Correction: why we shouldn't have a UN.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

That's what the Nazis said about the League of Nations. Only those who do not want to comply with international law think there should not be any.

Without the UN, the world would be in anarchy. You would have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the hands of dozens of nations. You would have much more human rights abuses. And you would have many more wars.

Not to mention all the good that organizations like UNICEF do. Do you know how many people from war zones have been given shelter in UN refugee camps over the years? Tens of millions of more people would be dead without the UN.

I almost think you are joking when you say there should be no UN. Are you saying that you don't like the format of the current UN, or you simply think that there should be no international body for resolving conflicts and problems in the world?

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

I personally believe that there are no international bodies for resolving conflicts and problems in the world today that has the moral compass to make decisions that will benifit any people it suppose to serve.

__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….

Yeah, you're right. The UN is clearly making things better.

Ever heard of Darfur?

How about Korea?

Shall I continue?

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

Yes, please continue.

How about Palestine and East Timor? More examples of the failure of the UN to do something.

But let me ask you this....

If you are in favor of democracy on a national level, then why not on an international level?

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Ahh...I would have to agree the UN is useless. Sure they offer shelter to citizens whose countries are at war, but isn't their charter to prevent the war all together? It is like a car company offering to pay the hospital bill after your injured because they couldn't figure out how to build air bags.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So how about a discussion about how to make the UN better. If we all agree that preventing wars is a good thing (somehow I doubt we all agree on this), then how about giving an idea or two about how the UN could be more effective.

My idea is that no country should have veto power in the Security Counsel.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

Much like the "League of Nations" it needs to go bye-bye and an entire new plan drawn up. I seriously doubt any of us here can assume we have such a great global understanding to simply come up with a solution. Who knows, maybe 100 years from now there will be teachings on how the X5World board in 2007 came up with the solution for the worlds ills

Something like the UN makes the assumption that ALL countries in the world are on the same page. That concept would work if you had maybe 5 main countries and everything else was a territory of that country...but since that is not so...to assume a gathering of 2/3'rds or so of the worlds leaders could solve anything is insane. The only "UN" there should be should be in regards to security issues and proliferation agreements over nuclear or chemical weapons.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Why not have a simple system of democracy?

The only argument I can think of is that a tiny country like Haiti should not have the same voting power as a large country like the United States. So then weigh the voting by population, or maybe by total land area, or maybe a combination of both of those factors. And since a simple majority (e.g. 51%) is likey to mean that a large percentage is opposed (e.g. 49%), then raise the percentage required for a resolution to be passed...perhaps 60%, or 66%. But NOBODY should have veto power over this majority vote.

And there should be no need for a security councel. The idea of a security councel was good in 1950 because back in those days, it would have been impossible for the reps of all countries to meet in one place on a regular basis. But today with the fancy telecommunication systems, it is no longer necessary to be in a single place. All countries should vote on all resolutions.

How does that sound for a simple idea?

While that is obviously a fair system, none of the 5 perminant UN security councel members would go for it, as they all want to keep their precious veto power. The US government won't even agree to an international criminal court because of the chance that US soldiers could be prosecuted by it -- a general admission that they do not think their soldiers should be punished for such violations.

As long as any country has veto power over all the others, that means they do not have to obey any international laws and the UN cannot do anything about it. And close allies of these 5 countries do not have to obey international law either, since they can count on their close ally to veto any resolutions against them. So in the end, there will never be any resolution against any country unless they are not a close ally of any of these 5 countries, or unless they do something so terrible that their ally would be too embarrassed to protect them by casting a veto (as was the case with UN security councel resolution #242). This is what has lead to the UN being a weak body and having no credibility.

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...