Well, to be quite frank, they aren't relevant. I'm not saying it's right or good, but countries with power to act as they wish will only be restrained by the desires of the less powerful if they choose to care about such things. The UN is really beside the point.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Yeah all the places we need to restrain like nuclear powers we don't want with that capability or lawless states where terrorists thrive... that'll never come back to bite us on the ass... right?
Well, to be quite frank, they aren't relevant. I'm not saying it's right or good, but countries with power to act as they wish will only be restrained by the desires of the less powerful if they choose to care about such things. The UN is really beside the point.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
So basically because mainly the large, rich nations of the world don't want to bow to what's best for everyone in the world in basic areas and rights, everyone should suffer. Seems like a legitimate but very selfish request, no? Also, the UN does do many things of worth outside of some of the areas you and others refer too...whether it's humanitarian efforts or disaster relief or nation building... they've done better in that role than the world leaders on some occasions, so to simply dismiss the entire organization because the membership rots it's existence is hardly a viable or decent claim.
I don't recall saying anything like what you are describing there. Not liking the UN and thinking it shouldn't exist doesn't equate to me thinking that the rich nations of the world should have free reign and everyone needs to bow to them. My beliefs are far from that.
Sure the UN does some good things, but everyone assumes in the abscence of the UN good things would cease to exist.
Yeah all the places we need to restrain like nuclear powers we don't want with that capability or lawless states where terrorists thrive... that'll never come back to bite us on the ass... right?
Well, to be quite frank, they aren't relevant. I'm not saying it's right or good, but countries with power to act as they wish will only be restrained by the desires of the less powerful if they choose to care about such things. The UN is really beside the point.
What fails to be noticed is that we have all of what you describe WITH the existence of the UN. There are still nuclear powers that we dont' want with that capability, there are still lawless states where terrorists thrive, all the while there is a such thing as the UN.
how do you define getting along? ... the world ran as the mightiest ruled the roost before the UN ... is that the world we want to live in where empires tried to expand and everything was dictated by military prowess? ...
at least now ... smaller countries can have a voice in issues that have global implications ...
Yeah, but it would let Israel off the hook. They could continue with their ethnic cleansing and land grab unhindered.
The 20th century was the bloodiest in history, and with the exception of WWI that all happened when there was a United Nations (and its predecessor organization).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations 'The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue.'
here is a list of wars and genocides from the 1860s to 2004 with estimated numbers of casualties.
the UN was after WWII and the events leading up to that on that list do not suggest that the countries and people of the world got along well at all....
here is a list of wars and genocides from the 1860s to 2004 with estimated numbers of casualties.
the UN was after WWII and the events leading up to that on that list do not suggest that the countries and people of the world got along well at all....
The world got along without the UN for a very long time, and it could do so again. The organization is a joke, and that isn't going to change.
Yeah, sure it did. World War II was a picnic, right?
World War II didn't occur because there was no UN, it occurred because of the completely one sided sanctions put on Germany that allowed for someone such as Hitler to be installed as their leader. In essence it occurred because of World War I.
World War I didn't occur because there was no UN, it occurred because of entangling alliances between multiple countries. Many of the countries, if not all, were funded by the vast amount of savings the United States had acquired up to that point. Point being, if the US wouldn't have taken on massive debt supporting Europe's massive standing armies, European countries wouldn't have been able to afford those armies for very long and would've essentially been forced to enter into some sort of truce amongst themselves once war made them broke.
That's not what I said. The comment I responded to claimed the world got along just fine before the U.N, which clearly was horseshit. Would things have been different if the U.N had been around before 1939 and if it had been allowed to fucnction as was designed to do without a handful of countries abusing their power of automatic veto? Who knows? Maybe.
That's not what I said. The comment I responded to claimed the world got along just fine before the U.N, which clearly was horseshit. Would things have been different if the U.N had been around before 1939 and if it had been allowed to fucnction as was designed to do without a handful of countries abusing their power of automatic veto? Who knows? Maybe.
i think WW2 wouldve happened regardless. afterall whod want to be interferring in a country's internal affairs and screwing with their sovereignty?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's not what I said. The comment I responded to claimed the world got along just fine before the U.N, which clearly was horseshit. Would things have been different if the U.N had been around before 1939 and if it had been allowed to fucnction as was designed to do without a handful of countries abusing their power of automatic veto? Who knows? Maybe.
You may not have outright said it, but there was an underlying implication in your comment. Which I interpreted to mean that you felt things would have been different if there was a UN before 1939.
there was an underlying implication in your comment. Which I interpreted to mean that you felt things would have been different if there was a UN before 1939.
you have states, which are members of a democratic group, where decisions are made concerning everyone.
in principle the UN is the people of the world coming together to make decisions about the world, to prevent war and stupid things.
in practice, because members are unwilling to cede sovereignty, when the UN disagrees with a few of the more powerful members, they can simply ignore or veto, as was the case with Russia and the US for decades, including the famous resolution calling on all states to "obey international law", which the US vetoed to serve its interests in south america and to allow its ally (Israel) to continue its racism and land grab.
in principle the UN is a very much needed government, its literally the world coming together to make decisions. its diplomacy instead of war. its needed, and if members would abide by its rulings so many stupid and cruel and inhumane things could have been avoided, could still be avoided.
Noam Chomsky speech - Distorted Morality - http://www.torrentz.com/80741d6bd91bbf9 ... d554ef552f - in which he mentions the fact that the U.S and Israel both voted against a U.N resolution condemning international terrorism in 1987. The U.S then used it's veto and blocked the resolution. The reasons given for their negative votes were that the following paragraphs were unacceptable to them...
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and
to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
At the time of this resolution the ANC was regarded by the U.S as a terrorist organization - hence, the following phrase was seen by the U.S as problematic..
'..peoples under colonial and racist regimes..'
..and hence why the following U.N resolutions were all vetoed by the U.S..
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa. http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le2000.htm
Also, the phrase '..and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial
domination...' was understood by everybody to refer to the Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza. And so the resolution condemning terrorism was vetoed by the U.S because it would have interfered with U.S terrorist activities in Latin America and it's unconditional military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.
The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I don't recall saying anything like what you are describing there. Not liking the UN and thinking it shouldn't exist doesn't equate to me thinking that the rich nations of the world should have free reign and everyone needs to bow to them. My beliefs are far from that.
Sure the UN does some good things, but everyone assumes in the abscence of the UN good things would cease to exist.
What fails to be noticed is that we have all of what you describe WITH the existence of the UN. There are still nuclear powers that we dont' want with that capability, there are still lawless states where terrorists thrive, all the while there is a such thing as the UN.
Yeah, sure it did. World War II was a picnic, right?
Yeah, but it would let Israel off the hook. They could continue with their ethnic cleansing and land grab unhindered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
'The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue.'
the UN was after WWII and the events leading up to that on that list do not suggest that the countries and people of the world got along well at all....
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yes, but Israel didn't exist then, so none of that matters.
World War II didn't occur because there was no UN, it occurred because of the completely one sided sanctions put on Germany that allowed for someone such as Hitler to be installed as their leader. In essence it occurred because of World War I.
World War I didn't occur because there was no UN, it occurred because of entangling alliances between multiple countries. Many of the countries, if not all, were funded by the vast amount of savings the United States had acquired up to that point. Point being, if the US wouldn't have taken on massive debt supporting Europe's massive standing armies, European countries wouldn't have been able to afford those armies for very long and would've essentially been forced to enter into some sort of truce amongst themselves once war made them broke.
That's not what I said. The comment I responded to claimed the world got along just fine before the U.N, which clearly was horseshit. Would things have been different if the U.N had been around before 1939 and if it had been allowed to fucnction as was designed to do without a handful of countries abusing their power of automatic veto? Who knows? Maybe.
i think WW2 wouldve happened regardless. afterall whod want to be interferring in a country's internal affairs and screwing with their sovereignty?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You may not have outright said it, but there was an underlying implication in your comment. Which I interpreted to mean that you felt things would have been different if there was a UN before 1939.
Maybe it would have been.
in principle the UN is the people of the world coming together to make decisions about the world, to prevent war and stupid things.
in practice, because members are unwilling to cede sovereignty, when the UN disagrees with a few of the more powerful members, they can simply ignore or veto, as was the case with Russia and the US for decades, including the famous resolution calling on all states to "obey international law", which the US vetoed to serve its interests in south america and to allow its ally (Israel) to continue its racism and land grab.
in principle the UN is a very much needed government, its literally the world coming together to make decisions. its diplomacy instead of war. its needed, and if members would abide by its rulings so many stupid and cruel and inhumane things could have been avoided, could still be avoided.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm
General Assembly
94th plenary meeting - 7 December 1987
8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and
to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;
14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;
At the time of this resolution the ANC was regarded by the U.S as a terrorist organization - hence, the following phrase was seen by the U.S as problematic..
'..peoples under colonial and racist regimes..'
..and hence why the following U.N resolutions were all vetoed by the U.S..
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le2000.htm
Also, the phrase '..and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial
domination...' was understood by everybody to refer to the Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza. And so the resolution condemning terrorism was vetoed by the U.S because it would have interfered with U.S terrorist activities in Latin America and it's unconditional military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.
The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)