Printable View
I have noticed that many people here seem to think that UN is a worthless organization novadays.I would like to hear some constructive ideas how to make it work again or what would be a better suggestion to replace it.Your opinions please?
Aargh.Posted this in the wrong place!Mods please move this to the Backroom.Thanks. :bow:
Kick nations such as Iran out of itQuote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
And yeah, if US respected it, it would probably perform much better.
Then, you're going to hear rant about how "the UN are corrupted", "the UN are a tool of the Europeans to slow down US growth/policy" and other funny things like that.
Well the main organisation has been lately a bit powerless, but it still serves a good purpose. Mainly due to the fact that it's very easy to ignore the UN, due to lack of an enforcer. (but in a way this lack of an enforcer is okay in the current role of the UN)
On the other hand it's suborganisations like UNICEF do a very important job for the world and the suborganisations compensate for the UN. :bow:
take it down and re-build it ~:)
The UN has done some good work. The peacekeeking missions in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and East Timor are doing a lot of good work.
The UN itself is useless, and powerless (war in Iraq)
Kinda like the League of Nations, without the US, they were powerless.
However, UNICEF, and other aid organizations are doing good work across the globe.
Take it down and let the British Commonwealth of Nations take over its job and let everyone join.
Let's just make this simple. If the U.S wants to do anything, it can do what it wants. If other nations want to do something unorthodox, then they really have to square it with America if they don't want any sanctions. If the U.S wants to impose sanctions on a country, it can. The power of the U.S is its economic power. The threat of denying a country the American market is enough for them to vote for U.S policy. America is the enforcer of the U.N.
Depends on whether you think it is a place to talk or an organization meant to rule the world!
As a place to talk instead of fight it has its uses.
As the beginnings of a world government it isn't very useful. Thank God!
Perhaps the UN (ONU as i've posted elsewhere, sometimes i forget that this is english) is not a place to talk nor to fight, it's as i see it the ultimate weapon of political mass destruction and of domination over the international agreements and other bilateral and unilateral politics beetween their members (and sometimes decides the fate of outsiders!!), controlled by USA, an i mean like a "puppet". It's not worthless, it's a cancer that must be removed from society. Sure they have made some good, but as capitalism permits to give control to just one rich nation, then always their decitions will be influenced by that nation. When they change their minds, they will fall. To give an example i think that the case of the judges in a change of governament is perfect: if the president will like to have the desitions of the judges in the same way as him then he just remove the judges (with excuses, like "political judgement") and put some news allied to his politics. Anyway while one nation controls the resources of the world, expands their culture to sell their products (including the "democracy" and capitalism), and the multinationals stay under it's control making the profit that reproduces the circle again, then the UN will make filantropal things like helping the "third world" (tough we don't seem to be part of it) and the people will stay happy, but remember you are not giving them a way to combat hunger and poberty, you are just calming it for a while so you can give the "gift" again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
PS: There's an interesting case of US overpowering. In "El Chaco" here in Argentina, came a group of militaries from USA. They say we want to enter and have absolute inmmunity, our soldiers will be judge by our government (they say this always anyway, at least the International Court is worthless for them), and we want to have full access to the land, for what? i really don't know (there're many theories that don't matter right now). The thing is that you may say "well if the government give them what they ask then they are weak...bla, bla, bla" yes sure, in a balanced and perfect situation, but we're talking of a country that in his hands haves the economic future of practically all America (except for Canada i think) and the thing is that if they wanted they can rise the taxes again and enslave us. And this is just a perfect example, but just one... imagine how many of this situations happens beetween the nations in the UN?
Ill only ask one rhetorical question. WHY DO THE FRENCH HAVE VETO POWER IN THE UN????????
All one has to do is look at the voting record and structure of the security council to see what the United Nations has done to itself.
The rest of the discussion is for the backroom - so I will table it until the poll moves there.
Has there been a WWIII since the UN has been in power? No.
Well that is its primary purpose.
Subsitute China in there and you will see why it is getting away with Tibet and bullying Taiwan...Quote:
Let's just make this simple. If the U.S wants to do anything, it can do what it wants. If other nations want to do something unorthodox, then they really have to square it with America if they don't want any sanctions. If the U.S wants to impose sanctions on a country, it can. The power of the U.S is its economic power. The threat of denying a country the American market is enough for them to vote for U.S policy. America is the enforcer of the U.N.
Subsitute France in there and you will understand why it got away with the Nuclear Tests in the South Pacific and France getting the so much benefit from the CAP.
Subsitute Britain in there and you are left perplexed.
It is worthless unless you are a international buerocrat that wants to steal money, have diplomatic amunity, and bang some hot NY hookers, then I guess it would be a pretty good gig. Besides that, it has as much use as jock ich...
Now to respond - since its been moved to the backroom - Much of the discussion around the United Nations and its impact on the world has to do with politics.
Given that the United Nations is seen as worthless by many citizens of the United States - calling the UN a puppet of the United States is a reach. The failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions does not come from just the United States - but the political manuever and disagreements of all nations. To blame the United States only - discounts the harm that other nations have also done - the old Soviet Union, China, Britian and France all have permanent seats on the UN - do you hold that the United Nations is also a puppet of these nations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
This sentence makes absolutely no sense to me - especially given that two of the nations on the Security Council were/are Communist in nature.Quote:
It's not worthless, it's a cancer that must be removed from society. Sure they have made some good, but as capitalism permits to give control to just one rich nation, then always their decitions will be influenced by that nation.
Another arguement hard to follow because of the language and translation of it. However lets address one point - The United States does not control the United Nations - nor more then any of the the other Permanent members of the Security Council. Politicial bickering and infighting between these five nations have made the United Nations irrevelant in todays world. Again just blaming one nation - is short sighted and false.Quote:
When they change their minds, they will fall. To give an example i think that the case of the judges in a change of governament is perfect: if the president will like to have the desitions of the judges in the same way as him then he just remove the judges (with excuses, like "political judgement") and put some news allied to his politics. Anyway while one nation controls the resources of the world, expands their culture to sell their products (including the "democracy" and capitalism), and the multinationals stay under it's control making the profit that reproduces the circle again, then the UN will make filantropal things like helping the "third world" (tough we don't seem to be part of it) and the people will stay happy, but remember you are not giving them a way to combat hunger and poberty, you are just calming it for a while so you can give the "gift" again and again.
Again an interesting perspective - but its only that - the United States doesn't even maintain a secure border with Mexico - so the aspects of enslaving the rest of the both contients is a little conspricary theory and over propagandization by those in the area that are fearful of the United States. Nor can the United States make it happen in a economic or military sense. There is some movement toward attempting economic controls based upon agreements like NAFTA and other trading agreements - but the aspects of many of those treaties are mutual beneficial to all parties.Quote:
PS: There's an interesting case of US overpowering. In "El Chaco" here in Argentina, came a group of militaries from USA. They say we want to enter and have absolute inmmunity, our soldiers will be judge by our government (they say this always anyway, at least the International Court is worthless for them), and we want to have full access to the land, for what? i really don't know (there're many theories that don't matter right now). The thing is that you may say "well if the government give them what they ask then they are weak...bla, bla, bla" yes sure, in a balanced and perfect situation, but we're talking of a country that in his hands haves the economic future of practically all America (except for Canada i think) and the thing is that if they wanted they can rise the taxes again and enslave us. And this is just a perfect example, but just one... imagine how many of this situations happens beetween the nations in the UN?
Reforms are needed, but UN is still the best we have today for a united world.....
Yeah, heaven forbid we should start thinking of ourselves as being the same species with common basic purpose...
The UN may be ineffectual, but at least it is a forum for communication. As long as the communication lines are kept open, it will continue to benefit the world. Papewaio's examples were a good demonstration of the kind of positive things that can be achieved through the UN.
So you believe that there are nothing that all people on earth agree on ? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Charles De Gaulle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemenii XIII
Through sheer chutz-pah, obstinancy, and -- pardon this -- gall, he forced the real powers that were among the Allies (USA, UK, USSR) to grant them a measure of equality. This was done to a) shut him up and, b) get him to support the allied war effort in something resembling an active fashion.
I do not say this to insult him. He was dealt a pretty weak hand and played it for far more of a share of the pot than he had a right to expect.
The UN should remain focused 4 things:
1) Environment: Making the world a healthy place
2) Human Rights: All people should be respected
3) Peace Keeping: When parties have agreed to a ceasefire
4) Rebuilding: When a nation is destroyed by war or nature
All other roles like diplomancy enforcement and sanctions should be controlled by individual nations.
I believe the UN still has use in the world, although I wish it was more deliberate and focused. Perhaps having swift votes on pressing issues would be a good thing, if there is an urgent matter than needs to be attended (such as an outbreak of genocide in some country) than a vote can be called on the spot to send peacekeepers and use them defensively or aggressively, anyone can vote, but because they are so compressed for time there is a time limit, those that make it can vote, and those that can't (including countries with veto powers) cannot vote at all. Right now the UN is a bloated Frog but with some reforms it could very well be an international police force dictated by the majority vote of nations.
EDIT: Also every country within the UN must also be willing to give it's soldiers the blue helmet if such an occasion occurs.
UN sub-organizations are doing good works throughout the 3rd world, and while the main organization is flawed and quite corrupted, and created originally, if I must say, by a few powers seeking to keep powers (those in the security council); it is still a forum where countries can talk and make their voices heard, for good or bad. Conflicts are resolved easier with a forum-for-all and, if the UN managed to reform itself it would be an excellent step for a more united world. Of course, any reform attempts are hard to come by unless some genius statesman-of-a-politician proposes something new and even then, as the most important nations in the UN simply can veto anything on their own and that they always compete for international influence with each other, things can hardly be successful.
The United Nations is the world's favoured forum for negotiations. We needed it after WWI, we got it after WWII, and we still need it if we want to contain the ambitions and high-handed policies of the U.S., Russia and China in the course of the next one hundred years. Posters should heed Papewaio's remarks about China since he is close to the fire and aware of the heat. The U.S. has become a problem since 9/11 and Russia has become a problem again since the rise of Mr Putin.
The UN is not a world government and it never will be. A world government will only come about -- if ever -- as a result of the spread of federal arrangements between strong, exclusively democratic states along the lines of the European Union. If these states can develop arrangements that work (to the satisfaction of their populations as well as governments), then progress towards a world government is possible.
... not so close to the heat of China as I have been out of Taiwan and back in Sydney since about Feb. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
That the citizens don't support it....and so....Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Oh that's what i expected to read. If you're american an are blaming China and Soviet Union, then this is an amazing coincidence. And, you can see all that one does in public, but you will see the real effect (in matters that concern US) in the facts (and not in the deliberations). You see much deliberation on the UN about if it would be right to engage war in Irak or not, some yes some not, as always. What happens, just the result looked by USA (at least for the government), there was war, there was invasion in others soberanity. Does the UN does something more than talking to stop this, no, and US takes the oil again, now with full domination and attempting to put a "democratic" government, always surpasing their field of action and soberanity, just like in Vietnam or in the Gulf War. Imposing the capitalism and the democracy may seem right but the UN was created so no country will never surpase the soberanity of another, even less with hostile purposes. And in fact you're right, and i'm sorry US only is not the one puppeting the UN, it's being taked by every powerful nation (well this is just normal) but US is still the one with more veto power and i will correct myself, in matters that concern them (like war against terreorism, an absurd if you excuse me) they always get throught.
And what society known until today is communist, as you say.... read the manifesto, and you will notice that not of them are/were communist. They're capitalists (even China) just see the movements that they take. And why i tell you this, yes it seems to have no sense, but think. Capitalism, though it was not created by USA just improved by it, is based on acumulation of treasure by anyone who can do it (capitalists of course, a worker could not) and in the fetichism of the mercancy and the plusvalue (as Marx discovered), but more importantly it permits competion beetween anyone. I'm not saying that it's a plot by the USA, it's just the capitalism that it's wrong, but this has permited to nations such as this one expand they economy world wide, with their culture ("globalization"). The point is that this gives the country who uses it best to take control over the others, especially the weak ones, from a moral point of view is wrong, but lets be objectives. The problem is that USA takes principal roll on the UN, they say all big words, like pursuing criminals, end of the wars, imprescribility of the crimes of war, bla, bla, bla... what is the result, they don't have any power to impose almost all of this over other countries, and in cases like the wars, well they make some "exceptions".... that's what it may seem worthless but far from it, if one nation has the power to corrupt it and manage it them it will be an perfect instrument to create illusions. As you see i'm not blaming one nation (it's naive) but i believe that is only one nation that always get's the results that they want, does the UN says something against or not, but it just say it does nothing. Why have an army if you don't use it? An a far more interesting irony... Why have one is you want to stop war?
Anyway this is not the matter (hatred towards USA) because it's of public knowledge. The fact's that it's not worthless at all, but it seems perfect to reproduce everyday's lies, like filantropy is a right thing, or wars are bad... the average people will see it that way so...
Finally is not a perspective, and we are fearful of the USA, we saw what an military potence can do. Why would you say that USA would want to enter here unchecked? To do researsh on species of the third world... No i will say you why, it's because they search for something, a resource perhaps (the observations here talk about the greatest reserve of water, after the poles and Island). And you say that USA cannot take all over South America for example, militarily. Man you're blind, they have the most advanced army and the most populated one (with the exception of China perhaps), they could just do it the old way:1- Make treaties and alliances with other powerful nations 2- Create an excuse 3- Invade 4- Put a new "better" government. You don't even have to worry from then on. An economic, well that truly is false, if you don't know it USA has the most vast international debt, and that means that they can afford it, then they must have the most vast treasure, that's for sure, is just do some mats. Now if you take that- Most vast reserve + Control of almost all companies all over Latin America and Brazil + Almost absolute control over the regulations on economic politics in this region + most valuable divise (the dolar)= they already have control over the rest. The NAFTA would just make it more public and visible. There're not a single real benefit that a powerless nation could achieve by uniting (and in sometime opening frontiers totally) with a powerful one, they will simply be absorbed. And as you see viewing the hole panorama here you would will doubt if this is just a "perspective", and when you try to set a plot you don't go around saying "hey give immunity, we're military, we will enter with weapons...", anybody with 3 pounds of brain will notice that that is insane, so i never said that is a conspiracy, in fact they don't need it, they can be open if they have us by the throat.
WTF?
Man the one thing about the UN is you can always get a translator... ~:eek:
But everybody still is blinded by the "good things" that the UN does. Man i will go as far (to demosntrate my point) to go back to the Cold War. As everybody in America probably saw it, it was cold, but here.... Man it was hot like hell. First of all the Vietnam propaganda-war-for-democracy thing i don't think that everybody has eated that, but i don't know about your minds, and that was a perfect excuse to justify the army and still make countries like France or USA being seen as "good people". The same goes for the Soviet Union on those days. Anyway in that ambient of technologycal advancement and the 13 days, in wich the president of USA had in his hands the desteny of all the world, in the rest of America military uprisings were pumping up like it was one hell of a coincidence (we must remember that the UN already existed). In some places like in Vietnam, there goes the Soviet Union they convince some party to go to the "communist" side (not at all communist by the way) and then the Americans come trying to impose good democracy and freedom of speech, but by making war, does this concerns them, directly of course not, but again they must justify the army, and they sell weapons both sides, making big profit of it (both SU and USA), does everybody cares about the lifes that will be lost for sure, why if the profit is so great?. The same goes to the Gulf War (throwing down Sadam Hussein, please...) but that is another period. While that was happening on Asia, here uprisings supported by the american government and supplied by it had taked the government. The case of Noriega was a perfect example. Noriega was supported by Jorge Bush father, and when he was performing the tiran roll, Bush said, it's enough, it's not convinient to support him anymore (it's ok you can change your mind, if this is really the case), but does him considers other ways to stop and take him out besides just sending some little army and invade the countrie causing havoc there (besides the havoc that already existed). No!! Why would he do that?. Something similar happened with Hussein and Bin-Laden. Now, why does these countries have so unlimited power? Because the UN does nothing to stop them, because they are it's enforcers, and they are the only voice there. Now take Soviet Union out of the picture because it has lost it's power. Take France out too, because they are in an eternal debt with USA, and also Britain because of the alliance, the actions taked by the first minister (Blair) are absolute proof. What is the direction of the dessitions that the UN will take? Unilateral is the response...by the way discussion is out of the picture too...
In any case some people out there think that filantropy is a good thing, or yes very beautiful, does it has any real effects on education, work, independence or lasting effects on hunger and health, of course not, the contrary. Does the UN come here and put an stop to the atrocities that happen here, not, they just come before the Falklands War is over, for good yes, but the government was abdicating anyway.
I don't think that i can make myself more clear in short space, but if you want to see real effects, real actions, results, you have to see to the material not the ideal, and the material is economics, and the economics will always rule the ways work, from the distribution of job to the reciprocal agreements, and from the relation beetween people to the ones beetween nations. The UN is just another LIVE 8, it's bullshit, but as i said before it's constant bullshit pretending to globalizate the world and end the difference beetween nations, when some debate cannot do that, and the actions are always influenced by the powerful. But i'll still say that it's an instrument, it doesn't act like a global government, but like a global fachade...
And if you say that is a place for discussion then there must be more options abailavable than democracy and capitalism, the democracy is not at all that, it's just formal without any real thing inside it, and capitalism, well i think everybody knows how wrong is this one...Anyway the democracy thing has taken its toll because of the demagogy of leaders, ignorants and capitalists and communism seems to have no place in future plans for anyone country, so i will not say that this is only exclusively of the UN, but it reflects exactly on the same spot where everything is supposed to be open, and where escatological things like this cannot be out of the picture.
Well man i will give you the reason on that... but it's really that difficult to understand...come on :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Do you have an alternative? Or is the only point you are trying to get across that the UN is useless because it doesn't prevent the world from being chaotic, society from being unjust and life from being short and all too often brutal? In other words, that the UN is useless because it isn't God? If so, I don't think many .org patrons need to be convinced.
Try reading again - I am blaming them along with the United States. Just blaming the United States discounts what the other members of the Security Council have done also. Your reading into the post something that is not there. I am beginning to think that you are not as informed as you wish to protray yourself as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
So your opinion is solely based upon the actions of the last 4 years? That is what this statement might mean? You might want to review the actions and deliberations of the USSR in regards to the United Nation.Quote:
And, you can see all that one does in public, but you will see the real effect (in matters that concern US) in the facts (and not in the deliberations). You see much deliberation on the UN about if it would be right to engage war in Irak or not, some yes some not, as always.
So explain the failure of the United Nations to enforce 14 resolutions against Iraq before the invasion? Explain the failure of the UN to send peacekeepers to certain places in Africa that the United States actually asked for in session.Quote:
What happens, just the result looked by USA (at least for the government), there was war, there was invasion in others soberanity. Does the UN does something more than talking to stop this, no, and US takes the oil again, now with full domination and attempting to put a "democratic" government, always surpasing their field of action and soberanity, just like in Vietnam or in the Gulf War.
The United States is one of five nations with Veto power - each of those natons have the exact same power of the veto - and each have used it numerous times. Now in dealing with just the issues concerning Israel - you might be correct since the United States always Veto's any action against Israel.Quote:
Imposing the capitalism and the democracy may seem right but the UN was created so no country will never surpase the soberanity of another, even less with hostile purposes. And in fact you're right, and i'm sorry US only is not the one puppeting the UN, it's being taked by every powerful nation (well this is just normal) but US is still the one with more veto power and i will correct myself, in matters that concern them (like war against terreorism, an absurd if you excuse me) they always get throught.
read it many times - you might want to check how Marx wrote the manifesto - it talks aobut doing exactly what many of the communist states did - the problem is that those countries remained socialist dictorships.Quote:
And what society known until today is communist, as you say.... read the manifesto, and you will notice that not of them are/were communist.
Edit:
In fact here is a nice little quote taken from the Mainfesto which talks about the necessity to destroy the capitialist state and forcably bring the society into the socialist model before the people can evolve into communism, bolded text shows the point that I was making above.
Careful of calling the communist countries - non communist when they are indeed following Karl Marx's doctrine - its just that as despots the individuals controlling the government now have fallen for one of the oldest sayings in the world - which over and over again has been shown to be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx
Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This is completely unclear to me - it seems to be the standard marxist rant against Capitialism.Quote:
They're capitalists (even China) just see the movements that they take. And why i tell you this, yes it seems to have no sense, but think. Capitalism, though it was not created by USA just improved by it, is based on acumulation of treasure by anyone who can do it (capitalists of course, a worker could not) and in the fetichism of the mercancy and the plusvalue (as Marx discovered), but more importantly it permits competion beetween anyone. I'm not saying that it's a plot by the USA, it's just the capitalism that it's wrong, but this has permited to nations such as this one expand they economy world wide, with their culture ("globalization").
What in the world are you trying to say?Quote:
The point is that this gives the country who uses it best to take control over the others, especially the weak ones, from a moral point of view is wrong, but lets be objectives.
I would do the rest by paragraph - but it seems to me more of a rant against the United States more then anything else. I know there is a language barrier here but the rest is jumbled to the point that the message is lost in the ranting.
Anti terrorism.... ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I think that you overestimate the difference between nations in the world. International problems are getting more and larger than the domestic. Every country is today dependent on international trade and exchange. Everyone have everything to win on a global organisation.....
So because you were attacked.US can do what ever they want on its own.That kind of politics will leave you guys alone in this world in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So you read the manifesto, that's good. But you didn't interpret it very well then. Look by the times of Marx capitalism was a new thing, the industrial revolution was a recent event. Communism has improved from there. Marx alone will give practically an blank document with instructions to set a socialist state, but the very idea of communism is the equality of all (not just before the law, real equality, material equality). And revise it again, the proletariate is the one who should take power, not a single man, like Stalin who was just a tiran, named by himself. The theory of communism proposes to first have an educated proletariate who can take the power. I never saw this happening, except for the Commune of Paris (wich i don't actually saw, of course). The bolsheviks for example were just reactionaries, the great majority didn't knew nothing of politics. Now that's why you can't take the power just like that, because if your sage leader dies then all is for nothing. And you're right it was despotism, but it wasn't of the proletariate nor for the proletariate, in theory that's not communism nor even socialism. I think that you love capitalism so much that you don't want to see the superiority of communism. But don't believe that this happens just with communism, fachism is another theory clearly banned, but the original theory (real fachism) is superior to capitalism in all ways, as it's anarquism. And i'm not talking about just equality, i'm talking about production. Anyway that's another dicussion.
I think that any true jugdement on the basis on actions are pretty inacurate (you're right over there), but actions are still the only important thing, so let's see if they achieve the objectives for 2015.
Still i will not give up with the States, for one fact remains true, and that's that USA does not respect the International Court, all things involving americans and in american territory are judged by USA laws, and they have power to do that, and that's exactly what they pretended here... And that USA is one of the countries with nuclear power, but ironicaly they try to end this in other nations (fair?) and nothing to reduce their own. Also what was the event who "opened the eyes" of the UN, millions of people dying of hunger, killings in Africa, not... the World Trade Center and 9/11? Why? Is it just arbitrary? Well i will not judge it, but perhaps the loss of americans is worst that the loss of "third world" people. don't you think that? Or even better, and giving me the reason, it's because the World Trade Center was the most important building for the economy of USA? ~:grouphug: ~:handball:
I have to agree completely with Cube here except for one minor thing - the UN ain't useless.
They're useful - useful idiots. Having the UN placates the World Government people, and as long as nationalist politicans have some courage (or if nationalist lobbiest hold sway) we won't have to worry.
The Manifesto was written 40+ years after the Industrial revolution had begun. And Capitalism was not a new thing in Marx's time. I would counter that you did not interpret the Manifesto very well yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Marx in his doctrine stated that despotism was needed to force society to the pure communist state. Which is exactly the course of action every communist despot took. (And you claim I didn't interpret the Manifesto correctly. LOL)Quote:
Communism has improved from there. Marx alone will give practically an blank document with instructions to set a socialist state, but the very idea of communism is the equality of all (not just before the law, real equality, material equality).
What do you think the term despot means?Quote:
And revise it again, the proletariate is the one who should take power, not a single man, like Stalin who was just a tiran, named by himself.
Again what do you think despotism means?Quote:
The theory of communism proposes to first have an educated proletariate who can take the power. I never saw this happening, except for the Commune of Paris (wich i don't actually saw, of course). The bolsheviks for example were just reactionaries, the great majority didn't knew nothing of politics. Now that's why you can't take the power just like that, because if your sage leader dies then all is for nothing. And you're right it was despotism, but it wasn't of the proletariate nor for the proletariate, in theory that's not communism nor even socialism.
LOL - now that is funny - I think you want to discount all the historical evidence concerning Communism based upon your theory of communism.Quote:
I think that you love capitalism so much that you don't want to see the superiority of communism.
The United Nations must reform or go by the wayside. As it stands now it is just short of being totally useless and worthless.Quote:
But don't believe that this happens just with communism, fachism is another theory clearly banned, but the original theory (real fachism) is superior to capitalism in all ways, as it's anarquism. And i'm not talking about just equality, i'm talking about production. Anyway that's another dicussion.
I think that any true jugdement on the basis on actions are pretty inacurate (you're right over there), but actions are still the only important thing, so let's see if they achieve the objectives for 2015.
You are talking like you are the world.News flash for you my friend EU is bigger market then USA.Maybe you should resign from UN?I would like to see the Impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I wouldn't say boo if the US left, mind you - I don't like the UN either. But better the devil you know...Quote:
True. It has practical uses like that. But I'm an idealogical person, and oppose it on Idealogical reasons. The UN is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.
Impact: One side of the US political spectrum throws hissy fit. Other side applauds (mostly). Nothing else.Quote:
You are talking like you are the world.News flash for you my friend EU is bigger market then USA.Maybe you should resign from UN?I would like to see the Impact.
I wasnt talking about impact on domestic politics in US.If US foreign politics turn to that if some country doesnt agree with you.Its evil and you dont listen to anyone else anymoore.I wouldnt be suprised that you start loose your strategig allies and they start to make deals against you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I think US has already destroyed UN.If the most powerfull country in the world doesnt want to co-operate anymore.Maybe other countries have to start to think other options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You are talking world hegemony.No no other single country has.But thats what coalitions are for.If you really think you are rulling the whole world.I cant say anything else but it sounds pretty scary and not so "good".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You are deluding yourself if you think you could beat up the rest of the together world in conventional warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You could attack destroy much,but you cant occupie you dont have enough manpower.
Thats exactly what im talking about.You still understand that others can Nuke all US to desert also.If you are saying that you dont need other countries.You are saying that you feel superior to us others.
Gelatinious Cube.I wasnt talking about invasion on USA.I dont think anyone wouldnt even dream about invasion to USA.What im trying to say here that US actions are starting to get other Nations afraid of you.And when States start to scare some Superpower they have a habbit to start finding allies.What i meant that countries might start to do defensive pacts against you.And if you are talking about Nuclear arsenal.You still have one nation that can Nuke US back to stone age.Its called Russia.
Man have you read "The Capital" by Marx, then you will notice that he was the first in finding the true mecanism of capitalism, what does this mean? Well that from then things started to seem clear, before that it was like space travel. And Marx loved capitalism as a theory. When he wrote the manifesto +40 industrial revolution the theories surged from the Capital were still in childhood. Even so the plan is realistic, and despotic, does not means "one person", Aristotle himself talked about despotism of masses (like a corrupt way of democracy). Sure there will exist the traditional representative system, but the revolution was never over, and when one member of the party was getting out of the way, was the job of the proletariates to take him out (by killing him if that is necessary). You may think i'm a sort of communist, not, i like it, but i'm more anarquist.
"Marx in his doctrine stated that despotism was needed to force society to the pure communist state. Which is exactly the course of action every communist despot took. (And you claim I didn't interpret the Manifesto correctly. LOL)"
That's true, but again, not even Marx knew how the society will get to real communism (that's more clear in "German Ideology" a critic of Marx specially to Hegel) and you're mistaking despotism.
"LOL - now that is funny - I think you want to discount all the historical evidence concerning Communism based upon your theory of communism."
What historical evidence? I clearly said to you that the only true communism took place on Paris with the "Commune of Paris", but they were exterminated when the central government forced them to submit again. Not a single nation has followed the instructions of the manifesto, wich even prevents abuse of power from the state by keeping the proletariate as vigilant. In the communist Soviet Union not all people actually worked: their were lawyers, actors, writers... The comunism states that everybody has to work, and i don't know from where does this word comes in your laguage but in my language "trabajo" comes from slavo (slave), now that means phisical job, but not like in capitalism, if all people works then the hours/work for everyone will be reduced, that's pretty fair way to achive community. Now if you found any evidence that the "communists" states actually implemented actions in this sense then you will shut me up. And as a theory the communism don't pretends to solve all the problems of humanity, first is just a realistic and crude aspect of what has to be done, then the true communism is the reconciliation with society. And capitalism is not immune to that sentence ("Power corrupts,..."), it's worst because as the power remains in economy there would be many company members who will have tremendous power, like Bill Gates, Rockefeller, do you think that just because they were not "in power" they were powerless?
Well this is getting like a real debate on the UN... ~D . Not but i'm China and i've more people wich means more army, so surrend US and hand over all nuclear arsenal, bla, bla, bla... If i remember correctly USA and Russia agreed to end with the armamentist career right after the Cold War, of course it was just a fantasy, demagogy of powerful countries that still keep the sentence "If you want peace, prepare for war"... I don't even know if a member of the UN has ever believed that they will actually give up.
I think i remember the words of Truman after Hiroshima: "...we should be the guardians of this technology (or something like that)." Man that's arrogant...
As i sayed before.You guys have allready wrecked UN.There are only parts of UN that have any significance.What im saying is that if you dont need your allies anymore as you allready stated.You may find out that your former allies like Germany and France will find new ones to stabilize your power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I must confess its been about 20 years since I read that particlur pamplet of his.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
However that is not what you stated initially.Quote:
Well that from then things started to seem clear, before that it was like space travel. And Marx loved capitalism as a theory. When he wrote the manifesto +40 industrial revolution the theories surged from the Capital were still in childhood.
You are going to have to define that term since I don't know what anarquist is.Quote:
Even so the plan is realistic, and despotic, does not means "one person", Aristotle himself talked about despotism of masses (like a corrupt way of democracy). Sure there will exist the traditional representative system, but the revolution was never over, and when one member of the party was getting out of the way, was the job of the proletariates to take him out (by killing him if that is necessary). You may think i'm a sort of communist, not, i like it, but i'm more anarquist.
Actually I am not - despotism is exactly what form of government took place in Russia, North Korea and others.Quote:
"Marx in his doctrine stated that despotism was needed to force society to the pure communist state. Which is exactly the course of action every communist despot took. (And you claim I didn't interpret the Manifesto correctly. LOL)"
That's true, but again, not even Marx knew how the society will get to real communism (that's more clear in "German Ideology" a critic of Marx specially to Hegel) and you're mistaking despotism.
Despotism is defined as any of the following
is government by a singular authority, either a single person or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute power. The word implies tyrannical rule; it suggests a form of government which exercises exacting and near-absolute control over all of its citizens.
Which is the exact way in which I used the term.
Like I said - you are attempting to discount all the historical evidence around the communist movement. Its really rather simple - look at how you defend only the Paris Commune but discount all others as not true communism. The Revolution in Russia - the second one - was a communist revolution where Lenin wanted to take Russia to a communist state following his verision of the Marxist Doctrine.Quote:
"LOL - now that is funny - I think you want to discount all the historical evidence concerning Communism based upon your theory of communism."
What historical evidence? I clearly said to you that the only true communism took place on Paris with the "Commune of Paris", but they were exterminated when the central government forced them to submit again. Not a single nation has followed the instructions of the manifesto, wich even prevents abuse of power from the state by keeping the proletariate as vigilant.
Its one thing to say that Russia was never reached a true communism- its something else however to discount it as not being a communist state.Quote:
In the communist Soviet Union not all people actually worked: their were lawyers, actors, writers... The comunism states that everybody has to work, and i don't know from where does this word comes in your laguage but in my language "trabajo" comes from slavo (slave), now that means phisical job, but not like in capitalism, if all people works then the hours/work for everyone will be reduced, that's pretty fair way to achive community. Now if you found any evidence that the "communists" states actually implemented actions in this sense then you will shut me up. And as a theory the communism don't pretends to solve all the problems of humanity, first is just a realistic and crude aspect of what has to be done, then the true communism is the reconciliation with society. And capitalism is not immune to that sentence ("Power corrupts,..."), it's worst because as the power remains in economy there would be many company members who will have tremendous power, like Bill Gates, Rockefeller, do you think that just because they were not "in power" they were powerless?
For instance German and Italy never entered a truely facist state either - because both were lead by Despots. However we are going off topic of why the UN is useless.
You still seem to only want to blame the United States for something that at least 4 other nations are equally guilty of. Now if you will admit that its not just the United States fault that the UN has become useless - I will admit that the United States is has its fair share in the blame (which is something I have already stated not just once but several times in this discussion.)
Well i'll end the dicussion on communism here. But i didn't blame just USA in tha lastest posts. In fact i never blame USA of nothing towards the UN, i blame the UN for being a pet of powerful nations, especially USA. I don't know if they haven't the power to disarm USA for example or if they don't do it because it's an enforcer, and i really don't care, those things are more important that useless philantropy, ok disarm Irak, but do the same with USA and with any other that has it. I've being reading a declaration by the secretary, in wich he stated that "this nations" wich continue to conserve their nuclear arsenal have no intentions of hand it over. Now with Irak if i remember well, the politic was: "ok if they have weapons of mass destruction, then we will have to investigate them and disarm them" like a real political action, an executive action. Now my question is: Why does the UN hesitates so much with the powerful? Especially when one of the objectives that they have planned (being one of the first the gradual nuclear disarm) is equality, in it's great spectrum, i assume before the law of course.
Once again lets not forget Russia, and China - they do the exact same thing as the United States in regards to the United Nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Try looking into the facts a little more - the United States has a lot of problems with the United Nations.Quote:
I don't know if they haven't the power to disarm USA for example or if they don't do it because it's an enforcer, and i really don't care, those things are more important that useless philantropy,
The thing that you seem to be ommitting is that Iraq signed a cease fire agreement where it committed as a condition of an end of hostilities to destroy all its WMD and to provide proof to the United Nations that it has done so. Iraq failed in its committment to both the ceasefire agreement and to honor the resolutions agaisnt them, Iraq, by the United Nations.Quote:
ok disarm Irak, but do the same with USA and with any other that has it.
And which nation was he refering to?Quote:
I've being reading a declaration by the secretary, in wich he stated that "this nations" wich continue to conserve their nuclear arsenal have no intentions of hand it over.
Quote:
Now with Irak if i remember well, the politic was: "ok if they have weapons of mass destruction, then we will have to investigate them and disarm them" like a real political action, an executive action. Now my question is: Why does the UN hesitates so much with the powerful? Especially when one of the objectives that they have planned (being one of the first the gradual nuclear disarm) is equality, in it's great spectrum, i assume before the law of course.
Because as a political body the United Nations can not enforce its own resoultions - so the posturing within the UN is all about politics not any committment to take action.
It's useful. Not as useful as if it had its own armed forces and could actually do what it should - but no one would ever allow that or supply the men and equipment for this.
I recall that US have a 8% international trade on the total GDP, compare to EU with a country like Sweden with 30%. The US trade deficit is also more or less the trade difference with China, the largest "opponent" to US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Further more, US trade is going towards intellectual property, requiring legal protection at the foreign markets.
I would say that if anyone need a UN, then it's US. Communication with the international community is something US need help with.
If you are an isolationist, then of course you are right. Just close the borders....
I think that US not resigning is the most important sign that US really need UN. If anyone can reform UN, then it's US. I don't understand at all why US doesn't try to do that, instead playing cowboy all the time......Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So for you it's a domestic issue. Eradicate US corruption by disolving UN ?? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I didn't say that, did I ? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The UN is powerless except when powerful nations looking after their own interests decide to use it.
Thats the way it should be.
Which twits in here actually want the UN to have real power?, wake up to yourselves.
I live in a democracy, I elect my leaders, I'm sure as hell not going to have any part of my life dictated by a body such as the UN most of whoms membership is impoverished corrupt bananna republics.
The UN couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery they're so inept, the thought of them actually forming some kind of 'world government' is a one that should terrify anyone with any sense.
And to answer another point raised in here the only thing that has stopped WWIII from happening so far is nuclear weapons, something which if the UN had it way would probably be outlawed.
The UN is useful for stuff like globally organised health initiatives and such, it is also useful for keeping whining leftist weenies and postage stamp sized countries occupied so that they don't distract the actual rulers of the world too much.
So, you either don't know about (or are conveniently ignoring), the Earth Summit, Agenda 21, their role in the dismantling of Apartheid, close to 200 peace settlements, land mine initiatives, women's rights initiatives... Their environmental and aid work alone is considerable.
Seriously, some of you guys are just blabbering crap...
~:handball:
Distract them from what? Making themselves richer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Es Arkajae
And what's that about weenies and whining?
Amongst other things yeah, what do you expect me to blush?, I live in a Western country and my country and myself directly benefits from the Western Hegemony. I am completely unashamed and am in fact proud of the fact that my nation has a disproportionate share of the worlds resources and influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
And Roark get a clue, when the UN does anything it only does it with the approval tacit or not of the major world powers. And even then its efforts are half arsed and incompetent much of the time.
The world is made of states, all jockeying for power and influence, it is the way it has always been. The UN has a role working within the framework of states at the pleasure of states, particularly the powerful ones.
what he said. Yes, it's an adminstrative hellhole, yes it's probably quite corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
but no, there hasn't been WWIII so it's worked no?