Thread: End the UN

"There are always regional issues and no matter what political or religious lines can be blurred those regional matters will remain and it seems the height of arrogance to say that a council in brussels will deal with and make all decisions concerning an issue like the tensions between the Turks and the Kurds"

Its simply a matter of scale, just as you have local administration in countries, so too you would have local administration in our super state, the only difference is that instead of the buck ending in say Madrid, London or Paris, it ends in Brussels.

"I see absolutely no benefits from a central govt. commitee that the UN wishes to become. The polotics won't change, and the economics won't change, in fact they will be hindered greatly by new regulations and probably approvals needed for every single major biz transaction decided in the councils - a big honkn slothy mess"

Why are countries better than a lot of smaller warring regions?

"The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing"

So basically you don't like idea of Americans not being more influential than other people.

"Most likely a UN central govt. would be SOCIALIST and impose high taxes and a redistibution of wealth and publication of formerly privately owned biz's"

It would no doubt have some "socialist" aspects, you think everything "socialist" is bad?

"That's why european countries are so stagnant and in poor shape as they are up to their eyeballz in social welfare programs"

.... There is just so much wrong with what you say, its really hard to know where to start.

The 1st world European countries are not "stagnant and in poor shape", they are less powerfull, less rich, no doubt less efficent than the US, but who cares? Why prioritise those things over people?

"Here's another shocker, ppl are selfish and they work for their own benefit and not for the cuase and wellbeing of the STATE, REPUBLIC, or UN..."

Right..... which is why communism doesn't work, and the relevence is........?

"You wanna see a civil war... just have this UN govt. tell us americans that our constitution is now invalid and the first thing the UN does is eliminate the "right to bear arms". You'll see some blood then"

Which is why it would not work in todays world, because yea lots of people would object for lots of stupid reasons like you mention, but anyway I think the process will occur gradually over a large time frame not as a sudden change.

We may be seeing the beginnings in the EU but that could well fall through, never the less given enough time and assuming we dont destroy ourselves in the mean time, i think it will happen, and that it will be a great thing.

"Here's another shocker, ppl are selfish and they work for their own benefit and not for the cuase and wellbeing of the STATE, REPUBLIC, or UN..."

>>Right..... which is why communism doesn't work, and the relevence is........?

The relevance is that socialism and communism are born of the same ideology and socialism just as true communism, is BANKRUPTING - soon there will only be rhetoric about working for the state as the money will be gone. The only difference between socialism and communism is in communism you get to hide your problems your socialist state produces by jailing, murdering, and lying to the ppl.

>>It would no doubt have some "socialist" aspects, you think everything "socialist" is bad?

Uhh, yes, it's atleast not ideal... every single socialist country or those with socialist programs are going broke... ?? why is that?? maybe it's that socialism puts too much of a burden on the state and the ppl become lazy. Ask yourself why, again, did the Soviet Union break-up... they had a new GLASNOST or "Openness" communist regime - the soviet's began shifting it's resources to providing for their ppl for once but the burden was too great especially after they were bankrupted by the ColdWar and fielding their massive army... the whole thing collapsed upon itself from it's own weight - socialism will have the same ending b/c there is no way u can sustain the "socialistic" promises.

>>I see no bad in distributing wealth among people, in my opinion that's better then a few people being wealthy and most of the people being poor.

U can only distribute the wealth ONE time, then everyone is equal, they're all poor. No one, as everyone is inherently selfish, aspires to be poor. Having a few rich and many poor is a problem... but it is one that can be remedied and I think eventually in america we'll have someone who knows truly about economics as president and they will create millionares by the ton by creating favorable conditions for investment and opportunity. Beleive it or not there is plenty of cash out there even though it seems not right now especially if you're outta work - but ppl still have money to invest and banks are still willing to lend - creating favorable conditions for these investors and banks to lend the capitol freely w/o overly worrying about losses will create, new jobs. Having the govt. instead of handing out $300 rebates to everyone could create growth funds they setup in major cities worth billions of dollars each... it's like the gold rush -- puting the growth fundz in would create an environment for companies to bid on contracts and hire new employees... the promise of gold in the gold rush generated more cash then the gold they pulled out ever was.

To americans and I guess europeans are different in this respect, having BRUSSELS or some foolz from every other country decide how america should conduct it's affairs and spend it's money and be subserviant to this delegation of ppl who make decisions about my country and don't even live here is outrageous and sickening.

I luv propoganda -- it's a funny read -- considering it's from the 60's, especially the UN stuff...

http://www.inoohr.org/1963communistdemands.htm

"The relevance is that socialism and communism are born of the same ideology and socialism just as true communism, is BANKRUPTING - soon there will only be rhetoric about working for the state as the money will be gone. The only difference between socialism and communism is in communism you get to hide your problems your socialist state produces by jailing, murdering, and lying to the ppl."

The ideology behind communism is great, it's just that it doesn't work in practice, that doesn't mean you can't keep ANY of the ideals.

If socialism is bankrupting, then why isn't Europe bankrupt?

"Uhh, yes, it's atleast not ideal..."

Right so the state having any supportive role is a bad idea?

"every single socialist country or those with socialist programs are going broke"

Which countries are going broke? And what exactly do you consider "socialism" to be?

"maybe it's that socialism puts too much of a burden on the state and the ppl become lazy. Ask yourself why, again, did the Soviet Union break-up... "

Socialism does NOT have to place too much burden on the state it merely depends how far you take it, the Soviet Union was one EXTREME, it didn't work for some of the reasons you give, but that does not mean that all socialism is doomed to failure.

Your argument is as weak as the a communist pointing out that fascism doesn't work therefore claiming that capitalism is a failure and that communism is the only way.

"socialism will have the same ending b/c there is no way u can sustain the "socialistic" promises."

You are going to have to tell me what your definition of socialism is, and which countries you consider to be "socialist", is England socialist? We have free healthcare (more or less), welfware support, social services that put many countries to shame (but still suck ass), so is the UK going to collapse?

"Having a few rich and many poor is a problem... but it is one that can be remedied and I think eventually in america we'll have someone who knows truly about economics as president and they will create millionares by the ton by creating favorable conditions for investment and opportunity"

This is in my opinion fantasy.

"Beleive it or not there is plenty of cash out there"

Yea it's in the pockets of the ultra rich.

" Having the govt. instead of handing out $300 rebates to everyone could create growth funds they setup in major cities worth billions of dollars each... it's like the gold rush -- puting the growth fundz in would create an environment for companies to bid on contracts and hire new employees... the promise of gold in the gold rush generated more cash then the gold they pulled out ever was."

Then why exactly is it that the rich-poor divide is INCREASING not decreasing?

"To americans and I guess europeans are different in this respect, having BRUSSELS or some foolz from every other country decide how america should conduct it's affairs and spend it's money and be subserviant to this delegation of ppl who make decisions about my country and don't even live here is outrageous and sickening"

You're not alone, alot people feel this way, its group mentality "I belong to THIS group, you belong to THAT group, and my group is better than your group" *sigh* such a pity, how slowed humanities progress has been and still is by such sentiments.

>>sound familiar??

yup, my fav is no. 11 tho.

>>"The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing"<<

well said Clyde
>>So basically you don't like idea of Americans not being more influential than other people.<<


Of course the first world citizens are not going to like this. As their wealth has to be more equatibly redistrubuted.


Just as there were those who did not like action on womens sufferage and racial rights.

As to the site posted by OSR. Look at their main page. Follow some of the links and see if you think it is a unbiased source.

http://www.inoohr.org/


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

Originally posted by novacain
Just as there were those who did not like action on womens sufferage and racial rights.

I hate it when people bring up old stuff (Abe quote too). I also do not like when people are backed into a corner then pull out the old "women's right" or "civil rights" card. Dude, I'm black and I must say I hate it even when black people bring this up in arguments. I don't know what race you are but put that back in your pocket. How are we going to ever move forward if we continue to argue about the past.

OneStiffRod said everything needed to be said about the U.N. His points are valid, IMO, but I do realize everyone is going to interpret anything the way they want to see it.

I'm an American, and I've worked to protect America. If anyone has a problem with America so be you. I'm going to continue being an American. Those American's who have a problem with America then, I implore you to rationalize some of your thinking.

Originally posted by Clyde
.... surely there is as much anti-Islamic feeling around if not more than antisemitic...

Maybe in your neck of the woods. I've seen at least one person get their ass kicked for that viewpoint, though.

Originally posted by Clyde
No.... because the complaints against the US are based on their foreign policy...

But some of the argument here have not been about foreign policy.

Originally posted by Clyde Big companies have one and only one goal: $$$. They pay absolutely no attention to ethical constraints. Companies like Pfizer show some of the dangers of 'big corporations'.

And like your local news cast, you seem to forget the good people do. Yes, in your eyes everyone in these big corporations are evil. Do you work for a living?

Originally posted by Util_Mark
Do not put your faith in organizations or governments, for they will always fail you because they are built by men, which have an inherent 'sin nature' in them. The only "perfect society" or world will arise as described in Revelation 11:15:

I hate to bring religion in this but whatever: yeap, so a big brother won't be the cure all some of you think. I hope the EU don't run into a crisis but it's inevitable.

I just started going back to church recently but I can tell you this: that's the exact reference dope smokers and anarchists (yeah, I know most of you anarchists are atheist) use when they feel biblical. They see the "Do not put your faith in organizations or governments" part and they are done. There is another Old Testament scripture that says God wants us to follow the law of the land. I can't recall which scripture, though. It's how you interpret it.

"I hate it when people bring up old stuff (Abe quote too). I also do not like when people are backed into a corner then pull out the old "women's right" or "civil rights" card. Dude, I'm black and I must say I hate it even when black people bring this up in arguments. I don't know what race you are but put that back in your pocket. How are we going to ever move forward if we continue to argue about the past."

His point seems valid enough, in the past people have always fought to preserver their power, whether it be whites over blacks, men over women, the British over its colonies, when OSR says:

The only benefit would be to those anti-americans out there who wish to see american power and influence eroded to nothing

It sounds pretty much like any other group who has power and doesn't want to give it up, even if a more equal spread of power/influence results in a better, juster, world.

"OneStiffRod said everything needed to be said about the U.N. His points are valid, IMO, but I do realize everyone is going to interpret anything the way they want to see it. "

What points? That because the communists thought it was a good idea it must therefore be wrong, guess gay people should be treated with prejudice then.

That all "sociliast" countries are going bankrupt? My neck of Europe seems to be doing ok.

That the state should have no role in support?

What exactly do think should happen to the old and the sick who cannot afford private help? They should be left to die?

"Maybe in your neck of the woods. I've seen at least one person get their ass kicked for that viewpoint, though"

.... in the US which one is more predominant anti-Islamic or ant-Semitic views?

"But some of the argument here have not been about foreign policy."

Some of the reason people object to the US, jealousy/fear, foreign policy, and for its hand in aiding the mega-corporations.

Which of those would apply to a central government?

"And like your local news cast, you seem to forget the good people do. Yes, in your eyes everyone in these big corporations are evil. Do you work for a living?"

....... do you have any idea the kind of things some of these corporations do?

The people in them aren't evil, it's the system that sucks ass, the system that you seem to be defending.

Big corporations should be regulated, such that ethics is taken account of, BUT that would reduce their profit... so certain countries that often seem to favour $$$ over everything else prevent such measures being taken.

Incidently i'm taking drug companies as the epitomy of this problem.

"I hate to bring religion in this but whatever: yeap, so a big brother won't be the cure all some of you think. I hope the EU don't run into a crisis but it's inevitable"

I don't really see the link between 1984's propoganda led police state and a world with a central essentially democratic government.

While the EU may run into problems i don't see why its inevitable.

howdy,

I'm an American, and I've worked to protect America. If anyone has a problem with America so be you. I'm going to continue being an American. Those American's who have a problem with America then, I implore you to rationalize some of your thinking.

YEP me too!

M.R.

>>"I hate it when people bring up old stuff (Abe quote too).<<

But it is OK for OSR to post a link "considering it's from the 60's" from a homophobic site?

The Lincon quote is interesting because of its date. Lincon forsaw the problem over a hundred years ago.

Those that can not remember the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

As these corporations power/wealth/influence has grown, politicians are unwilling to reduce their power or impose ethical constraints on these corporations activities. Why? Because the politician would not get elected again.


"The tight market for technology jobs comes as hundreds of American companies outsource positions to smaller engineering and programming firms in India, China, Russia and other countries with inexpensive labor forces.
Nearly one in four large technology companies surveyed said they had already outsourced technology work to foreign countries, and an additional 15 per cent of large technology companies said they were considering a similar move within the next year.
Technology companies in the West and Midwest were most likely to send jobs overseas, according to the survey. The most likely positions to move overseas were programming and software engineering jobs, followed by network design and web development. "

http://news.com.au/common/story_page...E15306,00.html
(this link will only be valid for a few days)

If these companies cared for the health of the local economy (more than their own profit margin) they would employ local workers. The workers then would have more money to spend, stimulating the local economy. As it stands these local workers are probably unemployed, draining from the economy.