Daily Politics!

[taks]

is it because George Bush doesn't know many people, he seems to recycle the  same people into new offices.

uh, this is common in any political appointment. reasonable, too. think about it... who would you appoint to a purely political post? somebody you know and trust already. the UN ambassador doesn't have any real power, btw.

 

and this choice is very disturbing since he is representing us for the UN, but thinks we own the un, is he looking for a fight?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, the US is one of the largest contributors (including private donations), founded the UN AND, hosts the UN... but that is irrelevant. bolton doesn't so much think thethe US owns the UN, he thinks the US should be OUT OF THE UN. and i concur.

 

taks

[taks]

The five most influential nations (USA, France, UK, China and Russia) have something that's called a veto.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's the security council, mkreku. get your story straight.

 

the UN being "weak" is a different beast. general UN policy is not run by the security council.

 

taks

[Darth Flatus]

The UNSECO are the winners of WW2, nothing to do with so called influence.

[Nur Ab Sal]

They should add some african and south american nations to the Security Council.

Simple. And Bolton is an arrogant copycat btw.

[Baley]

There shouldn't be a Security Council at all. It's not democratic

[B5C]

They should add some african and south american nations to the Security Council.

Simple. And Bolton is an arrogant copycat btw.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Heck UN needs Bolton. Without Bolton at the UN. The UN will contine its failings.

[Baley]

Oh yes where would we be without our American Ambasador

[Nur Ab Sal]

Heck UN needs Bolton. Without Bolton at the UN. The UN will contine its failings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand that by failings you understand UN's lack of approval toward dubya-made colonialism? From certain point of view that's success

[Laozi]

Dude, the U.N. will one day become the Federation and be the only thing keeping the Romulans and the Klingons from coming in and pushing us around

[taks]

There shouldn't be a Security Council at all. It's not democratic

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

what, and you think the UN general assembly is democratic?

 

when do I get to vote on UN leadership?

 

taks

[B5C]

Dude, the U.N. will one day become the Federation and be the only thing keeping the Romulans and the Klingons from coming in and pushing us around

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats the point. I dont want the UN to become a world government. Like for exsample is the EU. In a few years the EU will become one big giant nation.

[Darth Flatus]

HAHA! no it wont - hopes in vain EU will crumble. Or at least that it will stay like it is and we don't join it.

[Reveilled]

Heck UN needs Bolton. Without Bolton at the UN. The UN will contine its failings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand that by failings you understand UN's lack of approval toward dubya-made colonialism? From certain point of view that's success

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the UN was doing the things it should, there would be no need for unilateral action. As it is, mass murderers are allowed to remain in power across the world. Take Iraq. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, but why did the UN need that to take action? Saddam may not have been breaking international law at the time of the war, but the UN is the closest thing our planet has to a world government, and if anyone should be the world's policeman, it should be the UN. Saddam was a mass murderer, who in the past gassed thousands of his own people. Yet where was the international police? When was Saddam arrested by the world's policeman for murder?

 

The UN is failing not because it doesn't support "American colonialism", but because its lack of action opens the door for that very thing by not properly policing the world.

 

If you opposed the war, can't you see that the UN is failing you too? Do you believe that the Iraq war was illegal? If so, why hasn't the UN arrested President Bush for it? The UN is failing everyone who believes in the rule of law, every person on the left and right. The only people it is helping are those who crave oppression and genocide.

[Nur Ab Sal]

At the same time USA continues its support to several dozens totalitarian regimes

on our planet who bow to american concerns. So no. I do not support war in Iraq cause it is all about oil, not freedom. In the USA Dubya Gang continues to cut civil liberties with their patriot acts and terrorist-witch-hunts. US foreign policy has nothing common with freedom and democracy. Its only a verbal fog. All who support that war are either hypocrits or fools.

 

And if UN fails its becouse of global bullies like USA or long dead USSR.

[Reveilled]

At the same time USA continues its support to several dozens totalitarian regimes

on our planet who bow to american concerns. So no. I do not support war in Iraq cause it is all about oil, not freedom. In the USA Dubya Gang continues to cut civil liberties with their patriot acts and terrorist-witch-hunts. US foreign policy has nothing common with freedom and democracy. Its only a verbal fog. All who support that war are either hypocrits or fools.

 

And if UN fails its becouse of global bullies like USA or long dead USSR.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

SO why doesn't the UN do something about these bullies?

[213374U]

At the same time USA continues its support to several dozens totalitarian regimes

on our planet who bow to american concerns. So no. I do not support war in Iraq cause it is all about oil, not freedom. In the USA Dubya Gang continues to cut civil liberties with their patriot acts and terrorist-witch-hunts. US foreign policy has nothing common with freedom and democracy. Its only a verbal fog. All who support that war are either hypocrits or fools.

 

And if UN fails its becouse of global bullies like USA or long dead USSR.

It's called imperialism. That's what superpowers do.

 

Keep dreaming about golden utopies, they aren't going to happen anytime soon.

[Loof]

True but thats why they are dreams ....

[Laozi]

This reminds me of a little ditty cooked up a while back

 

"I don't need to be a global citizen,

'Cuz I'm blessed by nationality.

I'm a member of a growing populace,

We enforce our popularity.

There are things that seem to pull us under and,

There are things that drag us down

But there's a power and a vital presence,

It's lurking all around.

 

We've got the american Jesus

See him on the Interstate

We've got the American Jesus

Exercising his authority

We've got the American Jesus

Bolstering national faith

We've got the American Jesus

Overwhelming millions everyday."

-Greg Graffin

[WITHTEETH]

I wish US could seperate like Europe! I'm from a blue state! :D

[Baneblade]

If the UN was doing the things it should, there would be no need for unilateral action.  As it is, mass murderers are allowed to remain in power across the world.  Take Iraq.  Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, but why did the UN need that to take action?  Saddam may not have been breaking international law at the time of the war, but the UN is the closest thing our planet has to a world government, and if anyone should be the world's policeman, it should be the UN.  Saddam was a mass murderer, who in the past gassed thousands of his own people.  Yet where was the international police?  When was Saddam arrested by the world's policeman for murder?

 

The UN is failing not because it doesn't support "American colonialism", but because its lack of action opens the door for that very thing by not properly policing the world.

 

If you opposed the war, can't you see that the UN is failing you too?  Do you believe that the Iraq war was illegal?  If so, why hasn't the UN arrested President Bush for it?  The UN is failing everyone who believes in the rule of law, every person on the left and right.  The only people it is helping are those who crave oppression and genocide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

UN Charter

 

'Nuff Said.

 

SO why doesn't the UN do something about these bullies?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

can't as all major powers have a veto.

[Reveilled]

 

If the UN was doing the things it should, there would be no need for unilateral action.  As it is, mass murderers are allowed to remain in power across the world.  Take Iraq.  Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, but why did the UN need that to take action?  Saddam may not have been breaking international law at the time of the war, but the UN is the closest thing our planet has to a world government, and if anyone should be the world's policeman, it should be the UN.  Saddam was a mass murderer, who in the past gassed thousands of his own people.  Yet where was the international police?  When was Saddam arrested by the world's policeman for murder?

 

The UN is failing not because it doesn't support "American colonialism", but because its lack of action opens the door for that very thing by not properly policing the world.

 

If you opposed the war, can't you see that the UN is failing you too?  Do you believe that the Iraq war was illegal?  If so, why hasn't the UN arrested President Bush for it?  The UN is failing everyone who believes in the rule of law, every person on the left and right.  The only people it is helping are those who crave oppression and genocide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

UN Charter

 

'Nuff Said.

 

Exactly! The preambe speaks constantly of increasing freedom, respect for human life, and so on. Yet what does the UN do when the leader of a country commits genocide? Does it see that the killer is brought to trial? Does it see that justice is done? No, it sits around and basically twiddles its thumbs and imposes economic sanctions. When a regular civilian murders someone, the police don't enforce a pay cut, they put him in prison. Why should it be any different just because the killer is the head of a country?

 

If the details of the charter prevent doing anything more, then the charter is not being true to the intention, and should be changed.

 

SO why doesn't the UN do something about these bullies?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

can't as all major powers have a veto.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So have all the non-veto powers get together, and agree to refuse entry to the veto powers while a vote is taken to revoke their veto powers. If the veto powers don't like that, well, too bad for them. if the veto given to those powers is preventing the UN from being true to the charter, it has to be revoked.

 

But would the UN do this, or would it rather sit around, twiddle its thumbs, and moan about the Security Council veto?

 

Then we'll see just how well the UN does in dealing with mass murderers. My guess is that nothing better will come of it unless those dictatorships are removed from the UN (as the preamble would seem to indicate should be done), but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

 

The point is, the UN won't take the actions that it should take without individual nations intervening, failing the people who believe in the spirit in which the charter was written.

At the same time, by not taking action against the 'bullies' that are supposedly ruining the UN, by sitting around and letting them ruin it, it fails those who want to see the UN as an influencial body.

 

By following only the letter of its laws, and completely ignoring the spirit in which they were made, the UN fails everyone except those who thrive on murder and injustice.

[sawyl]

Post above = THANK YOU.

 

Because the U.N. doesn't take enough action, it's forced America to become the Dirty Harry of the world. (Not that the Security Council has helped it any.) Where is the U.N. in Africa? In South America? The U.N. has become the League of Nations of its time: a nice gesture, but in reality powerless.

[WITHTEETH]

Do you think the UN actually would have power with out the hand full of BIG countries? The UN is a great idea, its ahead of its time! The rest of the world just to needs to catch up, then it will be smooth sailing. till then can it really be democratic?

 

I only hope the UN the best of luck, and hope US doesn't leave it.

 

Comments?

[Baneblade]

Exactly!  The preambe speaks constantly of increasing freedom, respect for human life, and so on.  Yet what does the UN do when the leader of a country commits genocide?  Does it see that the killer is brought to trial?  Does it see that justice is done?  No, it sits around and basically twiddles its thumbs and imposes economic sanctions.  When a regular civilian murders someone, the police don't enforce a pay cut, they put him in prison.  Why should it be any different just because the killer is the head of a country?

 

If the details of the charter prevent doing anything more, then the charter is not being true to the intention, and should be changed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So have all the non-veto powers get together, and agree to refuse entry to the veto powers while a vote is taken to revoke their veto powers.  If the veto powers don't like that, well, too bad for them.  if the veto given to those powers is preventing the UN from being true to the charter, it has to be revoked.

 

But would the UN do this, or would it rather sit around, twiddle its thumbs, and moan about the Security Council veto?

 

Then we'll see just how well the UN does in dealing with mass murderers.  My guess is that nothing better will come of it unless those dictatorships are removed from the UN (as the preamble would seem to indicate should be done), but perhaps I'm wrong.

 

 

The point is, the UN won't take the actions that it should take without individual nations intervening, failing the people who believe in the spirit in which the charter was written.

At the same time, by not taking action against the 'bullies' that are supposedly ruining the UN, by sitting around and letting them ruin it, it fails those who want to see the UN as an influencial body.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The UN was created to Inspire nations of the world towards peace, not to force them into it.

 

 

By following only the letter of its laws, and completely ignoring the spirit in which they were made, the UN fails everyone except those who thrive on murder and injustice.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Both the Letter and the Spirit of the law are allways subject to interpretations.

 

Just remember, it's easier to judge the failures and shortcomings than the Accomplishments and successes of an organization like UN.

 

Post above = THANK YOU.

 

Because the U.N. doesn't take enough action, it's forced America to become the Dirty Harry of the world. (Not that the Security Council has helped it any.) Where is the U.N. in Africa? In South America? The U.N. has become the League of Nations of its time: a nice gesture, but in reality powerless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

UN is engaged in Aid and Relief efforts, as for the skirmishes, security council has considered that they don't warrant an intervention.

 

 

Do you think the UN actually would have power with out the hand full of BIG countries?  The UN is a great idea, its ahead of its time!  The rest of the world just to needs to catch up, then it will be smooth sailing. till then can it really be democratic? 

 

I only hope the UN the best of luck, and hope US doesn't leave it.

 

Comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

UN is a democracy of nations, all it's members have equal votes, except in security council issues where the permanent members have effectively a veto, as there must be at least 9 votes INCLUDING the votes of all the five permanent members in order to implement any proposed actions.

[Oerwinde]

can't as all major powers have a veto.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So have all the non-veto powers get together, and agree to refuse entry to the veto powers while a vote is taken to revoke their veto powers. If the veto powers don't like that, well, too bad for them. if the veto given to those powers is preventing the UN from being true to the charter, it has to be revoked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The General Assembly has no power, only the Security Council has power. If a resolution came to revoke the veto power, the big 5 would veto it. Its a shame too because the veto power is why the UN is ineffective. Its why Israel wasn't stopped from kicking Palestinian ass for so many years(I think there was something like 32 resolutions against Israel, but the US vetoed every one of them), its why the Rwanda genocide wasn't stopped(Not the US's fault alone, France and Russia also voted against going in). The UN needs to be disbanded and reformed with a new charter and new rules. The idea is good, but the execution is flawed.