Changes that would help make the U.N. better. What do you think should be changed and why?
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-06 20:45
Kick out the permanent members from the security council. Don't have any more permanent memberships, and no veto rights.
The current ones (US, UK, France, Russia, China) are in only cos they won one specific war (WWII), and atleast two new socio-economic blocs (India and the Arab world, totaling some two billion ppl just there) are, as such, excluded outright. Not to mention Germany and Japan, that are now economical powers in addition to having learned their lesson (largely) (unlike, erm, some current members...)
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-07 12:08
Disbanding it would be best. Fuck them.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-07 12:32
>>1
Nuke the place when all the members are attending.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-07 14:18
>>4
YOU SICK MONSTER
What about the people who live outside the UN building?
Name:
Xel2006-10-07 16:23
>>5 Because they don't want guns to be shipped everywhere and they hate the American SPIRIT and its SOUL and it's not what THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANT and GOOD & EVIL and GUN DEALERS MUST BE ABLE TO DO BUSINESS ALL THE TIME even though the guns may be used by violent fascist militias and terrorists and therefore any collateral damage in the war on the UN is justified!!! Sure, they dealt with polio and obstetric fistula BUT THAT IS NOT AS COOL AS GUNS GUNS GUNS SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT AND TELLING GUN DEALERS TO NOT DEAL WITH CRIMINALS IS- IS- STATIST!!
(Note, I still support the 2nd amendment and I know gun control rarely works and is a slippery slope of the highest order but most of the voices I here from the libertarian positions can be boiled down to the sentiments above. Guess what, nothing has an intrinsic value, not even sweet sweet boomsticks.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-07 16:39
Lets just disband the US government, burn the constitution and all american flags, replace them with U.N. flags, get rid of all national and state borders, and we'll let the U.N. 'human rights' commission (china, libya, etc) decide what rights americans should enjoy.
Name:
Xel2006-10-07 17:34
>>7 That rugged patriot who apparently was the best America's political climate could produce is already doing all that except the part with the flags and human rights commission. Guess what, the rest of the world broke out the popcorn when you invaded the wrong country, and what with the removal of habeas corpus it would appear the show just keeps getting better. But I can distinguish between political America and John Q. I think the least representative government in the western world is the American one (I fucking hope so), and that the most positive part about its current state is that almost half don't want to vote at all. That is not apathy or ignorance, that is realization and patriotism at this stage.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-07 18:54
Kill Koffi Annan
Name:
Xel2006-10-07 19:36
>>9 If benevolent incompetence was punishable by death... Oh I keep on forgetting that spouting populist, emotional sentiments without respect for the same universalizability principle on which the constitution rests is status quo amongst authoritarians and amateur libertarians.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-07 20:03
There are human rights and dozens of UN resolutions, but no-one respects them or takes seriously and such countries like China are UN members. It's just gentlemen's club for dictator's and other undesirables...
U.N. is an archaic system based on archaic ideas. Its nothing more than a red tape organization for the world to pretend to be civil and peaceful to the citizens of their respective countries. Never has the UN had the power to stop atrocities because it is inferior to the sovereignty of nations.
Considering how the sovereignty of nations is often represented by governments that do not reflect the desires of their people in human compassion and outrage at what they hear abroad.
It would be interesting if the UN was an organization comprised of individuals with the power to claim authority over the sovereignity of tyrants and dictators, as well as a valve for the citizens of democratic nations to directly shape their foreign policy, as their representative government should only have domestic powers.
Basically, if my government is sitting on it's hands while genocides are going on, well documented, well reported, well substantated atrocities against mankind, I ought to be able to do something about it without my government arresting me for "diplomatic" stability.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-09 3:39
And who will be sent to do this, risking their lifes perhaps. At then end of the day you listen to the police and the law they enforce because they will cuff and throw you in jail if you do not. What will you do to get a government to behave. Celebrities bitching does not seem to work. Embarassing the governments does not. Sanctions only work if they hurt the regime. If the goverment stops thier own people from keeping them in line what will be the difference if someone else tries.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-09 4:47
Well, WW3 hasn't happened so for that the UN seems to have succeeded. But that's the past.
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-10 23:14
>>19
Hrm, to take the typical American stance, that's what we did to Germany and Japan, and we definately changed their governments.
What I was argueing is that citizens should be able to fight if the UN sanctions actions against the country,
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-10 23:20
>>20
ummm, It looks like it could happen any time now...
Name:
Anonymous2006-10-12 7:09
Leage of Nations: Good idea, but megafail in practice. Basically hijacked by the first militaristic fuck that outgunned the others (until they stood together to stop him).
United Nations: Basically the same.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 9:32
tell the U.N. world power conspiracy nutcases to shut up and then fix the U.N.
no matter what the far right says about the U.N. we can stil make it work.
>>15
Yea, Inconvenient Truth was mega fail, not for the global warming part, but him crying that he didn't become president. What a fucktard.
At least he invented the internets(sarcasm)
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-02 21:10
>>8
"That rugged patriot who apparently was the best America's political climate could produce is already doing all that except the part with the flags and human rights commission."
I'm not disputing this. But to take Bush out of power for a shitty U.N. lover who will let them walk all over the Bill of Rights (like you seem to advocate), is not the solution.
The solution is to get some libertarians in power who will protect the constitution AND our national sovereignty & bill of rights.
"Guess what, the rest of the world broke out the popcorn when you invaded the wrong country, and what with the removal of habeas corpus it would appear the show just keeps getting better. But I can distinguish between political America and John Q. I think the least representative government in the western world is the American one (I fucking hope so), and that the most positive part about its current state is that almost half don't want to vote at all. That is not apathy or ignorance, that is realization and patriotism at this stage."
What the fuck is the point of all this? You think because I'm against the U.N. I automatically support Bush? You are one assumptive little shit, aren't you?
I don't support Bush. I don't support Kerry. I don't support Gore. I support libertarians 100% of the way.
once again another wingnut uses the retard Al Gore misquote created by the right wing media bias.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-05 3:20
Don't nuke the UN, that would hurt everyone else around them. I agree that blowing it up is the best course of action, but nuking it is just a little bit overkill.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 7:59
>>28
lol. he'd have won that election if he hadn't spent his whole career sitting around in the senate pissing on the bill of rights.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-06 10:03
>>30
I don't support either Bush or Al Gore fucktard, I just think Al Gore is full of himself, kinda like Clinton.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-07 3:26
Al Gore is a retard. LoL @ an idiot who critisized the Bush administration for disregard of the bill of rights, while apparently having a convenient memmory lapse regarding all the gun control laws he supported during his tenure in the senate, without regard to the 2nd amendment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 0:18
The UN is where you put your politicians when you don't want them to make any real decisions that affect anyone or could possibly cause harm to your citizens. No one listens to the UN, no one respects them. If the US pulled itself from the UN they wouldn't have a peacekeeping force. THE US is the UN force, all other euro countries pay lip service to it but do not do the bulk of the work. IF i had it my way i'd use all the United States armed forces to withdrawl to US territories and watch the world go to hell
>>34 The 2nd amendment is about purchasing and bearing arms. Doesn't say anything about where to carry it. Stop pretending that any limitation is unconsitutional.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 14:06
Do you believe the 2nd amendment is conditional and the 1st amendment absolute?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-09 15:17
all the amendments where made for a new country that needed to defend itself from itself and outsiders, this is not the case as mutch anymore, and as sutch the amendments should be rewritten.
>>42
Guns don't solve everything, but the fact that they don't solve everything doesn't mean they don't protect you from some things.
Your argument that because we have guns and society isn't perfect is full of shit. Guns are not a single solution protector of all liberties a hundred percent of the time. They DO* help though, in a few situations.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-12 4:14
>>45
Holy misinterpretation batman! An progun argument is that unregulated guns will retard the progression towards a police state. And apparently it does not. So is the progun argument just rethoric or am i missing something?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-12 7:31
>>46
Your communists are naive extremists. The world isn't a perfect place, communism is just a naive theory.
Welfare eliminates some people from living in poverty, but not everyone.
Gun rights prevent some tyrannic laws from ever working, but not all of them.
The patriot act simply permits phone tapping, since most people don't have much to hide or can simply communicate in untracable ways, there isn't much incentive to begin shooting politicians.
So far the only people who have been detained without trial are foreigners or people with direct and publicised links to terrorism. If the government started rounding up political opponents you would see collaborating politicans being shot as they leave their front doors in the morning etc..
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-12 8:34
>>47
"So far the only people who have been detained without trial are foreigners..."
Can you spell Nazi?