PDA

View Full Version : End the UN



Pages : [1] 2

confuted
04-26-2003, 07:36 PM
http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=4

Finally...a bill and a petition to get the US to withdraw from the UN...

Silvercord
04-26-2003, 09:30 PM
It is hard to have a solid opinion on this either way. I don't think it is totally good to be in the UN, but I don't think it will be totally good to withdraw from the UN. I still think cooperation with other countries is important, but with the controversy over the Iraq war and all I dunno what's going on.

EDIT: and that's about as politically correct and as unbiased as I could possibly make that post.

confuted
04-26-2003, 10:03 PM
Aye, but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances, trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN...and then we don't have to cooperate with the nations which don't play nicely with others.

Govtcheez
04-26-2003, 10:26 PM
Wow, "patriotpetitions.us", huh?

You'll excuse me if I don't really take that page seriously.

-KEN-
04-26-2003, 11:21 PM
4/24/03 - NEVAR FORGET.

One second. I need to take my oversized flag down from my raised 4x4, then I'll sign the petition whilst whistling "I'm a yankee doodle dandy" and mulling over the lyrics to a Toby Keith song. Hoooooooiiiiieeeee!

Xei
04-26-2003, 11:25 PM
I doubt that petition will be recognized.

zahid
04-26-2003, 11:56 PM
Simply Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, UN is clinically dead.

netboy
04-27-2003, 12:03 AM
A pure waste of time.

Shiro
04-27-2003, 03:03 AM
> but with the controversy over the Iraq war and all I dunno
> what's going on.

The UN is more than the security council. It also contains the organisations for children, third world development, refugees, human rights and other things. In my opinion those things are very important to do together in this world and the UN is a body for that.

> but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances,
> trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN

Yes, that is possible. And a lot of things are done without the UN. In Europe think about the European Union and the Benelux for example. Also I think about organisations like Novib and such who do work for third world development.

But I still think it is important that there is a global organisation.

zahid
04-27-2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Shiro
The UN is more than the security council. It also contains the organisations for children, third world development, refugees, human rights and other things. In my opinion those things are very important to do together in this world and the UN is a body for that.
..........................................
But I still think it is important that there is a global organisation.

Frankly speaking, having veto power of 5 members is the most unacceptable undemocratic written clause of UN . This option made lots of discrimination, and were exploited in the past. Expect more democracy, think at least 2/3 or 4/5 of total members for security countil resolution. And make sure no one is visiting from country to country to get vote to attack any country. Anyway, I think that world will never be better in my life time.

Shiro, whatever the Org is, picture will never change for ever. Better always keeping in mind "Might is Right". It was in stone age, will be there for ever.

Shiro
04-27-2003, 07:53 AM
> Frankly speaking, having veto power of 5 members is the most
> unacceptable undemocratic written clause of UN .

As I said, the security council, is just a part of the UN.

> whatever the Org is, picture will never change for ever.

What picture?

In this time where many things are becoming global, it is important to have a global organisation. I think it is naive to think that currently countries can do all things themselves.

I have lots of critics on the European Union, but I know that without the EU we wouldn't be as far as we are now. The EU is currently far from ideal, but gives instruments to work together.

zahid
04-27-2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Shiro
In this time where many things are becoming global, it is important to have a global organisation. I think it is naive to think that currently countries can do all things themselves.

I have lots of critics on the European Union, but I know that without the EU we wouldn't be as far as we are now. The EU is currently far from ideal, but gives instruments to work together.

:) Whatever you say, may be this is for a period of time but "Might is Right" dominated and will dominate the creation. I'm 28, hopefully will be alife for another 28. Keep in touch, we will meet again on this issue.

joshdick
04-27-2003, 04:00 PM
Never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups.

As someone already mentioned, the UN is about so much more than the Security Council. Nothing the UN does is a threat to our sovereignty. They obviously didn't stop us from unjustly blowing up whomever we please. The only reason people are now in such a huff over the UN is because they disagreed with us. The US is in such denial about the world. Guess what, everybody? There are only two countries in the world that have a majority approval rating of President Bush, the US and Israel. Guess what else? Other countries are allowed to have their opinons. Differences of opinion are allowed. Yeesh, I'm so sick and tired of people who claim to be all about rights and freedoms, but view anyone with different views to be a massive threat. People protesting the war are not un-patriotic. A bunch of countries opposing the war is not enough to completely withdraw from an organization that has helped us and the world so much. People are so short-sighted; people are so stupid.

Oh, and zahid, the mightiest may rule and do whatever they please, but that does not by any means make it right. Get some morals, man. This isn't the stone age anymore.

confuted
04-27-2003, 04:06 PM
Do tell...what HAS the UN done for us? The league of nations didn't work, and I don't know why the world thought that the UN would. Honestly, I've heard it described as "a debate club for rich people," and it's not far from the point. You probably assume that I'm against the UN because of the thing with the war, but I've been against the UN for as long as I've known about it, and I was also against the war...

joshdick
04-27-2003, 09:08 PM
http://www.un.org/News/facts/confercs.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/yir/english/page5.html
http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unsucess.html
http://dodd.senate.gov/press/Speeches/104_95/0627.htm
http://www.globaled.org/curriculum/UNB-Reading.html

And that's just what a little googling can do. I especially liked that last one. It talks about how the UN has changed how nations think about people and the international community.

Oh, and here's a big thing the UN has done for the world, the World Health Organization. Surely you can't tell me that the WHO isn't an accomplishment.

itld
04-27-2003, 10:53 PM
howdy,
Who pays the bills for the UN?

M.R.

novacain
04-28-2003, 02:38 AM
Did you also sign the other petition on this site?

>>A petition to redress the anti-American petitions and ad campaigns sponsored by Hollywood and academic Leftists ostensibly objecting to the U.S. military campaign against terrorism following the unprecedented attack on our countrymen September 11, 2001. <<

I'm sorry but doesn't that violate the "Hollywood and academic Leftists" right to FREE SPEECH?

The big problem was that other countries threatened to user their veto power to block a resolution the US wanted in the UN. The US then acts as if this is an abuse of power.

Prahaps you should look up which country has used its veto power in the UN the MOST and WHY.

Surprise, surprise........... its the US.

The most recent US veto was to stop investigation into Israel killing UN relief workers and destroying a UN food warehouse.

Want to know what else the evil, irrelevent UN wanted to have a resolution about that the US vetoed?

on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians:: Dec 2001

on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians:: March 2001

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm


>>but it's possible to cooperate with countries through alliances, trade agreements, etc, without being in the UN...and then we don't have to cooperate with the nations which don't play nicely with others.<<

In an envioronment where the US can throw its weight around in an 'one on one' fourum. Rather than in a democratic forum where a weak country can hope to have a chance.



"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Bill Clinton, April 2003

itld
04-28-2003, 09:39 AM
howdy,

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us. And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." Bill Clinton, April 2003

OR

we could send them money and beg them to stop. :rolleyes:

M.R.

Unregd
04-28-2003, 05:59 PM
So little time, so many faulty assumptions. First, the United Nations is neither an "external legislative body" nor is it an "'entangling alliance.'" The UN is many things, but it is not a world government organization. The various branches and levels of the U.S. governmental system remain sovereign and independent as shown by President Bush's actions.

If one country reasonably expects to work with another country, the international equivalent of respect is necessary. Precisely because the UN is not and cannot be a world government, it cannot coerce compliance from its sovereign members, specifically the U.S. The U.S. leadership had a humanitarian duty to call on the UN to stop genocide, too many times it backed away. The U.S. has neglected to pay its UN dues, depriving the UN of working for third-world concerns. With isolationists and unilateralists in the United States, the only current nation-state "super power," preferring the UN as the U.S.'s bully-pulpit or nothing, it's no wonder the UN has failed at its responsibilities. If walking out on talks on global warming, human rights, etc. and trying to buy support is "cooperation," then I'd rather see less "cooperation." Can President Bush and the other unilateralists realize that friends are not won when they are all treated as potential enemies?

Yes, France, Germany, and Russia let their self-interest show through when they opposed the resolution, but so did the United States in supporting and proposing it. It is hard to see concern for the downtrodden Iraqis when there is so much oil just ready to be liberated.

Returning to the text of the petition, "'Old Europe' and lesser nations" are equated with moral evil! If it is righteous for the United States to defend its own self-interests, how does it transform into being "morally evil" when these "lesser nations" do it? Oh, now I see. The UN's efforts may undermine corporate interests, conservative Christian morals, and the right to a machine designed expressly to destroy living organisms. We wouldn't want the UN cracking down on terrorist cells' ability to obtain AK-47's, nor would we want to interfere with CEO's' ability to extract wealth most efficiently from third-world countries.

rahaydenuk
04-29-2003, 12:32 PM
Taken from the petition preamble:
The United Nations, then, is not merely morally ambiguous, but morally evil -- a clearing house for the ambitions and economic interests of "Old Europe" and lesser nations

What exactly is meant by 'lesser nations'?!

The preamble to that petition is one of the most ridiculous, short-sighted and internationally-blind pieces of drivel I've ever read and the US calls itself democratic? OK, maybe there's democracy within the country, but God forbid another country disagrees with the US government.

Some americans really need to wake up and see that people have the right to disagree with your country's principles/actions, and that the US, as a major power, needs to listen to others' concerns, and not just go ahead and do what they want regardless.

BTW, I was in full support of the war in Iraq, but was not in full support of the US's blatent disregard of the UN's power and authority. If they can disregard it so easily, why should other countries respect it? It's that kind of attitude that means that bodies such as the UN are condemned to failure from the start.

Regards,

itld
04-29-2003, 03:27 PM
howdy,

Some americans really need to wake up and see that people have the right to disagree with your country's principles/actions, and that the US, as a major power, needs to listen to others' concerns, and not just go ahead and do what they want regardless.
no we don't, other countries need to realize the United States isn't playing the UN game anymore. WE the US can and will take care of it's own business with or without the aproval of anyone else.

M.R.

rahaydenuk
04-29-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by itld
howdy,

no we don't, other countries need to realize the United States isn't playing the UN game anymore. WE the US can and will take care of it's own business with or without the aproval of anyone else.

M.R.

Whilst I fully respect your viewpoint, do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants, whatever about anyone else's opinions, or do you only believe this is the right of the USA?

If the former is your opinion, then surely you are merely supporting anarchy in another guise? If the latter is your opinion, then surely you are suggesting a superiority of the USA over other nations? That sort of thinking was what caused the second world war, was it not?

*One plea everyone; let's try not to let this thread turn into a flame-war; let's see if we can have a constructive, thoughtful and intelligent debate on this interesting subject.*

Regards,

itld
04-29-2003, 04:19 PM
howdy,
i would agree with your second asumption, however at this point in history the US is unlikely to try to conquer the world. at some point a country must deciede to stand for itself, this is not anarchy it's not even superiority, it's principle.
even today i hear that the UN has placed Cuba in a high position on the human rights council.
how can the UN expect to be taken seriously when it make appointments like this.

M.R.

confuted
04-29-2003, 05:52 PM
The following are taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in Dec. 1948.

"23.1 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." (We're all ensured a job...Marx and Engles had this idea..."Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!")

"24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" (For anyone without paid holidays, go to your boss and demand them, telling your boss that they are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

"25.1 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." (For anyone who's ever needed something and the state hasn't stepped up and given it to you...I assume that's all of us...better complain to your local representatives)

"26.1 Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." (Yeah. Affirmative Action in colleges. Merit. I think I want to tell them I'm from Mars to see if that makes me enough of a minority to get admitted.) (that wasn't intended to offend anyone, and let's not turn this into an affirmative action thread, we can start one if we must, though. Anyway, the fact remains that at University of Michigan and other colleges, being a member of a minority group counts for significantly more than an excellent essay or perfect SAT scores.)

Just a cursory glance through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights brought up these violations by the most advanced nation in the world. Personally, I wouldn't WANT to live in a country which met all the demands in those articles...perhaps the UN is setting some impossible goals.

FURTHERMORE, nations are allowed admittance to the UN despite gross violations of the charter, a fact which has undoubtedly aided in the decay of the UN.

"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. "

"to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours" Heh. US, Iraq, Iran, DPRK (North Korea), more than I'm prepared to name...

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states " See above.

"A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. " Take a look at most of Africa, most of Asia, and much of the rest of the world. They/we're still members.

"the United Nations shall promote:...universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion...All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55." Wow...there are so many nations which violate this...the Middle East and South Eastern Asia are two big examples...along with places such as Rwanda.

I'm not going to keep citing these things. There are way too many examples which prove that the UN is hypocritical. If those are the goals of member nations, and if the failure to honor them can get a nation removed from the UN, why were nations practicing genocide ever admitted? Furthermore, why are these nations allowed to continue to hold membership when they clearly have no regard for the UN charter? Perhaps if members in good standing were willing to enforce the ideals of the UN through selective membership, something would get done. Until then, however...Rwanda, Somalia, Pakistan, Mauritius (total population: 1200) and North Korea will continue to have the same influence as Germany, Canada, Mexico, Australia and Spain.

OneStiffRod
04-29-2003, 06:17 PM
>>do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants, whatever about anyone else's opinions, or do you only believe this is the right of the USA?

Yes, and Yes... most countries already do what they wish and the US will follow suit - what restricts the AFRICA nations from waring with each other and commiting attrocities - noone - they're doing what they wish along with IRAN, and SYRIA who support terror - noone at the UN prevented India or Pakistan from getting NUKES... so really the UN spends too much of it's time trying to restrict the actions of the US and not dealing with the rest of the globe.

It is clear that the UN has aspirations of becoming a WORLD GOVT. -- as shown by the setup of ICC and World Courts - the once lofty ambition of becoming a military entity and power - with it's efforts in BOSNIA and SOMALIA where a central commitee was setup to command the forces and both efforts ended in dismal failure. -- Also, the ambitions to create a world TAX that will go to the UN where at least 1% of your GDP must go to the UN.

The ambitions of the UN councils to be involved intimately within a countries political process by imposing it's standards for worker requirments, standard minimum wage, emission controls, and etc.
Whether you agree or not with the above it shouldn't be the UN who forces what a countries domestic and economic policies it should use. It's alright to pressure another country to adopt favorable policies with money incetives like the US does but to have the UN force it upon others with the rule of international law is BS.

novacain
04-29-2003, 08:56 PM
The UN brings in these countries with terrible human right records in teh hope that they can be coerced diplomatically to reform (as the only other option is by force which will not benift those who are oppressed)

The veto power is what has eroded the UN.

No small country has a chance (against a major power or its allies) when their resolutions can be thrown out on a whim.
We need a world government/court that can stop corporations exploiting poorer countries for their natural resources and cheap labour.

>>do you really believe that any country should be able to do what it wants,

OSR >> yes

So Iraq should be allowed to develop WMD?

North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes?

>>however at this point in history the US is unlikely to try to conquer the world.

I think it already has. Thru its corporations and culture. They run the show in the US and many other countries. Just the threat of an army ten times its nearest rival (and a demonstrated willingness to use it) is enough to force most countries to tow the US line.

itld
04-29-2003, 09:12 PM
howdy,

Thru its corporations and culture
yes there is no question that America is the leader in the industrialized world economy, But is that a bad thing. i think not. that kind of control in the hands of a nation like Iran would be a travisty to say the least.

We need a world government/court
my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??
are you serious??
gives me the chills just thinking of it.

M.R.

OneStiffRod
04-29-2003, 10:14 PM
>>So Iraq should be allowed to develop WMD?

>>North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes?

Yes, weren't and aren't they already... it's also are right to KICK THEIR ASS for doing so.

novacain
04-30-2003, 12:11 AM
You can't have it both ways OSR.

You can't say that these countries should be able to develop WMD. Then say that you have the right to attack them if they do.

And no, Iraq was not allowed to. Wasn't that the reason for the sanctions and the war?

>> my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??<<

Some thing to stop corprations from exploiting workers. Think about all the Americans on unemplyment after thier jobs are moved to cheap labour countries offshore.

Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?

I feel that the world environment belongs to me as much as it does to you or any corporation.
Yet in countries like Angola, Boganville and Nigeria safety and environmental protections are removed so the corporation can make more profit.

Who protects the population of these countries against corporations who make more proift than the countries GDP? (and so can buy whom ever they need to ensure their activities can continue?)

OneStiffRod
04-30-2003, 12:34 AM
>>Who pays these benifits?
>>We as tax payers do.
>>So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can >>make more profit?

Uhh we will pay anyway, but my way I'm paying the TAX to my govt. and not the UN -- do u think that the UN won't require taxes and a hefty increase in taxes at that to pull the weight for those countries who can't survive w/o suking at the UN's teet...

To give an example a LAW is being proposed at the UN right now to tax the internet and those monies will go to the UN -- the UN is trying to get this law to be passed in it's council -- the law namely is a 1cent tax on every email throughout the world - if this law passes and the UN gains international LAW status with the expansion of the ICC -- all of us will have to pay 1cent to the UN to send an email...

The UN sees itself as a perfect entity to tax things that cross international boundries like the internet.

novacain
04-30-2003, 12:51 AM
>> To give an example a LAW is being proposed at the UN right now to tax the internet and those monies will go to the UN -- the UN is trying to get this law to be passed in it's council -- the law namely is a 1cent tax on every email throughout the world - if this law passes and the UN gains international LAW status with the expansion of the ICC -- all of us will have to pay 1cent to the UN to send an email...<<

LOL! this is an old joke. Post a link if you have some info.

Its not like the US states trying to add sales tax to internet transactions.

That is if you buy something on line which state gets the sales tax? The one the buyer is in, the one the seller is in? The one the company is registered in?

adrianxw
04-30-2003, 01:26 AM
A number of authorities have suggested paying a nominal fee for send each e-mail. I believe the figure being talked about is more like 0.01 cents. It is being discuused as an anti mass mailing spam counter, not a tax however. AOL, YaHoo and MicroSoft are amongst the players in that game, there are stories on all of their web sites, BBC, THG...

itld
04-30-2003, 06:48 AM
howdy,

Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?
dead wrong
we the bussiness owners have to pay into the unemployment fund every quarter. local, state and federal taxes have nothing to do with it. if i lay an employee off he is paid out of the $$$ my company has paid into the fund, then my unemployment insurance premium is increased.

M.R.

OneStiffRod
04-30-2003, 02:31 PM
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,20705,00.html

There's your link... the report has been used to author the BILL that is currently in the UN -- fortunately it's receiving little support but someday I'm sure it will...

novacain
04-30-2003, 08:22 PM
>> we the bussiness owners have to pay into the unemployment fund every quarter. local, state and federal taxes have nothing to do with it. if i lay an employee off he is paid out of the $$$ my company has paid into the fund, <<

So if I am unemployed, I don't get cheap healthcare, housing (rent or govt assisted loans), food or other government assistance?

As I am unempolyed I am not contributing to that tax base, purchasing or saving. In other words contibuting to the economy.

>>then my unemployment insurance premium is increased.<<

So the employees unemployment benifit is payed 100% from his former employers pre paid contributions?

No 'top up' from the federal purse?


OSR:from your link
"Raworth said that the UN would be in no position to enforce the tax, and that the proposal was merely a suggestion. Individual member nations will decide whether or not to adopt the idea."

Even if it got to the floor of a UN meeting, one veto and its gone...........

itld
04-30-2003, 09:32 PM
howdy,
you are right in the respect that if you chose to apply for and receive public assistance then that comes out of the federal government/tax payers pocket.
in the state of New Mexico the employer pays into a pool that all unemployment benifits are drawn from, i'm sure if it was to run dry the state government would contribute to it however it is set up to pay out less than is payed in. all unemployment is handled at the state level AFAIK the fed's only get involved when the fund gets into trouble.

M.R.

confuted
04-30-2003, 10:00 PM
>>Even if it got to the floor of a UN meeting, one veto and its gone...........

Veto is ONLY in security council, which wouldn't be dealing with that resolution. It would likely go through the economic committee before being brought to a vote in the General Assembly, where it is a straight vote...one vote per country, regardless of size and human rights violations.

Scourfish
05-01-2003, 11:39 PM
it's just a jingo website run by a bunch of retarded jingo $$$$asses

WHurricane16
05-02-2003, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by novacain
Prahaps you should look up which country has used its veto power in the UN the MOST and WHY.

Surprise, surprise........... its the US.

The most recent US veto was to stop investigation into Israel killing UN relief workers and destroying a UN food warehouse.

Want to know what else the evil, irrelevent UN wanted to have a resolution about that the US vetoed?

on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians:: Dec 2001

on establishing a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians:: March 2001



And the road to hell is paved with 'good intentions'.

I disagree with you, novacain, and I'm going to tell you why: anti-semitism. We can't trust the U.N. to solve the Israel-Palestinian problem. We need them to solve it themselves. A touchy issue. I think Israel will give up a good chunk of their territory eventually but Israel's security would be that much more in shambles. You can't trust the anti-semitism wave out there, it's definitely not in Israel's best interest.

There are too many countries that have a new anti-semitic movement within their people. Some of those countries are in the UN (i.e., France). I know their have been mistakes by the UN and the US but I trust my country's leadership (for once) to do the right things after 9/11.

Interesting letter to Woody Allen about France. Something I found on the web ;) (http://www.ajcongress.org/woodyallen.htm)

I sure hope this puts things in perspective for some of you. The US seems like a war monger but there are many things going on behind the curtains.


Also, originally posted by novacain
>> my god look at what you are saying!
a world government??<<

Some thing to stop corprations from exploiting workers. Think about all the Americans on unemplyment after thier jobs are moved to cheap labour countries offshore.

Who pays these benifits?
We as tax payers do.
So you are OK with paying more tax so large corporations can make more profit?

Dude, after agreeing with what you said in that other forum topic (http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38751&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) your posts in this thread seems to have been done by a COMPLETELY different person. I'm baffled by some of the comments here.

A world government? Does anyone need a big brother? Heck, after the complaints I've seen about the US wouldn't you think they would be 100 times worse with the UN? This isn't Star Trek....a world union will never happen.

And about your slants against big corporations: why we dissing the almighty dollar? People have worked hard to build their empires, why do we want to take them down? Because of companies like Enron? C'mon, everyone isn't like Enron. Most of these corporations do big, big things for their communities....that's what I look at when I see such big companies. " What can that company do for the community they are in?" Enron did great things for Houston until the veil was unshrouded. It's funny because I was just thinking yesterday about how bad Enron hurt some good people in Houston :/

And before someone does it, don't take what I said about the dollar being 'almighty' serious. Sheesh.

Clyde
05-02-2003, 06:27 AM
" disagree with you, novacain, and I'm going to tell you why: anti-semitism. We can't trust the U.N. to solve the Israel-Palestinian problem"

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

"We need them to solve it themselves"

Then why give billions to Israel?

Anyway we don't need to let them solve it themselves, we need to put pressure on both sides to go back to diplomacy.

"world government? Does anyone need a big brother?"

A world government has nothing to do with "big brother", and would be a great thing.

"Heck, after the complaints I've seen about the US wouldn't you think they would be 100 times worse with the UN?"

No.... because the complaints against the US are based on their foreign policy.

"And about your slants against big corporations: why we dissing the almighty dollar? People have worked hard to build their empires, why do we want to take them down"

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'.

Plus they seem to have a stupid amount of influence over the US government (and other Western governments).

itld
05-02-2003, 07:15 AM
howdy,

A world government has nothing to do with "big brother", and would be a great thing.

HOW could this be a great thing???

M.R.

adrianxw
05-02-2003, 07:29 AM
>>> HOW could this be a great thing???

How could it not be? Instead of spending obscene billions every year on defence against other governments, that money could be released and used to solve REAL problems.

No more, "thats not my problem it happened in <insert non-important non-ally country here>", as ALL problems/disasters etc. are everybody's.

Until we have a central planetary government, we will never really go into space, and ultimately, we must. To do so requires global effort, we will not acheive this with the continual caveman tribalism that pervades much of the world, and I include the developed nations in that category.

Reading some of the comments in this and other threads makes me really wonder if we are all the same species. If we are, then I am ashamed to be one some times.

confuted
05-02-2003, 02:16 PM
"The State Department has approved spending
$600,000 of your income to renovate the kitchen
of the Waldorf-Astoria apartment for the U.S. ambassador
to the UN."

I'm glad the government works hard for us. </sarcasm>

Util_Mark
05-02-2003, 02:31 PM
Do not put your faith in organizations or governments, for they will always fail you because they are bult by men, which have an inherent 'sin nature' in them. The only "perfect society" or world will arise as described in Revelation 11:15:

The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever."


Read Hebrews 9:28 to see how you fit into this equation:

So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

itld
05-02-2003, 10:54 PM
howdy,
a world government would IMO create the following:

1. a group of supper eliteist would control everthing with no respect for culture.
2. all financial/net worth issues would be determined by one group with total disregard for whom created it.
3. organised religion and political diversity (i.e. political activism)as we know it would be in serious jepardy due to the watering down of individual rights.
4. the little people (you and i) would have no say what so ever in the creation and eforcement of laws. just look at what just happened in Iraq.
5. space travel would be a thing of the past, all eforts would be on bringing everyone into equality socialy and financialy thus leaving few resources for technological advancement.

i could go on but sufice it to say, world domination by a single force has been tryed and has failed many times through out history and if attempted now it would fail again.

M.R.

adrianxw
05-03-2003, 02:03 AM
With 1-4, if you live outside the US, you could be forgiven for thinking we have that now, (assuming you meant "super elitists" - I don't think I'd have much to fear from a bunch elite late evening meal eaters!!!)

Ultimately we must move into space to ensure the survival of our race. Having everyone on a single planet is always going to be a risk. That said, I would gladly sacrifice a few years or decades of progress in space if it meant solving your point 5.

Clyde
05-03-2003, 04:02 AM
howdy,
a world government would IMO create the following:


1. a group of supper eliteist would control everthing with no respect for culture.
2. all financial/net worth issues would be determined by one group with total disregard for whom created it.
3. organised religion and political diversity (i.e. political activism)as we know it would be in serious jepardy due to the watering down of individual rights.
4. the little people (you and i) would have no say what so ever in the creation and eforcement of laws. just look at what just happened in Iraq.
5. space travel would be a thing of the past, all eforts would be on bringing everyone into equality socialy and financialy thus leaving few resources for technological advancement.


i could go on but sufice it to say, world domination by a single force has been tryed and has failed many times through out history and if attempted now it would fail again.



I disagree with your points:

1: Don't see why you end up with super-elitism in a world government, if anything you end up with less eliteism because everyone is part of the same group.

2: Yea.... but that "group" would be everyone! I see no problem here either.

3: Why, would individual rights decrease?

4: We would be voters.

5: This is speculation, though it is pretty feasable, space travel might well be put on the back-burner for a while, but eventually it would get back in the spotlight.

The benefits would be STAGGERING, aside from the vast sums of money spent on defence we would actually be able to start solving world problems because decisions would actually get made.

If it happens and i believe it will (and that you can see the start in the EU), it will happen gradually over a LONG period of time.

itld
05-03-2003, 09:14 AM
howdy,

If it happens and i believe it will (and that you can see the start in the EU), it will happen gradually over a LONG period of time.
you make a valid point.
i think the UN and possible the Warsaw pact were probably an attempt at setting up a world government, both failed or are failing.

if you look at the US, the "leaders" are very seldom people from the main stream. they are usually bussiness people from families that have been wealthy for a long time. I doubt this would change in the case of a world governing body.

with a single governing body political diversity i.e. Democrate/Republican... would be gone. or basically the 2 party system we love and hate here in the US. i'm afraid that on the coat tails of a single government comes a single religion or at least a single recognized religion.

everyone on the planet voting??? now that would be interesting. i envision helicopter loads of Amazon tribesmen brought into a vilage to vote whaile the world military looks out for attacks from rival tribes men..

M.R.

Clyde
05-03-2003, 09:50 AM
"if you look at the US, the "leaders" are very seldom people from the main stream. they are usually bussiness people from families that have been wealthy for a long time. I doubt this would change in the case of a world governing body."

That is true of the US, but i don't think it's true of Europe (certainly not of the U.K.), hence it does not necessarily have to be true for a world governing body, it all depends on the mechanics of the system used.

"with a single governing body political diversity i.e. Democrate/Republican... would be gone. or basically the 2 party system we love and hate here in the US. i'm afraid that on the coat tails of a single government comes a single religion or at least a single recognized religion"

Whats to stop multiple political parties eventually existing on a world stage? or the existance of a world parliament/congress/other alternative?

"everyone on the planet voting??? now that would be interesting. i envision helicopter loads of Amazon tribesmen brought into a vilage to vote whaile the world military looks out for attacks from rival tribes men.."

Right not exactly a realistic scenario, but consider this scenario;

Individual countries form unified organisations like the EU and gradually over decades maybe centuries power is gradually transfered from the individual member states to the central organisation. For poorer countries the process will be much slower because of infrastructure problems, how they can be encorporated into a global governing body without paralysing the system will not be easy to solve but i don't see it as an insolvable problem especially given time.

I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon, but i do think that at some point in the future there will be a global governing body, and that it will be a great thing.

Still i have no way of testing my hypothesis so it remains mere conjecture.

confuted
05-03-2003, 12:15 PM
>>The benefits would be STAGGERING, aside from the vast sums of money spent on defence we would actually be able to start solving world problems because decisions would actually get made.

Umm...yeah. We wouldn't save money on defense, because what are now wars on an international level would turn into civil wars. I'm sorry, but some groups are never going to agree with one another.