How many of you feel that...

Chris Austin

Nishant S wrote: Yup, and by dissolving it, we can avoid future embarassments as what happened in the past several weeks. Shit! :) How about the last several decades. The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

Chris Austin

KaЯl wrote: You mean, clean the mess after the party? Noooo! That makes it sound like work :) The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

Russell Morris

Nishant S wrote: ...the UN should be dissolved? I disagree. I think that it is a good forum for the world's countries to meet and argue. The fact that the security council remains divided, and that it could not stop the war the US and some others wanted to pursue, does not mean that the UN really failed. There is no organization that could force the US side and France side to see eye-to-eye on this issue. What should happen to the UN is that it should get the pompous stick out of its butt and realize that it has only the small set of powers granted to it by the more powerful member(s). The UN should stop parading around issueing all sorts of edicts and demands when it is almost always going to fall back on punitive sanctions (which just about everyone here will agree does JACK SHIT to help the situation) instead of military conflict. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"

KaRl

you're right. what about "try to manage the mess after the party" ?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Chris Austin

Excellent! That is far more political sounding. The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

Brit

Nishant S wrote: ...the UN should be dissolved? I mean they have just been exposed as a dummy organization with no real powers. I don't think they should be disolved. Regarding the "no real powers" part, I have to ask if you want them to have more powers. I'm sure that people living in a third-world country might want a UN with more power, but people in the US are worried about the possibility of a strong UN which overrules their government. While this seem reasonable in cases where the US is wrong, the problem is that people don't want a supra-national organization which supercedes their elected government and they don't want to get caught in a situation where the UN is wrong, limits their freedom, or taxes them. (At least with the US government, if a politician makes a decision the people don't like, the people can vote for "the other guy" or impeach him, but there is no recourse for a population which disagrees with a UN decision.) ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Nishant S wrote: But perhaps the Security Council can hang up its boots now Kick out the USA. It seems like their government wouldn't mind it at all. After all, they don't give a damn about the council :) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Stan Shannon

Does'nt that just reduce it to nothing more than a glorified Red Cross? "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Brit wrote: don't want to get caught in a situation where the UN is wrong, limits their freedom, or taxes them. There's a possibility that the UN may be wrong, but please remember that it is not a governmental institution. They can't limit the freedom of americans, unless the US becomes a rogue state. Nor can the UN tax the citizens of any country - it's not a government. -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Chris Losinger

yes. but is there a problem with that? -c

Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler

Maximilien

Non, this would be stupid, and diplomatically going back at least 100 years. UN has the power that the members give it. UN is not only the security council, they have gazillion other instances, UNICEF, UNESCO, High Commisionner for Refugees, ... have a look at UN.org for a complete list.... How would we go about solving international problems. There are needs for some supra national authority that can be at least a forum of discussion between countries. Max.

Maximilien Lincourt For success one must aquire one's self

Chris Austin

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: unless the US becomes a rogue state. [joking] If the country did become a rouge state, we would get 10 or more years of diplomancy before they did anything.:) [/joking] The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

ColinDavies

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Nor can the UN tax the citizens of any country - it's not a government. Taxation via International treaties is not direct, but it is still a tax. For example the UN membership fee that donor countries all pay must come from somewhere, and allmost all govts consolidated funds are achieved throug taxation. Agreements like the Kyoto agreement would have been virtually taxation without representation, as I don't think any country put it to a general referendum or plebiscide. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Naaah.. the French, Germans and Russians would be very eager to settle the score. ;) -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Colin Davies wrote: International treaties Exactly! They're treaties which means that they're voluntary. Kind of like contracts. You'd have to sign it before you are obligated to pay any fees. Colin Davies wrote: Agreements like the Kyoto agreement would have been virtually taxation without representation Something which Bush & co didn't sign. :) I do get your point, but I'm not willing to call the fees taxes, because you have to sign up for it. You don't sign up for taxes. I hope. :~ -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine

KaRl

Colin Davies wrote: Agreements like the Kyoto agreement would have been virtually taxation without representation, as I don't think any country put it to a general referendum or plebiscide Here was the Kyoto protocol adopted by the parliament. It's not direct democracy, but these are the representants of the people, after all.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

ColinDavies

I do not agree. There are a lot of other more minor problems in the world where the UN Security Council has had an impact. If nations can talk to each other, there is a better chance disputes will be resolved. And the UN provides this facility. In the current case, both Saddam and then GWB have disregarded the Security Council. While 2 wrongs don't make a right, the Security Council did once again offer the facility where this could have been resolved if it were not for the stubbornness of both sides. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

Chris Austin

I get what you are thinking Jörgen. I just makes me wonder, how effective is anything like Kyoto (which by the way, is an awesome city!) if it is voluntary? I guess this brings to question the very nature of the UN itself. Just thinking *almost* out loud. I am finding this thread extremely interesting because it hasn't spiraled into a left vs right debate....yet The word abbreviation is awfully long for what it means.

peterchen

You should stop seeing neoconservative propaganda, Nish. Yes, it's a pity that they could neither stop Saddam being evil, nor the US going to war. But loosing a battle does not mean you're powerless. Dissolve for what? Rule of the Fist? No security council is exactly what the right wing US powers would like to see: noone who dares to complain when they need to strike preemptively again. Of course we can return to the Pre-WW2 style of alliancing. Who will complain when Pak and Saudi team up to claim some territory of India? Everybody will be nose deep in his own sorry alliance's ass to do anything. The security council, and it's seeming "powerlessness" has it's reason, see end of WW2, every decent history book (Amazon should be able to deliver one even into the US). At least, the Security Council was strong enough not to make itself the nodding monkey for The Shrub.

Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen

Stan Shannon

I don't have a problem with it, but do we really need two such organizations? "My job is to protect America" George W. Bush.