Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time for a change?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time for a change?

    Ive posted this thread here because its theme is based on recent history in this area.

    Context...

    Based generally on its overall history since its creation, but with SPECIFIC REGARD to its capabilities and achievements (or not) over the last 20 years.

    Question...

    Is it time for the UN Organisation to be radically changed or even scrapped, and if so should any similar style organisations replace it?


    Please give as much insight and comment as you can when answering. Thanks

    Gaz

  • #2
    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
    Is it time for the UN Organisation to be radically changed or even scrapped,
    Yes, certainly.


    and if so should any similar style organisations replace it?
    No, indeed.

    However, a "one world" government presumably might be among OmegaStrike's other choices in your isolationism thread.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Phebe View Post
      Yes, certainly.




      No, indeed.

      However, a "one world" government presumably might be among OmegaStrike's other choices in your isolationism thread.
      Phebe...

      If its to be changed then how?

      If its to be scapped, then how does the USA engage diplomatically with other nations, especially if THEY are part of larger 'organistations'?

      Gaz

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
        If its to be scapped, then how does the USA engage diplomatically with other nations, especially if THEY are part of larger 'organistations'?
        We negotiate, exactly the same as we do now. With groups (like OPEC) or individual state's officials, like Pakistan. No useful diplomatic work goes on at the UN.

        The UN has for some time been only a festering sore on the East River, a bullhorn for foreign enemy nations to preach against us and our interests. I see no useful function to us whatsoever for performances such as Ahmadinejad's and Chavez's coming to the UN and carrying on as they do.

        The UN doesn't reflect current power in the world. France as a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto? Instead of Germany, instead of India? It's left that way because to see that it is irrelevant is a handy way to illegitimatize it.

        If the world wants a UN, let them move it to Paris or the Congo or wherever, and then we can ignore it and the rest of the world can make silly speeches as they like without our having to look at them on TV.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Phebe View Post
          However, a "one world" government presumably might be among OmegaStrike's other choices in your isolationism thread.
          Well then, I guess I don't need to respond in that thread anymore. Is this OK with you, asg? Are you willing to accept Phebe's laser-like ESP as my answer to your isolationism question?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phebe View Post
            We negotiate, exactly the same as we do now. With groups (like OPEC) or individual state's officials, like Pakistan. No useful diplomatic work goes on at the UN.

            The UN has for some time been only a festering sore on the East River, a bullhorn for foreign enemy nations to preach against us and our interests. I see no useful function to us whatsoever for performances such as Ahmadinejad's and Chavez's coming to the UN and carrying on as they do.

            The UN doesn't reflect current power in the world. France as a permanent member of the Security Council with a veto? Instead of Germany, instead of India? It's left that way because to see that it is irrelevant is a handy way to illegitimatize it.

            If the world wants a UN, let them move it to Paris or the Congo or wherever, and then we can ignore it and the rest of the world can make silly speeches as they like without our having to look at them on TV.

            Hypothesis...

            The UN is dissolved.

            A new organisation is created in Geneva (for example).

            Many new global policies evolve BECAUSE the USA cannot intervene poltically at their inception.

            World policies are created that target the USA politically and economically.


            Question...

            How does the USA respond?

            Gaz

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OmegaStrike View Post
              Well then, I guess I don't need to respond in that thread anymore. Is this OK with you, asg? Are you willing to accept Phebe's laser-like ESP as my answer to your isolationism question?
              No mate...

              ESP out!

              Your thoughts in!

              Gaz

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post
                Hypothesis...

                The UN is dissolved.

                A new organisation is created in Geneva (for example).

                Many new global policies evolve BECAUSE the USA cannot intervene poltically at their inception.

                World policies are created that target the USA politically and economically.


                Question...

                How does the USA respond?

                Gaz

                You are saying that we control the UN (we house it and pay for it, true) so that gives us a lot of power over it that we would not have if it were in......Paris, or Geneva. An alternative world body that we aren't in?

                Well, that was tried, as you know. The League of Nations, that Senator Lodge wasn't having any of, quite right, too.

                And here's to good old Boston
                The home of the bean and the cod;
                Where the Cabots speak only to Lodges;
                And the Lodges speak only to God!


                I don't think new global policies COULD evolve independently of us. And that they could not, at least, evolve in a dissipated power center such as the UN.

                The UN is not in our interests; it mainly serves the enemies of the U.S., notably the Islam bloc. So we have already detoured out of it, and since Bush couldn't get his war through the UN, I think we all know that.

                No world governments yet, I think, Gaz. Hopefully never, because they'd be under Sharia law.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the European Union actually becomes a strong political union it will have to have a military. I figured many moons ago, if the EU does become that potent then NATO will dissolve into this. Whether the USA will be a part of it or not who knows? But, with Russia acting like a bear again as much as they may dislike the idea the European nations want the USA involved in case a shooting war ever does start that the USA will have no choice but to join in.
                  "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by trailboss49 View Post
                    If the European Union actually becomes a strong political union it will have to have a military. I figured many moons ago, if the EU does become that potent then NATO will dissolve into this. Whether the USA will be a part of it or not who knows? But, with Russia acting like a bear again as much as they may dislike the idea the European nations want the USA involved in case a shooting war ever does start that the USA will have no choice but to join in.
                    Unfortunately that has caused many in the US to view Europe with so little seriouslness. Until they are willing to do their own heavy lifting militarily and unerstand that their view of the world and its conflicts is through the rose colored glasses of the Sixth fleet and the US Army and Air Force presences in Europe since the 1940s, Americans won't take them seriously in general. The Brits have been steadfast allies, and the French have continued De Gaulle's anything but American policies, but the rest of the alliance has been inconsistent as can be. The best of them, besides the Brits, had been the Turks, but even they are concerned enough about their fundies to have backed off.

                    Not that the US has been perfect but we have been there when we were needed. That should have been worth something but apparantly is not.
                    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                    George Mason
                    Co-author of the Second Amendment
                    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In that this thread has no direct or specific bearing upon Gulf War I & II, & in view of the fact that the opinions of many, in regard to the subject matter itself, will be expressed by far more considerations than those of only the Gulf War conflicts...

                      Thread moved from Gulf War I & II to the Barracks.

                      On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                      ACG History Today

                      BoRG

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Get rid of the UNSC and vetoes and the UN would work fine.
                        Now listening too;
                        - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov View Post
                          Get rid of the UNSC and vetoes and the UN would work fine.
                          Better still. Send the whole mess back to Geneva.
                          "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Better still... move the whole damned outhouse to the Golan Heights...

                            Just that act alone would solve a lot.

                            Nah... to easy!

                            [IMG]http://www.pctechtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/****.gif[/IMG]
                            On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                            ACG History Today

                            BoRG

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Not so sure about that . . .

                              Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov View Post
                              Get rid of the UNSC and vetoes and the UN would work fine.
                              That would leave Chad with the same voting power as China. I have a slight problem with that.
                              Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                              Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X