Y'all GOT to check this out..

[Banker]

Look at this shit, its either the most stupid or funniest shit Ive ever read.. Or possibly both.
Real scary though is that these idiots appear to be serious..


http://www.getusout.org/un/index.html

Damn, do I wish those fools had a forum to discuss their opinons in..

[Banker]

Some quotes from the site..


"Are you concerned that the United Nations...
...has already disarmed civilian populations?

A 1999 UN "Small Arms" report approvingly noted a number of gun control measures in various countries, including weapons turn-in and destruction programs. UN forces have already been used to disarm civilian populations in Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia. This same policy is likely to be implemented here -- if our leaders continue to transfer more power to the UN."

^ Do I even need to comment on this one..

"For decades, the UN has acted as a platform for anti-American rhetoric and a staging base for terrorism, espionage, and subversion by our foreign enemies. Far from providing "legitimacy" for global anti-terrorism efforts, the UN has been the international terrorist network's Trojan horse within our borders."

^
omg.. I guess the U.N has finally been exposed!!!!!!!
After all a bunch of backwater rednecks on a website says so, so it got to be true... right?


"In the Old West, Sheriffs didn't recruit cattle rustlers into their posses. Honest law enforcement officers haven't enlisted the mafia in the struggle against organized crime. it makes just as little sense for our leaders to turn to the UN for help in the war on terrorism."

^ Well, Yehaaaa motherfucker!
Them rednecks must be stuck back in the "good old west", even though they dont know shit bout it then what John Wayne "taught" them ..
There's no other era in american history where the difference between an outlaw and a sherrif was so thin as in the "old west"..
But I guess that isnt apparent enough in John Wayne or Clint Eastwood movies so therefore they dont know about it..

[Mas Tnega]

A UN Population Fund press statement acknowledged: "Besides [Bill] Gates and [Ted] Turner ... the Rockefeller, MacArthur and Hewlett-Packard foundations had all been very engaged in population [matters] and had made contributions to domestic as well as international prorammes."

See? Bill and Ted are making the world better! Shame that they aren't making music like destiny had demanded.

Also, what part of 'a suction device called "manual vacuum aspirator"' is going to make you think it's for anything other than abortion when it's part of an "emergency reproductive health kit"?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

There is alot of irrational fears about the UN. I just think the parallel to the early days of the United States is far too clear to be ignored as it seems like it is. These same types of concerns were voiced about the idea of uniting the former English colonies in America. The result was a very weak government under the Articles of Confederation. Eventually this was scrapped in favor of a much stronger Constitutional government. States did have to give up some of their power to the federal government, but who today would argue that any state would be better off had it not joined the Union? History has shown that states unitied under a fair but strong central government are much better off than if they were divided. That same would logically apply to the UN. I think it is funny that the US is so busy claiming to support democracy around the world, but largely rejects the largest bastion of international democracy, ie the UN.

[FrostShard]

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Gun!

What? No! Imagine a world where us noble citizens can't shoot people through the lungs when they piss us off! Damn those United Nations, damn them to Hell!!

[ToRmEnToR]

The UN lacks power and objectivity, and it's administration should also be reformed since it lacks balance and supervision.

It should exist, because it will slowly upgrade itself as the years go by.

The bad news are, that until the day it will upgrade itself to a normaly functioning global thingie, it will bring nothing but chaos to global politics and military situations.

[Banker]

The UN lacks power and objectivity, and it's administration should also be reformed since it lacks balance and supervision.

It should exist, because it will slowly upgrade itself as the years go by.

The bad news are, that until the day it will upgrade itself to a normaly functioning global thingie, it will bring nothing but chaos to global politics and military situations.

Well, a good start would be to take away the right to overrule any decision some of the members have..
The US for example has it, and has single handedly stopped resolutions everyone cept the US has voted for.

That's probably the most major problem in the administration,
the US has too much, not too less, power in the UN.

And lacks supervision?
WHO THE HELL SHOULD SUPERVISE IT?!?!?!
Another kind of U.N institution?
Or a single country.?
And what country wouldnt take advantage of such a position..

The U.N is the organisation that's meant to do the supervising.. Not the other way around.

And it will bring nothing but chaos?
Give me one example of "the chaos it brought to the world", that is, except the forming of Israel, which Im sure isnt what you're talking about.
States vote democratically in the U.N so if anyone has brought chaos to "world politics" it has to be one of the countries with veto rights.. Blame them, not the institution.


@ Stews.. It gets even worse, somewhere on the site or a connected one was something bout "The dangers of democracy; the closer we come to true democracy, the less free we become."

lol.. What a bunch of freedom fighters dont y'all agree?

[ToRmEnToR]

Well, a good start would be to take away the right to overrule any decision some of the members have..
The US for example has it, and has single handedly stopped resolutions everyone cept the US has voted for.

That's probably the most major problem in the administration,
the US has too much, not too less, power in the UN.

What about Britain, China, France, Russia? In case you didnt know, they have just as much power as the US has when it comes to the security council desitions...

And lacks supervision?
WHO THE HELL SHOULD SUPERVISE IT?!?!?!
Another kind of U.N institution?
Or a single country.?
And what country wouldnt take advantage of such a position..

The U.N is the organisation that's meant to do the supervising.. Not the other way around.

Who the hell should supervize. That is a question that must be answered. If you cant supervize the supervizers in any way, what kind of democratic organization do you have here?

That is the main flaw in the UN. People in all kinds of positions in the UN have already been accussed with all sorts of crimes (corruption and rape), yet no realy leagal actions have been made against them. Forget leagal actions; if I'm not mistaken, those same corrupted people still remain in their UN position.

It seems like the UN people themselves dont take their organization seriously. It's about time people face the flaws of the UN in order to turn it into a better global thingie....

Oh and also, Syria, which is a country which openly supports terror, is a member of the UN security council. 'nuff said.

And it will bring nothing but chaos?
Give me one example of "the chaos it brought to the world", that is, except the forming of Israel, which Im sure isnt what you're talking about.
States vote democratically in the U.N so if anyone has brought chaos to "world politics" it has to be one of the countries with veto rights.. Blame them, not the institution.

The UN is in charge of all sorts of stuff even though it doesnt have much power.

Imagine this country which doesnt have any money at all. Than some president gets ellected in a democratic way. That president has the authority to issue orders, and he always tells his people that he can handle all the problems he will face alone. He starts issued an order that says more houses must be built for the growing population. The construction of the houses starts, but it doesnt end because the country doesnt have money. So insted of trying to solve the money issue in the first place, the president's orders have lead to a total bankruptcy, and turned the situation in his country into an impossible one.

The UN likes to get involved in military situations even though they dont have enough firepower and manpower to control anything. They only make things worst that way.

And I think the veto power for the 5 countries in the security council is a good thing. Especially since those countries act very differently, they are able to balance each other out. The democracy you'll have without the veto power of those countries borders with anarchy or dictatorship. Do you belive that the majority is always right? Do you belive everything the majority wishes should be executed?

There is a story I saw once in some anime movie. It's about a country which was ruled for ages by one king. One day the people of that country had enough, and a revolution took place. They striped the king and his family from power, and desided that from now on, every desition will be executed only if the majority supports it.

And so it began. The majority wanted the king and his family to be executed, so he was. Than, a group of people wanted some supervizing organization that will have the ability to veto the majority's desitions. The majority of people didnt think that way, so they voted for the execution of the group that thought so.

Things went on that way, and every day, new conflicts surfaced, and each time, the majority chose to execute the minority, or imprison it.

Years have passed and more people have been executed. At some point, after a group of 200 people was left, a group of people wanted a new king to be appointed, so things could get back to usual. They were executed...

At the end 3 people were left. A man and his wife, and another man who was a doctor. The doctor wanted to leave and find some other place to live in. The other two objected, and he lost 2 -1. he was executed. After some time, the man's wife died from a disease... And that was kind of how the story ends...

Democracy as you want it to be is a loss of freedom. The minority will always be overshadowed by the majority. There must always be someone or something that can balance everything out.

[Banker]

What about Britain, China, France, Russia? In case you didnt know, they have just as much power as the US has when it comes to the security council desitions...

I wrote "some members", you do understand that isnt the same as "only US" right..

However, so far, only one country has made a habit of stoppin decisions sanctioned by every other country, and that is the US.
So they're certainly not powerless against the UN, more like the opposite..

Who the hell should supervize. That is a question that must be answered. If you cant supervize the supervizers in any way, what kind of democratic organization do you have here?

The member states governments should supervise together, which they already do..

That is the main flaw in the UN. People in all kinds of positions in the UN have already been accussed with all sorts of crimes (corruption and rape), yet no realy leagal actions have been made against them. Forget leagal actions; if I'm not mistaken, those same corrupted people still remain in their UN position.

Oh really... How about giving some (RELIABLE) sources to back these accusations up.

Oh and also, Syria, which is a country which openly supports terror, is a member of the UN security council. 'nuff said.

If a institution is to be democratic, each part must be represented. No matter if some people view them as terrorists or not.
Who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter varies with who's in power and setting the standards.
During WW2, in most of the world, everyone who resisted the german occupation was labeled "terrorists".
Its a word that in itself doesnt mean shit and everyone got a different opinon on who's a terrorist and who's not, just like you call fighting Palestinans for "terrorists" while others call them "freedom fighters".

The UN is in charge of all sorts of stuff even though it doesnt have much power.

Imagine this country which doesnt have any money at all. Than some president gets ellected in a democratic way. That president has the authority to issue orders, and he always tells his people that he can handle all the problems he will face alone. He starts issued an order that says more houses must be built for the growing population. The construction of the houses starts, but it doesnt end because the country doesnt have money. So insted of trying to solve the money issue in the first place, the president's orders have lead to a total bankruptcy, and turned the situation in his country into an impossible one.

I asked for a real example, not an imagination in our fantasy..

The UN likes to get involved in military situations even though they dont have enough firepower and manpower to control anything. They only make things worst that way.

I think I must ask you for an example again here.. Usually the UN troops doesnt get employed fore the war/conflict is almost over, and they're not there to fight a war but to protect civilian targets, like hospitals, schools etc, and also to prevent ethnical killings, like in Kosovo, and sometimes to collect arms.
In what way does that make things worse..?

The democracy you'll have without the veto power of those countries borders with anarchy or dictatorship. Do you belive that the majority is always right? Do you belive everything the majority wishes should be executed?

No, but I believe that when all states cept 1 votes for something, that single country shouldnt be able to overrule it..
You cant call that democratic by any definition, no matter how hard you try to twist these things.

There is a story I saw once in some anime movie. It's about a country which was ruled for ages by one king. One day the people of that country had enough, and a revolution took place. They striped the king and his family from power, and desided that from now on, every desition will be executed only if the majority supports it.

Please.. Keep your personal intrests and hobbies out. Thank you.
It's a movie... Not the real world.. Geez.

Democracy as you want it to be is a loss of freedom. The minority will always be overshadowed by the majority. There must always be someone or something that can balance everything out.

Yes, democracy where one state cant overrule all the others is such a slap in the face of freedom!
Its totally balanced that one state can stop any decision made by all the others.

[einstein]

While, ToRm, you undoubtedly raise some valid points, the anime film you seen was a perfect majoritarian democracy without minority protection. These are few and far between these days (can't actually think of one). All (civilised/developed/whatever the PC phrase is these days) democratic nations incorporate some degree of minority protection within their system - the US consitution, while not having an actual minority protection clause (AFAIK), protects the rights of minorities throughout - freedom of speech and protest being the best examples. The ECHR provides even greater protection to minorities. The UN itself in fact has a Convention on the protection of minorities.

Now... away from the subject of democracy to the subject of the UN...

To start with ToRm, Syria is not currently a member of the UN security council. So no, enough has not been said! The current membership is: (the five permanent members) UK, France, China, Russia, the US (the ten member states elected by the General Assembly for 2 year terms) Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Philippines, Romania, Tazmania and Alegeria. However, of course Syria can be a member of the Security Council if that is so decided by the General Assembly when they elect the next set of rotating members.

Now, on to how you think that having the five permanent members having the 'veto' is a good thing because they tend to have differing ideologies/etc...

First i'll start on the premise that the assertion they are different is true. One only has to look at the ineffectiveness of the UN during the Cold War to realise that where there is conflict between the Permanent Members the UN becomes useless. Russia would veto anything that was proposed by the US and vice versa - the Security Council became useless. So useless in fact, the General Assembly passed a resolution (or whatever the correct terminology is for a General Assembly document/proclamation, i can't remember... been a while since i did Public International Law) giving itself power to act without the Security Council.

Now, you believe they are different... or different enough to provide balance... while this might once have been true it is far from being so clear cut today at least as far as Russia is concerned. China however does still maintain a voice of dissent.

Banker, every institution or court, even if it is the highest in the land, needs to be supervised or rather be accountable. In fact it is even more important where they are the most powerful that they are accountable.

It is a fallacy to argue that the UN is unaccountable or unsupervised. As UN members are States, those who make the decisions are governments of States - and therefore teh UN acheives accountability and democratic legitimacy indirectly through member states governments. This is particularly true for the Permanent Member states, for others who can be bound by the decisions of the Security Council without a voice on it, it is less so.

I've actually got bored of writing about this topic, i have more to say but i'm done for now...

[the.web.hermit]

That's some funny shit I gotta hand it to you. It made my day.

I don't really feel like posting any opnions, so I won't.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

To start with ToRm, Syria is not currently a member of the UN security council.

Heh, I remember having to make exactly the same correction in some previous discussions.


Also, nearly every country's leaders have been accused of crimes, Israel and the US among them.

[ToRmEnToR]

I wrote "some members", you do understand that isnt the same as "only US" right..

You did however pointed this out:

That's probably the most major problem in the administration,
the US has too much, not too less, power in the UN.

And I was just wondering why they have 'too much power' while the other countries dont, even though they have the same status as the other 4 permenent members in the security council.

The member states governments should supervise together, which they already do..

Do the countries realy supervize the UN's administration?

Oh really... How about giving some (RELIABLE) sources to back these accusations up.

Just google "UN administration corruption".

During WW2, in most of the world, everyone who resisted the german occupation was labeled "terrorists".
Its a word that in itself doesnt mean shit and everyone got a different opinon on who's a terrorist and who's not, just like you call fighting Palestinans for "terrorists" while others call them "freedom fighters".

Oh, you gonna give me that crap now?

I'll give you a very simple definition of terrorism. Terrorism = Targeted harming of civilians in order to achive certain political goals. Piriod. I have no problem with 'freedom fighters' of any sort as long as they plan their attacks on military or administrative targets.

I think I must ask you for an example again here.. Usually the UN troops doesnt get employed fore the war/conflict is almost over, and they're not there to fight a war but to protect civilian targets, like hospitals, schools etc, and also to prevent ethnical killings, like in Kosovo, and sometimes to collect arms.
In what way does that make things worse..?

I'll have to withdraw from my earlier statement. And roll back to this one:

The bad news are, that until the day it will upgrade itself to a normaly functioning global thingie, it will bring nothing but chaos to global politics and military situations.

Which is totaly out of context to the argument that we are currently having about this specific point.

This is more of a gut feeling than a solid fact, since we are dealing with a very complex assumption here. When I replied to your reply on my first post in this thread, I tried to explain thoughts too complex to be expressed by text or speach (At least too complex for me, I always had problems with transfering thoughts to text). And that didnt come up realy well since it only showed a small fraction of the complete answer I wanted to give (because the complete answer could of taken well over 50 pages to write). Since all fragments group up to a single piece, arguing about every piece seperatly wont make much sence... It's like trying to describe a drawing on a complete puzzle by describing a one and only single piece of it

No, but I believe that when all states cept 1 votes for something, that single country shouldnt be able to overrule it..
You cant call that democratic by any definition, no matter how hard you try to twist these things.

<...>

Please.. Keep your personal intrests and hobbies out. Thank you.
It's a movie... Not the real world.. Geez.

<...>

Yes, democracy where one state cant overrule all the others is such a slap in the face of freedom!
Its totally balanced that one state can stop any decision made by all the others.

That is exactly my point. The movie described a situation in which the majority voted for something irrational, and no one could stop it. The majority isnt always right.

Yet it is problematic when a single person can veto the majority's desition.

This is why the current situation in the UN security council is almost perfect. Like einstein said,

Now, on to how you think that having the five permanent members having the 'veto' is a good thing because they tend to have differing ideologies/etc...

This almost completely nutralizes any major change in global situations. I said 'almost' simply because the countries which have veto power apply minimal consideration from fear of being frowned apon. This creates the soft ghast of wind that drives the ship forward without tearing it's sales. And as for the other countries in the security council are just puppets which dont mean much anyways.


PS.

To start with ToRm, Syria is not currently a member of the UN security council.

Yes, of cource, I keeep forgetting that. However, a while ago syria being in the security council was reality. Even the thought of accepting such a country in the security council should be condemed. It's a matter of ideology.

[Curiosity]

History has shown that states unitied under a fair but strong central government are much better off than if they were divided..

The difficult bit is achieving the fair... Was the Eastern bloc better off as Communist outposts being directed from Moscow than as individual States? I'd argue not.

Actually, achieving the right level of power is also difficult... The EU is supposed to provide the kind of strengthening unity you describe, but simply cannot handle the competing interests of 25 States who want to guard their own rights and independence. The EU could not turn in to a United States of Europe simply because of the differences between the nations.

The United States was a pretty original set of circumstances, as it was newly colonised and had not finished expanding and changing, both physically and politically, when the Constitution was implemented. I do not think in today's world drawing comparisons is either easy or prudent.

the largest bastion of international democracy, ie the UN.

In my eyes the UN is the largest argument against democracy in the world.
As previously noted, States which support terrorism can gain places on the Security Council. This is not an isolated example of the extreme backwardness that democracy in the UN leads to.

Who's looking over World Human Rights? Zimbabwe, China, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia... bastions of HR if ever there were.

Which 2 internationally renowned arms-control loving States were down to Chair the Conference on Disarmament in mid-2003... Iran and Iraq...

It may be a democratic way of doing business but to any sensible level-headed person it looks like insanity.

Giving the same power and representation in the UN to despotic dictators as to the leaders of the democratic States of the world is illogical and frightening. The Security Council permanent members and vetos are a much-needed counter-balance to this insanity. Could you imagine a SC where we end up with the likes of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. running International Security....

If a institution is to be democratic, each part must be represented. No matter if some people view them as terrorists or not.
Who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter varies with who's in power and setting the standards.

And here we have the biggest argument against the attitude of moral relativism which the left seems to love. While I cannot claim to fully believe in the absolutist standard of morals, when moral relativism sees many refuse to label those who murder innocent people deliberately to further their cause as 'terrorists', I must take issue. I'm not talking solely about Israel here, although that is an example. The attacks on the US, the Beslan school siege and subsequent massacre, the constant attacks on innocent Iraqi civilians, the Madrid bombings...
In each, there have been otherwise rational people who simply refuse to apply the word 'terrorism' to these actions. It has got to the stage where news agencies no longer term these acts as 'terrorism' or the perpetrators as 'terrorists' because it is seen as being a subjective term. The truth is, there are higher morals and a rational human can see what is right and what is wrong, unless blinded by other views.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

It's not relativism to point out that when the US kills civilians it is considered "collateral damage" but when others kill civilians it is considered an atrocity. When the US uses "shock and awe" to terrorize a nation it is considered a military strategy, but when others do the same it is considered terrorism.

I actually think it is generally the right that uses moral relativism, i.e. this kind of double standard. It seems many believe that right and wrong totally depend on who you are. If you are a friend, well then ethics and morals don't really matter, but if you are an opponent then even the least transgression becomes a rallying cry. Generally those on the left simply point out this inconsistancy in those who claim to be on "moral crusades".

If you truly believe in moral absolutes, then you cannot torture people just because they might have information that would be useful. You cannot abandon the poor so you can give more money to the rich. You cannot look away as genocides claim the lives of hundreds of thousands, while waging war on the world over the deaths of a few thousand people (9/11). You cannot campaign on a platform of moral reform and then change ethics rules so one of your leader can escape the consequences of his misdeeds. You cannot repress democracy and freespeech at home while trying to force it on other nations abroad. You cannot oppose theocracies abroad while trying to institute one at home. If you believe in moral absolutes then you have to be willing to apply those as much (if not more so) to your self as to others.