on these definitions.

Anything which concerns the future development of the Internet will be part of the question of Internet governance. It covers a very wide range of topics not just related to technology development, service development, but also policy matters, sovereignty, security, privacy, almost anything.

According to ITU's definition of "telecommunications," telecommunications covers almost anything. Therefore according to our own lawyers, the Internet is one of these telecommunications mediums. Others argue that "telecommunications" is too wide and it does not include the Internet.

What do you think? Should the ITU be involved in Internet governance?
Zhao: Yes, for sure. ITU should be part of Internet governance. But ITU cannot cover everything.

Does that mean an inevitable conflict with ICANN?
Zhao: I don't think so. Whether we have a conflict with ICANN depends on (many things).

I do not consider ICANN an enemy. We are founding members of ICANN's Protocol Supporting Organization. I myself signed that paper on behalf of the ITU. We tried to support ICANN as far as we could, but on the other hand you see that ICANN's mandate seems to be a little bit unclear...The U.N. working group on Internet governance provides us with a very good opportunity to look at this issue.

You mentioned a lot of topics--perhaps spam and content could be in there as well. Which ones should the ITU be directly involved in?
Zhao: You can say that the ITU should address those, including spam and security. We have a different concept of security. As far as the (legwork) of security, ITU has worked on this for many, many years...

On privacy, I think that a lot of things are not related to technology only; those are policy matters. Those can be done by the national authorities, regional cooperation and international cooperation. On freedom of speech, I don't see it as a pure technical issue. In my opinion, freedom of speech seems to be a politically sensitive issue. A lot of policy matters are behind it. It's not in ITU's competence, but of course we can make some contributions.

Should ITU run or manage any top-level root servers (the key servers that let people get around on the Internet)?
Zhao: That is a question discussed by a lot of people. Today the management by ICANN (is something that) people consider to be management by the United States, by one government. People definitely want to see some changes. I think everyone would agree that a better arrangement is something that we're looking for.

The ITU is trying to ensure its value. Any public network of communications is naturally of interest to ITU. ITU has a lot of expertise and a lot of experience. (Editor's note: An ITU lawyer said in a follow-up conversation that though the organization may wish to oversee the operation of root servers, it would not run them itself.)

We assign country codes. Some people consider that the top-down approach. I made a proposal for IPv6, that we could look for a new approach based on the experience we have in top-down approaches. Can we find something different? Nobody seems to be confident that ITU's top-down approach is best for IPv6. But nobody is sure that IPv4 bottom-up is best. Can we find something in between? I'm paying attention to that. I have a lot of opinions from ITU members.

Does that mean the ITU would be in the IPv6 allocation business, saying, for instance, that Norway gets 10 trillion addresses and Sweden receives 20 trillion?
Zhao: Yes. I raised that possibility. (I discussed it) not only with government bodies but with industry experts. I did not see them deny that we (could) do that.

But I know this would affect a lot of things. For stability of Internet service, for effective development in the future, we need good cooperation. Right now IPv6 is still not that known to many people in the world. If we have a good understanding of this system, a good management of this, we can avoid problems in the future.

If more and more phone calls move to VoIP, do you see the ITU as becoming irrelevant?
Zhao: I don't have that worry at all. ITU was created in 1865. It has 140 years of history. I don't know if you noted recent news that a very respected academy in the United States said ITU is among the world's most enduring institutions. (Editor's note: This is a reference to a December 2004 report by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton.)

ITU's situation is similar to the U.S. Constitution. ITU is very dynamic. We try to keep abreast of the latest development of the market and to give assistance to human society for future development. Remember, ITU was created in May 1865 to develop a system for telegraphs.

What do you see as the likely outcome, if any, of the September 2005 World Summit on the Information Society?
Zhao: That is a very good question. If you have a very specific wish to get something from this meeting, and you find that is not the case, you may be disappointed. On the other hand, people find that it's a unique opportunity for us to work together.

If you could get everything you wanted out of the meeting, what would that be?
Zhao: If I could get everything from this meeting....I think all international efforts may not be able to satisfy everybody. We try to get a compromise. In this meeting we won't make everyone happy.

I understand it may not happen. But if ITU got what it wanted, what would it be?
Zhao: If I could give you my personal views, I would say that if they can charge the U.N. to continue to work on this issue, that would be nice. People talk about whether we should have a new agency rather than give it to an existing agency. But if ICANN, ITU, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) see each other as complementary and try to work together, we don't need to have a special (Internet regulatory) agency to be established.

ICANN is supposed to be independent of the U.S. government. But when DENIC (DENIC registers Internet domains under the German top level domain .de) executives wanted the contract to run the .net registry, they headed to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress and the Bush administration. Is U.S. government involvement viewed as a problem?
Zhao: To some extent, yes. That is why people are raising this issue as a very important one to be debated at the U.N. and in the (World Summit) process. Some people argued very strongly that ICANN's establishment based in California gives people some worries. This issue should be addressed.

If ITU were to allocate addresses, anybody could have a choice between their national assignment or a regional or international assignment. That would be good for the development of the Internet.

The World Summit is being held in Tunisia, which a Paris-based journalist group has called a "predator of press freedom." Does the choice of Tunisia send a symbolic message?
Zhao: I noted this kind of opinion from a very early stage that the decision was announced to have two phases, in Geneva and Tunis. The media seems to have no problem with the first phase in Geneva but they don't think it's a great choice to have the second phase in Tunisia.

I think finding the right place to host an international event is not an easy job. There were not many volunteers to host the second phase. The media thinks that country is not very transparent and open, and therefore that country is not transparent and open. I don't think so.

When a country promises to host a U.N.-type conference, they have to respect the U.N. rules. The U.N. rules are quite clear: If any journalist comes to join this meeting, and a Tunisian authority tries to impose any sanction--I don't think that would happen.

What changes in Internet governance structures might be necessary?
Zhao: First we have to understand what the problem is today. Then we can perhaps understand what will happen.

One of the most important changes was the early stages, when the Internet started, when ICANN started in 1998. The purpose was to exclude governments (but that didn't work). People realize today that the governments worldwide have to play a role.

People say the Internet flourished because of the absence of government control. I do not agree with this view. I argue that in any country, if the government opposed Internet service, how do you get Internet service? If there are any Internet governance structure changes in the future, I think government rules will be more important and more respected.




--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 26 days
Re: The UN [Re: Phred]
    #4053609 - 04/14/05 08:27 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Do you see any need for a group along similar lines to the UN that brings together many nations and acts as a forum for them to decide common policy?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAsanteA
flip-flop magician
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 56,459
Loc: Right Here - Right Now
Last seen: 9 hours, 9 minutes
Re: The UN [Re: Silversoul]
    #4053677 - 04/14/05 09:24 AM (12 years, 7 months ago)

I would be about two hundred times happier with an internet governed by the United Nations than one governed by the United States.

...just wait for the Digital Patriot Act :sad:

Ironically it is the US government that is the greatest enemy of digital freedom. The UN is composed of the world governments, the US government of just one of two major parties of one country.

If you do not live in the USA it is far more beneficial if the UN makes the rules rather than the US.


--------------------
CLICK ONE -->  :redpill:  :bluepill:  <-- GO PLACES
SEARCH ENGINE  SUPPORT TICKETS  STORE  SPONSORS/VENDORS  AMANI
PSYCHOSIS, SYNCHRONICITIES, SHAMANISM & THE SUPERNATURAL WA&F

From the Outcasts to the Incrowd, from the Clueless to the Helpful, it takes the whole Shroomery to help a n00b


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,393
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
Re: The UN [Re: Asante]
    #4054137 - 04/14/05 12:18 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

IN OUR LIFETIME WE WILL SEE THE UNITED STATES USING THE ATOMIC BOMB AS A WEAPON OF WAR.

Is it proper debating form to toss in completely fabricated non-sequitors?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The UN [Re: Asante]
    #4054187 - 04/14/05 12:36 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Wiccan_Seeker said:
I would be about two hundred times happier with an internet governed by the United Nations than one governed by the United States.



It's not run by the United States, nor is the US trying to do such a thing.  There are companies within the United States that take care of certain internet governance duties, but mostly it's done by individual ISPs, and should remain that way.

Quote:

...just wait for the Digital Patriot Act :sad:



Considering that the rest of the world has much less respect for free speech, I'm much more worried about world government in this case.

Quote:

Ironically it is the US government that is the greatest enemy of digital freedom. The UN is composed of the world governments, the US government of just one of two major parties of one country.

If you do not live in the USA it is far more beneficial if the UN makes the rules rather than the US.



False dichotomy.  No one's trying to have the US run the internet.  It should remain approximately as it is now--cyberanarchy--only more so.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The UN [Re: Phluck]
    #4054191 - 04/14/05 12:37 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
IN OUR LIFETIME WE WILL SEE THE UNITED STATES USING THE ATOMIC BOMB AS A WEAPON OF WAR.

Is it proper debating form to toss in completely fabricated non-sequitors?



Toss in? Has he ever done anything else?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The UN [Re: Silversoul]
    #4055164 - 04/14/05 04:33 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Can we all at least agree that the world is going to shit? :grin:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: The UN [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4055351 - 04/14/05 05:33 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

The U.N is currently being used by weaker countries as a means of keeping stronger countries from becoming stronger. Voting power is not correlated with military power, GDP, or payments to the U.N. Why a weaker country is allowed to have the same voting power as a stronger country boggles the mind.

Make no mistake, the european unions current alliances on all major issues has nothing to do with their concern for the well-being of the world. They see the U.N has a tool to keep the U.S in check.

Their only hope of reaching the supremacy that we hold is to be joined together economically and militarily. They can achieve this through the U.N, in the facade of acting as independant countries, but instead voting as a block under one central leadership. They have already pegged their enemy, the U.S, so they have a common enemy to rally against.

It goes without saying that the U.S should pull out of the U.N before we are dragged down even further. It is an embaressment how we have been treated in recent years.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The UN [Re: looner2]
    #4055417 - 04/14/05 05:47 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Your right... let's apply the same to our system in the USA, give the stronger people more rights, as well as the intellectuals, and further segragate our rights and go back to a caste system... (we essentially are already, with the exception of not making it clear, although it's effects are present in terms of socio-economic status... doesn't need we need to further legitimaze principles completely unfounded in terms of the democracy we supposedly stand for)

So the permanent members aren't favored? Mmmmkay, where do you get this idea? I suggest you look at the heirarchial structure before you go any further.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: The UN [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4055533 - 04/14/05 06:05 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

Has been for as long as there have been shit merchants. I'll worry about it tomorrow.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: The UN [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4055676 - 04/14/05 06:34 PM (12 years, 7 months ago)

heh, just pointing out the facts of the matter :tongue:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The New US Ambassador to the UN Phred 2,136 16 03/22/05 12:20 PM
by lonestar2004
* Bush's speech to the UN LordMorham 1,198 12 09/17/02 11:31 AM
by MortMtroN
* Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' downforpot 1,681 9 07/28/06 06:51 PM
by Seuss
* UN staff to vote on no-confidence motion against Annan Great_Satan 371 1 11/30/04 05:38 PM
by Great_Satan
* Isreal's broken UN resolutions
( 1 2 all )
Learyfan 2,879 24 02/22/05 05:07 PM
by Divided_Sky
* Bush plan to paint US planes in UN colours Alex213 1,360 13 02/03/06 04:15 PM
by nakors_junk_bag
* Muslims sue Dutch and UN Luddite 612 5 07/05/07 03:15 PM
by The_Red_Crayon
* The UN, Al-Tuwaitha, and Nukes lonestar2004 399 3 11/07/05 07:25 PM
by DeepDish

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
1,586 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.067 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 21 queries.