For those blindly in love with the U.N

2

Comments

  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    For the most part I have never found myself agreeing with you on other things, but this...this I totally agree with. Majority rule in many cases amounts to mob rule. I see things being centralized on an international level akin to a loss of individuality and I absolutely believe in nations remaining sovereign.
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    If every nation simply holds their sovereignty in regards to international law and the UN, you are predetermining the failure of the UN. Then you complain about it's hypocrisy, lack of success and bureaucratic nonsense - can't have it both ways. Either nations comply and it benefits everyone or nations don't comply and you see lawlessness.
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    For the most part I have never found myself agreeing with you on other things, but this...this I totally agree with. Majority rule in many cases amounts to mob rule. I see things being centralized on an international level akin to a loss of individuality and I absolutely believe in nations remaining sovereign.
    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
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    yosi wrote:
    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.

    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 ...
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    When exactly did the world do so great before the UN? History has said the opposite in fact the main and sole reason the UN was created and implemented was to change the ways things were before. Albeit it has been undermined in the 20th and 21st centuries, it's goals, objectives and mission are to the benefit of everyone in the world.
    yosi wrote:
    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.
    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
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    FiveB247x wrote:
    If every nation simply holds their sovereignty in regards to international law and the UN, you are predetermining the failure of the UN. Then you complain about it's hypocrisy, lack of success and bureaucratic nonsense - can't have it both ways. Either nations comply and it benefits everyone or nations don't comply and you see lawlessness.
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    yosi wrote:
    So what would happen then if China were to exert its influence to get a majority behind a resolution recognizing Chinese claims to Tibet and Taiwan? Or if the Russians used their oil influence in a similar way (or for that matter the Saudis) to implement resolutions in their favor that many of us would find deplorable? As much as you may want to believe in the power of international law the truth remains that at the level of relations between states international law is pretty much meaningless, and will remain so as long as sovereign states refuse to give up their sovereignty. And in a world where so many states are corrupt and murderous I am very glad that the majority does not rule.

    For the most part I have never found myself agreeing with you on other things, but this...this I totally agree with. Majority rule in many cases amounts to mob rule. I see things being centralized on an international level akin to a loss of individuality and I absolutely believe in nations remaining sovereign.

    I think that is kind of my point. I think the UN should fail and cease to exist.
  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    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.
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    I think that is kind of my point. I think the UN should fail and cease to exist.
    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
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,158
    Does the UN do some good things? Of course. But if its main purpose is to prevent conflict then it is an utter failure. 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). In the arena of international relations the world is a jungle where power is the ultimate trump card. All the UN does is put a slightly prettier face on this picture. You can argue that one world government would be preferable, and that the UN is a step in that direction, but I would never want to see that. One world government comes too close to totalitarianism for me, and I fail to see how it could function, given human diversity, without crossing that line.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • ONCE DEVIDED
    ONCE DEVIDED Posts: 1,131
    I for one have no issue with Iran being on a commission about womens rights. seems to be one of the more liberated muslim countries in regards to women in the muslim world from what I see.
    Regardless, if we only have peoples who hold the same views in our arguments, do we learn do we grow.
    Nothing wrong with differing viewpoints
    this thread is more aboout the enemy of isreal having a say
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,158
    Are you for real?
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the UN isn't about one world government ... it's about finding common ground on global issues ... you can decry its results over the years but to say that it is unnecessary is to say that the voices of those that live in smaller countries are not relevant ...
  • yosi
    yosi NYC Posts: 3,158
    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

  • FiveB247x
    FiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    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?
    yosi wrote:
    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
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    FiveB247x wrote:
    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.
    FiveB247x wrote:
    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?
    yosi wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    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?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    polaris_x wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    yosi wrote:
    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.'
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,198
    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....

    http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    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....

    http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

    Yes, but Israel didn't exist then, so none of that matters.
  • Sludge Factory
    Sludge Factory Posts: 976
    Byrnzie wrote:
    yosi wrote:
    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Sludge Factory wrote:
    World War II didn't occur because there was no UN

    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.

Categories