ForumsX
The forums of StarCraftLive.net


top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

vb_bullet.gif ForumsX > General Discussion > Serious Discussion > How to reform the UN?
Search this Thread:
How should the UN be reformed?
You may not vote on this poll
By removing the veto-right of the security council members [ 0 ] polls/bar2-l.gifpolls/bar2.gifpolls/bar2-r.gif 0%
To give more power to the general assembly [ 3 ] polls/bar3-l.gifpolls/bar3.gifpolls/bar3-r.gif 42.86%
A world parliament should be established [ 0 ] polls/bar4-l.gifpolls/bar4.gifpolls/bar4-r.gif 0%
Ecosoc council should be enforced [ 2 ] polls/bar5-l.gifpolls/bar5.gifpolls/bar5-r.gif 28.57%
The whole thing should be demolished [ 2 ] polls/bar6-l.gifpolls/bar6.gifpolls/bar6-r.gif 28.57%
Total: 7 votes 100%

newthread reply Serious Discussion
prev.gif Previous Thread | Next Thread next.gif
Linear Hybrid Threaded

How to reform the UN?  
folder icon   11-03-2007, 10:22 AM
How to reform the UN? Post #1
Friend of Fidel

Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Mar 19 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,804 pos

The United Nation security council members can and have blocked several attempts to reform the organisation. Because of US intrests to keep the UN weak there can't be an effective organisation to promote democracy, human and social rights to the rest of the world.

__________________
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
Posts: 2,804 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 02:14 AM
Post #2
Black~Enthusiasm

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,980 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friend of Fidel
The United Nation security council members can and have blocked several attempts to reform the organisation. Because of US intrests to keep the UN weak there can't be an effective organisation to promote democracy, human and social rights to the rest of the world.


You're wrong, America can only legitimize its foreign interventions with two reasons: on the ground of protecting its own security, or for the sake of promoting and defending the liberal values America is said to represent. So the Americans would really benefit from an international organisation like a "reformed UN" that would justify musculare interventions just for the sake of promoting liberal values, because the United States would undoubtly be its claws and tooth. So would Britain and France. Those who really are working to block the kind of resolutions that would "promote democracy, human and social rights to the rest of the world" are primarily China and Russia.

So why are you saying that the americans need a weak UN?

Here's my suggestion to improve the UN. The only way to have a UN that would truly be able to promote liberalisme would be to make social liberalisme compulsory for its membership. But instead of a cohesive member base, the UN's founding fathers decided to go for universal representation, and to integrate every little dirt bag countries in the world, and thats the problem. So we lost cohesion, legitimacy and credibility in the process.

Enhencing democracy on the international level wouldnt not be a good idea right now. Giving more power to the General Assembly would equate to giving more power to Third-world dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes. Just look what happened to the Human Right Commission and to the Human Rights Council that replaced it. Its a fucking shame. Democracy isnt good in itself, it needs to be able to bring about good results, and the quality of those results are distinct and separate from the system through which they were chosed and implemented. For exemple, if you democracy empowers a bunch of thugs and they democraticaly decide to rape and pillage the old imperial Powers in the name of historical justice, we wont be much more advanced, dont you agree?

Last edited by Black~Enthusiasm on 11-04-2007 at 02:35 AM.
Posts: 4,980 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 04:11 AM
Post #3
Friend of Fidel

Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Mar 19 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,804 pos

Then would you plz explain why the Congress passed a law in 1985 to undermine UN financing and questioning its operating principles? According to this "Kassebaum"- bill the United States should not pay more than 20% of any UN organisation yearly budget unless abolishing the "one country one vote"- principle. In addition the US stopped paying its membership fees while at the same time opposed that its share of the budget would go down. Many other countries did the same and since then the UN has been in a constant financial crisis. This de facto extorsion effectively halted any attempts for a reform because the reforms wouldn't have been what the US wanted them to be.

sources: A Possible World. Democratic Transformation of Global Institutions (Patomäki 2003)

__________________
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
Posts: 2,804 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 10:02 AM
Post #4
Black~Enthusiasm

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,980 pospos

Why, what conclusions do you draw from this? Whats your point?

Posts: 4,980 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 10:05 AM
Post #5
Friend of Fidel

Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Mar 19 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,804 pos

So you're saying that the effective crippling of the UN doesn't prove that the USA wants a weak UN?

__________________
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
Posts: 2,804 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 05:13 PM
Post #6
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

I don't think there's a single reform in the poll that I'd vote for, including demolishing. I guess it's best the way it is. Is it weak? Meh. Sort of, but it certainly does alot of work out there, fighting disease and poverty, etc. I don't know that much about it, but I do agree with alot of what BE is saying.

I do think it's legitimate however. Even if countries are dirtbags, at least they have a voice - we won't solve problems without some dialogue and cooperation. Plus there are always other organizations that people can vy for, to get them to behave better. China wants in the WTO, and Turkey wants to join the EU. Hmmm, given enough time, maybe the entire world could be cajoled into democracy just to join the EU! I could see it extending all the way to Indonesia, and down to South Africa!

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 07:55 PM
Post #7
Black~Enthusiasm

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,980 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friend of Fidel
So you're saying that the effective crippling of the UN doesn't prove that the USA wants a weak UN?

Arent the Americans still paying 1\5 of the UN's total budget, despit enjoying no more official influence than France or Britain?

Dont go around my question. I gave you a valide theory as to why the Americans might need a strong cohesive UN, so tell us what the Americans would have to gain from a weak UN.

Posts: 4,980 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 08:55 PM
Post #8
Gaggin

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: May 03 2001
Location: Manexico, VA
Posts: 4,665 pospos
Velentris on Shadowsong

The U.S. is responsible for 60% of the U.N.'s aid packages and is the main military force behind it, and those 2 things are way more expensive than membership fees. I once read in a trivia book that the cost of 1 U.S. Trident nuclear sub could cover the U.N.'s operating budget for 12 years.

__________________
Posts: 4,665 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-04-2007, 10:57 PM
Post #9
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Security Council vs General Assembly

As far as its concerned the security council isn't the most fantastic idea, but its something like having a senate and a house of commons working together. In that respect, the general assembly should have more power. B~e counters that there's a bunch of dirtbag countries there, dictatorships, authoritative regimes blah blah blah. We got a bucnh of fucking tories in power in Canada who oppose things like native rights and cut funding to women equality programs. So, in the end, democracy sucks but we use it.

The comments are doubly interesting when during our discussions, I talk about a technocracy and you dismiss it as oppressive, yet for the UN you dismiss that sentiment and wish for intelligent democratic nations in the lead. I want people to be leading UN discussions, not nations. Individuals can be intelligent, ambassadors just tow whatever stupid party line happens to exist in the fickle parliaments or dictatorships of our world.

The UN is meant to facilitate discussion. At this point, it is not a world government. You need not structure it similarly to world governments. Democratic powers don't need to be in the lead. It's about creating a forum for everyone to meet, and make real solutions to avoid conflict and war. The General Assembly is useful for this.

You can talk all you want about China and Russia being the primary roadblocks to human rights, when in reality, its more like US and Russia. China has used its veto power 6 times in its entire history. Russia has used it over 300 and USA is catching up to that number. Britain and France each have used their veto perhaps 50-60 times. When was the last time you heard the UN security council was voting to do evil? Veto power is only ever used to stop something good and by that measure, Russia and America have done more harm than ever before.

Let me ask you this, where has China rolled back human rights? Did they invade any countries recently? Have they bombed some lands? Displaced people in other places? Placed unjustified embargoes on countries based on their economic model? Do they fly spy planes around other countries? What exactly are they doing to roll back global human rights? If you tell me they jail people without charge, we do that. If you tell me they torture people in prison, america does that. If you tell me they treat muslims badly, well heh, hate to say it but... u know.

UN's Military Power

Gaggin, you can stop dreaming about America's peacekeeping forces. They don't exist and never have. The primary peacekeeping nations are India, Pakistan, Bangledesh and Nepal. The primary force behind all UN operations are those 4 countries. Most other major contributors are African nations. Europe comes behind them and then north america commits basically nothing.

I'll make it easy for you to see...
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/c...07/sept07_2.pdf

America, ranks 43rd, commiting 307 personnel. No, the combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't count. Unforutnately, for you, those aren't peacekeepers. Those are invading occupation troops fighting a war. UN doesn't fight wars and it's not supposed to do so.

UN's Money

I find the 60% of UN's aid packages paid for by america, incredibly questionable. For one thing, Europe dumps in unlimited dollars into this, and especially scandanavia dumps ridiculous amounts of money. Couple this with economic powerhouse Japan, throwing untold billions into UN operaitons. Somehow US can still be 60% even while refusing to pay a wide assortment of fees from membership fees to peacekeeping dues?

----

UN and America

There are two ways you can go about this.

For a weak UN, it would benefit a neocon superstate America. This is where htey do whatever bloody hell they want and the UN is too damn useless to do anything about it. America doesnt need to justify anything to the global community, the administration need only speak to inflame the populace to war. They spend ungodly amounts of money into the military and use it to smash other countries into obedience. A strong UN would jsut get in the way.

For a strong UN, the USA can lead it and use it to further their own goals. They influence people through diplomacy and negotiation to build a better world as to the american vision. People will appreciate their good work because they will do it through the UN, make multilateral approaches that general please everyone and everything is happy.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-05-2007, 12:48 AM
Post #10
Black~Enthusiasm

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,980 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Security Council vs General Assembly

As far as its concerned the security council isn't the most fantastic idea, but its something like having a senate and a house of commons working together. In that respect, the general assembly should have more power. B~e counters that there's a bunch of dirtbag countries there, dictatorships, authoritative regimes blah blah blah. We got a bucnh of fucking tories in power in Canada who oppose things like native rights and cut funding to women equality programs. So, in the end, democracy sucks but we use it.


The UN can improve by giving more power to dictatorships hostile to human rights because... Canada can still function as a democracy "even" under the tories? Okay, got it!
Quote:

The comments are doubly interesting when during our discussions, I talk about a technocracy and you dismiss it as oppressive, yet for the UN you dismiss that sentiment and wish for intelligent democratic nations in the lead. I want people to be leading UN discussions, not nations. Individuals can be intelligent, ambassadors just tow whatever stupid party line happens to exist in the fickle parliaments or dictatorships of our world.


So, among other things, we should depoliticize the UN? Of course, why, with all those scumbags representing their nations at the United Nations (of all places!), surely thing are bound to be rotten.
Quote:

You can talk all you want about China and Russia being the primary roadblocks to human rights, when in reality, its more like US and Russia. China has used its veto power 6 times in its entire history. Russia has used it over 300 and USA is catching up to that number. Britain and France each have used their veto perhaps 50-60 times. When was the last time you heard the UN security council was voting to do evil? Veto power is only ever used to stop something good and by that measure, Russia and America have done more harm than ever before.

Here you go. UN Security Council Meeting 5619, concerning the deteriorating situation in Myanmar.

Here what basicaly happened. In light of the systematic violations of human rights in Myanmar, the US, Britain, France and a score of other countries at the Security Council wanted to impose sanction to pressure the myanmar government to change its policies. A perfect exemple of agressive liberalism on the international level. The proposition would have passed, but Russia and China vetoed it, invoquing the inviolability of Myanmar's national sovreignty. Because you see, according to China and Russia, a country's sovreignty should protect it from the consequences of making its people suffer for no good reason. Because Russia and China are themselves violating human rights systematicaly, so they would have nothing to gain from allowing such a precedent to take root.

http://www.hrichina.org/public/cont...egory?cid=26811
Quote:

Let me ask you this, where has China rolled back human rights? Did they invade any countries recently? Have they bombed some lands? Displaced people in other places? Placed unjustified embargoes on countries based on their economic model? Do they fly spy planes around other countries? What exactly are they doing to roll back global human rights? If you tell me they jail people without charge, we do that. If you tell me they torture people in prison, america does that. If you tell me they treat muslims badly, well heh, hate to say it but... u know.


Okay, I'll just rank this down with the "third world dictatorships/evil canadian tories" fallacy. Because once the US use waterboarding or Canada use race-based discriminatory search for terrorists, we clearly have lost all moral highground compared to a country like China!!1 Mesuring level of morality between countries has never been so simple!
Quote:

UN's Military Power

Gaggin, you can stop dreaming about America's peacekeeping forces. They don't exist and never have. The primary peacekeeping nations are India, Pakistan, Bangledesh and Nepal. The primary force behind all UN operations are those 4 countries. Most other major contributors are African nations. Europe comes behind them and then north america commits basically nothing.

I'll make it easy for you to see...
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/c...07/sept07_2.pdf

America, ranks 43rd, commiting 307 personnel. No, the combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan don't count. Unforutnately, for you, those aren't peacekeepers. Those are invading occupation troops fighting a war. UN doesn't fight wars and it's not supposed to do so.

UN's Money

I find the 60% of UN's aid packages paid for by america, incredibly questionable. For one thing, Europe dumps in unlimited dollars into this, and especially scandanavia dumps ridiculous amounts of money. Couple this with economic powerhouse Japan, throwing untold billions into UN operaitons. Somehow US can still be 60% even while refusing to pay a wide assortment of fees from membership fees to peacekeeping dues?

Could you also come up with exactly what it is the americans pay? I always thought it was in the range of the 20% of the total budget, and was thus responsible for allowing poor countries to participate in the peacekeeping effort in the first place. Since peacekeeping is financialy rewarding for the countries engaged in it.

Posts: 4,980 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-05-2007, 02:16 AM
Post #11
Friend of Fidel

Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Mar 19 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,804 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Arent the Americans still paying 1\5 of the UN's total budget, despit enjoying no more official influence than France or Britain?

Dont go around my question. I gave you a valide theory as to why the Americans might need a strong cohesive UN, so tell us what the Americans would have to gain from a weak UN.


Japan pays about 19% and it doesn't have any veto-powers but I don't see them complaining. Don't you think that rich member states should pay more than the poor ones?

By posing conditions on its membership fee the USA wants to cut down on bureaucracy which coincides with the neo-liberal ideology according to which every public organisation has to be made smaller. You have to remember though that we are talking about a world organisation which has less employees than an anonymos municipality in Finland with 100 000 inhabitans.

Why you ask? Perhaps because the USA as a world police has allready assumed such functions that were originaly intended to go to the UN. The official goal of the Bush administration is to reform the UN but if this does not happen on US terms they threaten to withdraw completely.

__________________
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
Posts: 2,804 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-05-2007, 02:35 AM
Post #12
Avathar

Overlord


Avatar

Joined: Jan 08 2005
Location: The Netherlands Status: Tulip.
Posts: 5,720 pos

This is my last post here until I see food participate.

__________________
Wij zijn hier op deze wereld om te zondigen en zo God te verheerlijken. - Harry Mulisch

Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves. - Robert Anton Wilson

Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism. - Carl Gustav Jung

Like a dream where you've lost all your fear. - Mark Olivier Everret (Mr. E)

Dominator of Spong of Monkeyent.

Tulip. - Avathar
Posts: 5,720 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-05-2007, 11:47 AM
Post #13
K0d0

Night Elf Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2001
Location: Sweden!!!
Posts: 1,899 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
Veto power is only ever used to stop something good and by that measure, Russia and America have done more harm than ever before.
The composition of the UN is reflected by the political situation of the world. Its not more complicated than that. A security council where many decisions are vetoed is quite alot better than one with majority votes. If a major power gets overruled on an issue, there is greater chance of a violent reaction. Thus, the veto rule gives more stability to the world than it causes damage.

It is absolutely not perfect and far from progressive, but for things to change, we need some kind of geopolitical disaster for the veto powers to change their minds.
Quote:
For a strong UN, the USA can lead it and use it to further their own goals. They influence people through diplomacy and negotiation to build a better world as to the american vision. People will appreciate their good work because they will do it through the UN, make multilateral approaches that general please everyone and everything is happy.
That is the way the US world domination was created and that is the way it will survive. The American empire (empire as in dominating entity) was built more through soft power than military force.

__________________
Teehee.
Posts: 1,899 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-05-2007, 06:22 PM
Post #14
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
The UN can improve by giving more power to dictatorships hostile to human rights because... Canada can still function as a democracy "even" under the tories? Okay, got it!

So, among other things, we should depoliticize the UN? Of course, why, with all those scumbags representing their nations at the United Nations (of all places!), surely thing are bound to be rotten.


The UN can improve by allowing them to say things. It is of no use to say, this is a dirtbag dictatorship, we should impose endless sanctions, not allow them to say anyting and exclude them from the global community. Do you know how many dictatorships were destroyed by these tactics? Basically none.

The method in which you go about promoting goodwill and harmony amongst the world populace is by placing a certain amount of trust and faith into actually dealing with people. You have to think that something positive can come out of working with others.

It's something like a tit for tat situation. You propose nothing but a negative spiral of conflict and confrontation. If you impose sanctions on a dictatorship, it will in turn make its own people poorer to make up for it. If you then, get angry and then impose stricter sanctions, the people get even poorer. Then you start condemning them, they stop talking to the outside community. You notice they stop talking, you start arming up and it just gets worse.

Cooperation has to have rewards. It's not a matter of the world becoming exaclty the same as the west. The UN isn't out there to put fortha single ideology and then completely disrespect all other nations and sovereignty.

All i hear coming out of your mouth is, "The others, they are evil" "Ah the scumbags, they're worthless". You aren't putting anything forward concrete except that you believe we are superior to all others and therefore everyone should follow suit. That's not a valid argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Here you go. UN Security Council Meeting 5619, concerning the deteriorating situation in Myanmar.

Here what basicaly happened. In light of the systematic violations of human rights in Myanmar, the US, Britain, France and a score of other countries at the Security Council wanted to impose sanction to pressure the myanmar government to change its policies. A perfect exemple of agressive liberalism on the international level. The proposition would have passed, but Russia and China vetoed it, invoquing the inviolability of Myanmar's national sovreignty. Because you see, according to China and Russia, a country's sovreignty should protect it from the consequences of making its people suffer for no good reason. Because Russia and China are themselves violating human rights systematicaly, so they would have nothing to gain from allowing such a precedent to take root.

http://www.hrichina.org/public/cont...egory?cid=26811


Okay, calm down there mr. big fat ass lie. Look at your stupid link closer. China did not veto sanctions. China vetoed condemning Myanmar, which as far as its concerned, means nothing. China abstained from the vote on imposing snactions on Myanmar and specifically allowed it to be passed. Don't bullshit me with your crap.

In fact, china has over 400 peacekeepers in Darfur. Pray tell, what do the great mighty human rights loving western nations have there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Okay, I'll just rank this down with the "third world dictatorships/evil canadian tories" fallacy. Because once the US use waterboarding or Canada use race-based discriminatory search for terrorists, we clearly have lost all moral highground compared to a country like China!!1 Mesuring level of morality between countries has never been so simple!

Indeed, when you start breaching human rights, you have no moral high ground. I don't see why this is complicated. So like, if we started gunning up lil afghan children, its okay, cuz hell, we're canadian, the bringers of human rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Could you also come up with exactly what it is the americans pay? I always thought it was in the range of the 20% of the total budget, and was thus responsible for allowing poor countries to participate in the peacekeeping effort in the first place. Since peacekeeping is financialy rewarding for the countries engaged in it.

Hmm... i have no idea where to find this but if the USA were to skip out on buying 1 stealth destroyer, that is enough money to build a space elevator.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-06-2007, 01:23 AM
Post #15
Gaggin

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: May 03 2001
Location: Manexico, VA
Posts: 4,665 pospos
Velentris on Shadowsong

The U.S. IS the main military force behind the U.N., and just because we don't wear blue helmets doesn't make our role any less vital(in fact it makes it more vital). Take for example the first U.N. expedition in Korea. It was 99% the U.S., and to this day we have troops there keeping the peace. Are the 50k or so U.S. troops in S. Korea NOT peacekeepers? It seems they're doing a much better job at it in Korea than China in its own country.

China is still one of the worst offenders of human rights, the only thing is they're too powerful to be muscled into not abusing their own people and after 50 years or so of their bullshit the international community is mostly given up on trying to get China to lighten its iron grip on its citizens. And China has interests in Darfur that do not include helping human suffering. They are engaged in the Sudan to get preferable oil contracts. China's involvement in the Mideast and Africa is almost entirely focused on grabbing up oil, and any U.N. move that doesn't help them with this is none of their concern.


In my thinking, the best use for the U.N. in the next 20 years or so would be protecting the environment. Basically it should broker a treaty linking a nation's favorable trade status to its efforts against global warming, deforestation, etc.
The BIG thing I would do here is make each's nation's environmental goals unique to each nation's situation. For example, the U.S. would have to cut oil usage by X amount, Brazil would have to stop deforestation, the Mideast countries would have to improve their water situation, etc. It won't be feasible to have all nations go for the same environmental goals at once. However, if each country focuses on its most pressing environmental issue, some real improvement can be done.

__________________
Posts: 4,665 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-06-2007, 06:38 PM
Post #16
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

I would wait for more replies, but we're the only ones that post here anyways...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
The U.S. IS the main military force behind the U.N., and just because we don't wear blue helmets doesn't make our role any less vital(in fact it makes it more vital). Take for example the first U.N. expedition in Korea. It was 99% the U.S., and to this day we have troops there keeping the peace. Are the 50k or so U.S. troops in S. Korea NOT peacekeepers? It seems they're doing a much better job at it in Korea than China in its own country.

The 50 000 US troops in south korea right now are not peacekeepers. Yes, yes, we can argue about this all day, but basically you dont wear a blue helmet, you're not a peacekeeper. Keep in mind gaggin, the USA is the reason why the korean war got so bad in teh first place, China would have never joined the north side if american soldiers didnt approach the chinese border after repeated warnings not to do so.

I'm not going to discount America as never having helped the UN militarily, but you have to understand that blowing stuff up isn't peacekeeping. Nor should you believe that any police action by american forces is automatically good for the world. America makes most of NATO's armed forces, not UN. America does a lot of the NATO's leg work, but not really the UN's legwork. I don't think america ever really agreed with peacekeeping as a concept.

Kosovo for instance, was NATO action. Afghanistan right now, is NATO action. Somalia was an independent American operation that did nothing to help peace and instead ended the lives of two dozen american soldiers and over a thousand somali.

As i said, you can take a look at the numbers yourself, i posted the link.

Why do you think in Black Hawk Down, the AMerican soldiers were trying to get back to "Pakistan Stadium"? Because the peacekeepers were pakistani. Its the case in almost all peacekeeping missions. Right now the discussion about the Darfur mission is that it is possibly going to be filled with almost all African blue helmets, maybe some nepalese... as the french and so on have basically backed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
China is still one of the worst offenders of human rights, the only thing is they're too powerful to be muscled into not abusing their own people and after 50 years or so of their bullshit the international community is mostly given up on trying to get China to lighten its iron grip on its citizens. And China has interests in Darfur that do not include helping human suffering. They are engaged in the Sudan to get preferable oil contracts. China's involvement in the Mideast and Africa is almost entirely focused on grabbing up oil, and any U.N. move that doesn't help them with this is none of their concern.

Yeah, China is hardly what i call a symbol of human rights nor a champion. However, not forwarding human rights isnt the same as blocking its development. Since 1950, the situation in china has drastically improved.

As far as charging China with being only in the middle east to get "oil", its a familiar ring to what i hear about the USA. But i guess "clearly" the USA is not in it for the oil. Seriously, what kind of hypocracy is that?

Yeah of course china is only in there to get something, thats the point of trade and capitlaism. YOu're a capitalist, you should understand how it works. China doesn't give a crap about anything. UN wants to deploy peacekeepers? Fine go ahead. All China cares about is ensuring global commerce rolls along smoothly.

I find it interesting that you should bash capitalism on one end, when someone else is doing it, but when concerning say America and Saudi Arabia, oh well its perfectly okay.

The main point is that they abstain from all the votes that count. They didnt veto deploying any peacekeepers, they didnt veto sanctions against anyone. So really, what is the problem? That they are buying oil from Sudan? Oh my god no! Except, hey, we were doing that before Sudan decided taht getting a higher price from china was a better deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaggin
In my thinking, the best use for the U.N. in the next 20 years or so would be protecting the environment. Basically it should broker a treaty linking a nation's favorable trade status to its efforts against global warming, deforestation, etc.
The BIG thing I would do here is make each's nation's environmental goals unique to each nation's situation. For example, the U.S. would have to cut oil usage by X amount, Brazil would have to stop deforestation, the Mideast countries would have to improve their water situation, etc. It won't be feasible to have all nations go for the same environmental goals at once. However, if each country focuses on its most pressing environmental issue, some real improvement can be done.


Actually that does sound pretty good, but the problem still remains. How do you enforce this? Especially when USA doesnt give a shit.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-09-2007, 02:09 PM
Post #17
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

This is in response to Ultra

"Since 1950, the situation in china has drastically improved."

I believe China was going through the Cultural Revolution in the 1950's, during which somewhere around 40,000,000 people were killed. This was the single worst catastrophe in all history, and was completely created by the government. China would have to improve it's human rights, or, after another sixty years, it's population would be, what, 1 billion instead of 2 billion? This really isn't something to brag about.

Also, in criticizing China's intentions for Darfur, remember that Gaggin never applauded Bush for our Iraq war. I recall that Gaggin was an outspoken critic of it, and agrees that it was motivated by oil interests.

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-11-2007, 08:18 PM
Post #18
Kjell Thusaud

War Chief


Avatar

Joined: Aug 21 2003
Location: www.Giraffese.cx
Posts: 4,371 posposposposposhighpos
Micky Mouse on Crack

Liberum Veto!

__________________
Give a player a fish, and he’ll probably try to sell it to an NPC fisherman.

Teach a player to fish, and next week he’ll show up with the book, “The Complete Adventuring Fisherman”. He’ll start hunting for some monstrous leviathan to catch and enslave, and he’ll be dual-wielding two fishing poles
Posts: 4,371 posposposposposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-12-2007, 12:11 AM
Post #19
Gaggin

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: May 03 2001
Location: Manexico, VA
Posts: 4,665 pospos
Velentris on Shadowsong

Actually I was for A war in Iraq, just not BUSH's war in Iraq, cus he's an idiot, and fuck it up he sure did.


As for the whole U.N. thing Ultra, I was thinking the enforcement would be the trade sanctions I was mentioning. Basically, the more green you are, the more economic benefits you would get. We could even use the World Bank in is, lending more money to countries who are greener and whatnot.

Say what you want about the color of the soldiers in Korea's helmets are, they are the reason that South Korea has been so incredibly prosperous. Remember, when the U.S. entered the war the south was on the verge of defeat.

__________________
Posts: 4,665 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-12-2007, 06:16 PM
Post #20
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Well, I find it difficult to enforce economic sanctions in the manner you are speaking. My main concerns are ...

a) Who decides what is the correct policy to be following? For instance, if Bush led the UN's choice on environmental policy, we'd all be sniffing sulfur dioxide like it was crack.

b) Would people honour a UN-led economic sanction against a nation for breaching environmental concerns if it meant they lose business, trade deals or precious resources? Imagine for instance, Saudi Arabia wasn't following the green policies properly, would the USA have to stop buying their oil? In that case, would they actually stop?

---

As for China, I think there's a misunderstanding here.

The concept can be simplified to this...
China in 1950 was much worse than China in 2007. If we had followed the policy of isolation, economic sanction and refusal to dialogue, would China be better in 2007 or worse?

So the problem remains. There are plenty of countries out there that we can consider undemocratic. It seems to me, making the UN more confrontational, more powerful and more aggressive is a terrible idea to follow. If we all thought like B~E, the UN really would become a fascist power, led by the richest countries in the world who believe, due to their wealth and influence, they are always correct.

I must agree with you So and So that simple majority is idiotic. My solution however, is not this security council garbage. The solution should be for intellectuals to be leading a security council, with no concern to their country of origin. The importance is that they are well educated, intelligent and reliable. Your view that the majority is not good is the same problem with western democracy. The majority is incapable of forming an informed decision, because there is typically no reliable information source readily available.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-13-2007, 06:45 AM
Post #21
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

"The solution should be for intellectuals to be leading a security council, with no concern to their country of origin."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good luck man. That's like Nadar becoming president. Yeah, as much as I loathe B~E's political attitude in general, at least he focuses on the present reality. The only solution you can ever find to solving the world's problems is to think of ones that leading powers would actually agree to. Now, a popular democratic movement in America and Europe to reform the UN to better serve humanitarian, egalitarian, and environmental interests could happen someday... sometime... if enough organizers took on the challenge, and the right politicians chose to capitalize on it. It would have to be tightly focused on a few key issues, with clever solutions to get wide support from the media, existing political parties, etc.

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-13-2007, 07:41 AM
Post #22
Friend of Fidel

Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Mar 19 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 2,804 pos

Reforming the security council veto system if of utmost priority since there can be no reform of the UN charter without consensus in the security council.

__________________
Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded.
Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Looking God in the Eye"
Posts: 2,804 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-13-2007, 08:34 AM
Post #23
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

but the security council would never go for it, so why bother contemplating it? Your best hope would be for it to expand, including other members like Japan and/or India. Possibly Germany? The fair way would be in order of largest economy.

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-13-2007, 06:41 PM
Post #24
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Screw Japan Bastards cant even admit their war crimes.

Anyway, B~E focuses on the current greedy solution which is of no value. In the long term, we'll be screwed... heck we could be screwed in the short-term. The veto powers that are already there suck complete shit, France is a racist regime, Britain doesnt give a crap about anything, Russia and USA are too busy taking over the world to care about human rights and China... china doesnt care about anything. The Chinese vote "meh" the most.

I don't see how putting in more veto powers, or making the security council more powerful solves any issues.

Putting forward the ideal solution puts on the roadmap, where the end goal is. The first thing we do is make the UN more open to dialgoue and stop this idiotic western elitism where confrontation is the solution to all problems. Just like war solves nothing, placing sanctions on other countries likewise solves nothing.

The most powerful tool is trade and likely free trade status.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-14-2007, 04:16 AM
Post #25
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

I tihnk the best thing the UN could achieve would be for the world to agree to demilitarize. We would have international weapons inspectors go everywhere, even the US, to make sure there are no more WMD's anywhere. That way we wouldn't have to spend so much on them nor worry about eventual armageddon. It'd be a longterm goal, but a worthy one.

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-14-2007, 04:44 AM
Post #26
K0d0

Night Elf Ranger


Avatar

Joined: Oct 03 2001
Location: Sweden!!!
Posts: 1,899 pos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Friend of Fidel
Reforming the security council veto system if of utmost priority since there can be no reform of the UN charter without consensus in the security council.
At the probable price of a world war?

Face it people, the Security Council and UN is not some neutral institution with the ability to enforce its own decisions. These are real countries we are talking about and if these countries dont agree with the rules, then they wont be followed.

__________________
Teehee.
Posts: 1,899 pos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_icq.gif im_aim.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-15-2007, 06:23 PM
Post #27
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Quote:
Originally Posted by so and so
I tihnk the best thing the UN could achieve would be for the world to agree to demilitarize. We would have international weapons inspectors go everywhere, even the US, to make sure there are no more WMD's anywhere. That way we wouldn't have to spend so much on them nor worry about eventual armageddon. It'd be a longterm goal, but a worthy one.

And you laugh about my idea for getting intellectual individuals to be in power? You wont even be able to demilitarize until my idea comes to fruitation.

Firstly no veto power would give up nuclear weapons and secondly, for smaller nations like Iran, nuclear weapons are the only stop gap against super power nation's influence.

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-16-2007, 07:37 AM
Post #28
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

Russia actually was a proponent of this idea when the Cold War ended, at least publically.

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-20-2007, 02:41 AM
Post #29
Black~Enthusiasm

Arch Druid


Avatar

Joined: Sep 10 2001
Location: Quebec,Canada
Posts: 4,980 pospos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
If we all thought like B~E, the UN really would become a fascist power, led by the richest countries in the world who believe, due to their wealth and influence, they are always correct.

Lets all fear the fascist might of the combined power of the world's respectable democracies!

I clearly based my criteria for a reformed UN on human rights record and government style, not economical policies or wealth. Yet you persit on making shit up. Unless you believe that the UN really should give more responsabilities to the likes of Iran and Venezuela, so they'll balance out those corrupt, malevolent liberal democracies.

Of course, using a skewed world view where Canada's airport profiling is on equal stand with China torturing its political dissent, tied with the notion that the tories arent more difficult to work with than the governments of Libia or Syria, it all make perfect goddamn sense.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
And you laugh about my idea for getting intellectual individuals to be in power?

We can't even separate what goes on in an university department from local politics. You're not proposing a reformed UN, you're proposing an intenational system that exist totaly separated from national politics. Its moraly wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk


Firstly no veto power would give up nuclear weapons and secondly, for smaller nations like Iran, nuclear weapons are the only stop gap against super power nation's influence.


Yeah. The same foreign influence that stopped Iran from develloping nuclear energy... no wait, there's no such influence capable of actualy intervening in Iran. Not now, and not in the forseable future. So thats not a valable justification for getting nuclear weapons. Say, how much of your world view rely on the fictious bogeyman of the Western Crusading Imperialist Powers of Doom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk


Yeah, China is hardly what i call a symbol of human rights nor a champion. However, not forwarding human rights isnt the same as blocking its development. Since 1950, the situation in china has drastically improved.


""We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men." -Boondock Saints

Being neutral is akin to being an accomplice. You dont need to champion evil to help its progress. China is guilty of the wrongs caused by unaccountable authoritarian regims because it is so indifferent and opportunistic, especialy since its such a powerfull and important country. Its "neutrality", if you want to call it that way, had very real impact on the prosperity and legitimity of authoritarian regimes.

About its economical contribution to the well being of the population of african dictatorships, well have to wait and see. I really doubt that there will be much of a flow-on effect for the local economies from the Chinese presence. The Chinese really only like to do business with those they know and trust, unless it is selling stuff for hard cash. So basically, if you get a Chinese diaspora appearing in Africa it is likely to go the way of the Chinese in Southeast Asia: Insular business networks that keep the money to themselves and minimize interaction with the "untrustworthy outsiders" ie. the locals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra_punk
The UN can improve by allowing them to say things. It is of no use to say, this is a dirtbag dictatorship, we should impose endless sanctions, not allow them to say anyting and exclude them from the global community. Do you know how many dictatorships were destroyed by these tactics? Basically none.


The UN general assembly could stay open to every countries that managed to master the art of plumbing, but UN institutions with actual duties and powers shouldnt never, ever be open to countries that dont even fit to the basic UN requirement for human rights and democracy.

How many dictatorships where destroyed through isolation, contestation, and outside pressure and outside interventions? I think that South Africa's Apartheid regime is a fine exemple of how the UN and the International community should deal with every dictatorships.

If anything, pressure usualy doesnt work because its applied unequaly and with not enough fervor.

Your approach to spreading democracy seems to be entierly based on the premice that within all Nation-states, there lies the seeds of democracy, and they only need certain elements (wealth, education) and certain conditions (trust, dialogue, security and a honest smile) to grow on their own, as if democratisation was the natural and inevitable conclusion awaiting all Nations, as if we just needed to wait until they're ready.

However, more often than not, authoritarian regimes are capable of surviving and thriving on their own despite the actual capabilities and desires of its population. Because you know, by definition, thats why they're authoritarian regimes in the first place. Dictatorships arent a political abheration, they arent something you "cure" or wait for it to go away on its own. They're perfectly viable political system capable of surviving and maintaining themselves unless confronted. Liberalism is a superior form of organization, but against well grounded dictatorships, it can only survive through the containement of competing authoritarian systems, and it can only spread through imposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by so and so
Yeah, as much as I loathe B~E's political attitude in general

Thats so mean.

Last edited by Black~Enthusiasm on 11-20-2007 at 03:53 AM.
Posts: 4,980 pospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_msn.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-20-2007, 02:32 PM
Post #30
so and so

Moderator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 28 2001
Location: Boston, for now...
Posts: 5,764 pospospos

Oh come on! You're so cynical!

__________________
"Do you masturbate to your own rhetoric?" - Kegel
"The irony of this topic makes me want to fist myself with a pinecone." - Dark Jester
"No ones life is that interesting unless it involves war, porn, or zombies." - Urin Bloodface
"Any country that owes their existence to the french doesn't deserve to be a country." - Love
"i only eat yogurt with a minimum ph of 4.5." - PålädÌÑ
"I had my utensils removed last summer." - Kjell Thusaud
"Fuck reality, I prefer vodka." - Sammy
Posts: 5,764 pospospos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif find.gif buddy.gif edit.gif reply.gif
folder icon   11-20-2007, 06:38 PM
Post #31
Ultra_punk

Administrator


Avatar

Joined: Jan 30 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Lets all fear the fascist might of the combined power of the world's respectable democracies!

I clearly based my criteria for a reformed UN on human rights record and government style, not economical policies or wealth. Yet you persit on making shit up. Unless you believe that the UN really should give more responsabilities to the likes of Iran and Venezuela, so they'll balance out those corrupt, malevolent liberal democracies.

Of course, using a skewed world view where Canada's airport profiling is on equal stand with China torturing its political dissent, tied with the notion that the tories arent more difficult to work with than the governments of Libia or Syria, it all make perfect goddamn sense.


I persist on making shit up? You're the one talking about letting only select nations, chosen by the same nations who are doing the selecting to be the ones in power, and to be given more power. How does this sound democratic or safe? Centralization of power in the hands of national governments who have no real care about human rights in the world, except where it concerns them, is not an improvement of the United Nations. Instead, its a de-legitamitization of its power (and i realize thats not a word). You based you criteria on the fact that the nations are western and nothing else, only until now do you happen to state you base on liberalism.

On that note, if you did place it on liberalism and democracy, no country passes the bar.

Its funny you should say, China's torturing of its political dissent, as we appear to jail people indefinitely as well. Most natives don't have clean drinking water, and whats the charge with China's dealing with minorities? They certainly arent committing genocide and mass rape. They just arent giving them equal government social services. This is what is done in America and Canada, as well as every other western nation. The muslim immigrants in France have an unemployment rate worse than the Great Depression in Canada.

You direct your notion that witin the world's nations, there is a subset with which can be trusted the leadership of the entire Earth. That is where you are wrong. Much like how our democracies, in theory, do not entrust leadership to one small group of people, the UN cannot do the same.

You can paint the killing natives in police standoffs, segregation, land claims, indefinite jailing of terror suspects, voting down UN human rights legislation as somehow better than China, but I really don't see how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
We can't even separate what goes on in an university department from local politics. You're not proposing a reformed UN, you're proposing an intenational system that exist totaly separated from national politics. Its moraly wrong.

It's morally wrong to have intellectuals attempt to determine and discuss policy rather than nation states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
Yeah. The same foreign influence that stopped Iran from develloping nuclear energy... no wait, there's no such influence capable of actualy intervening in Iran. Not now, and not in the forseable future. So thats not a valable justification for getting nuclear weapons. Say, how much of your world view rely on the fictious bogeyman of the Western Crusading Imperialist Powers of Doom?

How much of your world view sees the west as wholly good? Who invaded Vietnam? Who invaded Iraq? Who bombed targets in Somalia to rid the state of an Islamic government?

USA was willing to spend almost 1 trillion dollars invading Iraq and Afghanistan, commit over 140 000 military personnel and fight for years without an end in sight. So, whats so hard to think about getting invaded? There's only one reason Iran is still around, it has enough military power to prevent an invasion. You think otherwise?

The world needs to run on dialogue and diplomacy. Running around keeping everyone in the stone age so that we can feel safe is not the solution. There is no right for any global power to restrict the development of sovereign states. The western right for security does not trump the right for others to a higher standard of life.

Iran can't burn oil for its energy, the oil is needed for many other more useful things. The only problem is getting IAEA inspectors into the country. The UN is fully capable of doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
""We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most...and that is the indifference of good men." -Boondock Saints

Being neutral is akin to being an accomplice. You dont need to champion evil to help its progress. China is guilty of the wrongs caused by unaccountable authoritarian regims because it is so indifferent and opportunistic, especialy since its such a powerfull and important country. Its "neutrality", if you want to call it that way, had very real impact on the prosperity and legitimity of authoritarian regimes.

About its economical contribution to the well being of the population of african dictatorships, well have to wait and see. I really doubt that there will be much of a flow-on effect for the local economies from the Chinese presence. The Chinese really only like to do business with those they know and trust, unless it is selling stuff for hard cash. So basically, if you get a Chinese diaspora appearing in Africa it is likely to go the way of the Chinese in Southeast Asia: Insular business networks that keep the money to themselves and minimize interaction with the "untrustworthy outsiders" ie. the locals.


China's not the one that propped up dictatorships in South America, its not the one that put Saddam Hussein in power, its not the one keeping the royal Saudi family on the throne.

Show me somewhere, some state, where Chinese business has propped up dictatorships moreso than any other business the west does. China hardly if ever interferes in political matters and thats much better than what the west does. There's hardly any places that i've seen where the west has improved life by interfering. Just look at Ukraine. That pro-western leader? Total garbage.

I've also not seen any of this "insular business" you're talking about. It's about the same as the charge that American businesses in canada send all their money to the united states. They dont and likewise, i dont see that happening there either. All i see is countries stumbling over each other to increase chinese investment in their countries. Yes, clearly the insular business is terrible for them! Talk about making shit up. What next, the Jew bankers took all your money?

Furthermore, wheres the refute of the fact China has 400 peacekeepers deployed in Darfur? What do we have there? China built dams in afghanistan, and continue to build other things for afghan populace. Most of the trade in africa, china sells roads, schools, power stations for oil. Can we say we do the same? They also give them a higher price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm
The UN general assembly could stay open to every countries that managed to master the art of plumbing, but UN institutions with actual duties and powers shouldnt never, ever be open to countries that dont even fit to the basic UN requirement for human rights and democracy.

How many dictatorships where destroyed through isolation, contestation, and outside pressure and outside interventions? I think that South Africa's Apartheid regime is a fine exemple of how the UN and the International community should deal with every dictatorships.

If anything, pressure usualy doesnt work because its applied unequaly and with not enough fervor.

Your approach to spreading democracy seems to be entierly based on the premice that within all Nation-states, there lies the seeds of democracy, and they only need certain elements (wealth, education) and certain conditions (trust, dialogue, security and a honest smile) to grow on their own, as if democratisation was the natural and inevitable conclusion awaiting all Nations, as if we just needed to wait until they're ready.

However, more often than not, authoritarian regimes are capable of surviving and thriving on their own despite the actual capabilities and desires of its population. Because you know, by definition, thats why they're authoritarian regimes in the first place. Dictatorships arent a political abheration, they arent something you "cure" or wait for it to go away on its own. They're perfectly viable political system capable of surviving and maintaining themselves unless confronted. Liberalism is a superior form of organization, but against well grounded dictatorships, it can only survive through the containement of competing authoritarian systems, and it can only spread through imposition.


South Africa's collapse of Apartheid government is the perfect example where i believe every state has the seeds of democracy within it and it comes out on its own and it develops in its own way. Nelson Mendela was the catalyst for change in South African society. What sanction produced him? What UN condemnation helped Nelson Mendela to power? What boycott of Olympics got the apartheid regime to back down?

If sanctions and confrontation were the answer to collapsing every dictatorship, then why did it only work in South Africa and nowhere else? In fact, it only makes the government more powerful.

We look at countries where we actively commit to trade and talks, and we see much faster and better improvement. Every country that has a high level of trade has improving democracy. Its the transition of ideas, the empowerment of people via economics which help democracy grow.

The best examples i believe are found in Eastern Europe. That place was full of dictatorships and bad communist regimes. Europe always opened the door for dialogue and trade, and as they opened it further, what has happened to Eastern Europe? It got worse? It propped up the bad governments? No it got better, a middle class grew larger and everyone was better off. Interesting eh?

__________________

a suicide bomber taken out by a suicide bomber? priceless
Masey209: JUST MAKE HER HAVE SEX WITH ME!!
Enix: Oops added an extra zero to it just like your hydro bill
CowUltrapunk: SLOW
CowUltrapunk: slow as your dick
dimitri583: i told you
dimitri583: my dick is fast as fuck
CowUltrapunk: working on your unspeakable weapon of mass atrocities?
ZoraxP: Yep. I call it the USA.
Urin Bloodface: i know ontario
Urin Bloodface: ive even been to vancover
Posts: 9,387 posposposposposhighposhighpos
off.gif profile.gif sendpm.gif email.gif home.gif find.gif buddy.gif im_aim.gif im_yahoo.gif edit.gif reply.gif
Return to Top  

newthread reply Serious Discussion
prev.gif Previous Thread | Next Thread next.gif
Linear Hybrid Threaded

printer.gif Show Printable Version
sendtofriend.gif Email this Page
Rate this Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On

All times are GMT -5 hours. The time now is 09:09 AM.

ForumsX > General Discussion > Serious Discussion > How to reform the UN?

< Contact Us - http://www.forumsx.net - Archive >
Return to Top

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.0 Beta 7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.