Coming Future

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Okay, what do you all think what is going to happen right now, tommorow, the day after tommorow etc.

The possible "coming" iraq vs america war.

Rumours about chemicals being planted in food products, anthrax etc.

[IxianMace]

Today (to be more specific, tonight 7:00pm - 12:00am Australian time I'll be at the graduation formal dinner. Tomorrow I'll probably be playing Wulfram2 or browsing through Fed2k, or perhaps even studying for upcoming exams. In the future (as in several years from now), I think the world will... err... Actually, I'd rather not say. :-X

[ethan]

in the future, i will be eating. tommorow , i will be enjoying my four-day weekend from school.

[Acriku]

Yesterday I ran a few miles, slept. Today I joined the Generals forum. Tomorrow I will turn in my calc homework. This war I hope is fought by my generation because I'd rather live through troubles and let my child live through peace.

[Anathema]

Anthrax? Dutch people found a cure for it a while ago 8).

In the future, the UN should step up more IMO. Step up as an arbiter for the Palestinians and Israelians.

[emprworm]

THe UN has proven itself to be a powerless beauracracy incapable of doing anything but sit around and argue. Worse than a room full of politicians. They have literally got to be the most ineffective group of people to have ever existed. A worthless wasted effort that needs to be disbanded and replaced with something more effective. I am for a worldwide council of some sort, but the UN is an abysmal failure.

[Edric O]

The UN needs more power, so they can actually DO things instead of taking decisions that nobody listens to.

[emprworm]

Edric, they dont even do what they say. Remember the 11 UN resolutions against Iraq? What a bunch of impotent imbeciles. They remind me of the English police that carry sticks: "Stop! ....or I'll say stop again."

Dont you get it? A Resolution means NOTHING unless you are willing to back it up. Well, England and the US are willing to back it up. The rest of the weakling "all talk and no-action UN" wants to keep saying

"O, pretty please Sadaam? Will you please, o please please please listen to us this time?"

THE UN IS WEAKER THAN A 1 LEGGED ARTHRITIC SLED DOG PULLING AN ICEBERG IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN WITH HIS YELLOW DECAYED TEETH

all talk, no action.

When the UN makes a resolution and someone says "ummm....no."

what does the UN do? MAKE ANOTHER RESOLUTION!

LOL! :D :D WHAT A BUNCH OF DECREPID LOSERS

pathetic.

[Edric O]

That's because they don't have the power to do anything!

The UN is weak and impotent because we keep it that way.

[emprworm]

Edric, that is irrelevant. There is MORE than enough power in the UN to enforce the resolutions against Hussein. It is the stupid idiots at the UN that *DONT WANT* to enforce their own resolutions.

cowards

because of their own hypocrisy, bigotry and inability to make up their minds, I now loathe the UN and will do so for a long long time.

they have enough power to get this one little job done, and they cant even do that.

the LAST thing u want to do is give a bunch of arguing wishy-washy impotent imbeciles more power.

jeesh that would be a nightmare.

the UN needs to be abolished and replaced.

[nampigai]

IMO the veto of the five permanent members should be abolished and resolutions should be voted for and accepted with majority (does this make any sense at all?)

[emprworm]

no it makes no sense whatsoever. the only thing that actually makes sense about the senseless UN is the security council

[Edric O]

Emprworm, you have a good reputation of always backing up your arguments with proof. Don't lose that now.

So far you've only flamed the UN.

[emprworm]

Edric, I thought it was common knowledge that the UN passed 11 definitive resolutions against Iraq almost 10 years ago and has since not cared at all about enforcing them. I didn't know you required me to provide evidence of that, since I assumed it was common knowledge. I just figured eveyrone already knew about it. If you still really want me to provide the evidence of this, I will.

The UN is a shamelss smuck organization of imbecillic cowards who pass resolutions and then when the time comes to enforce them, they run and cower out like a bunch of scared animals fleeing into their little holes demanding MORE resolutions upon resolutions.

The UNited States and some of our allies seek only to enforce the ALREADY EXISTING UN RESOLUTIONS THAT THE UN ALREADY PASSED and what happens? That same UN criticizes us. We get criticized just for asking that the UN uphold its own word!!! WHAT A CROCK

This is a sham and a farce. If the United States is going to be part of a UN, then that organization better darn well MEAN WHAT THEY SAY. We do not tolerate being part of a joke. When the UN passes a resolution against Iraq, the US will RIGHTLY EXPECT that such a resolution will be GENUINE and not a bunch of empty, meaningless words from a group of shameless politicians.

THe UN Has the power to enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. It has more than enough power to do this. Yet it not only refuses, it just plain DOESNT WANT TO. INSTEAD IT WANTS MORE RESOLUTIONS and it cant even agree on those! Unbelievable.

Classic political beaurocracy- worse than any corporate scandal that has ever existed on the face of the earth.

The US should not dishonor itself any longer and be part of a despicable organization that changes its mind about its own resolutions more often than the winter winds blowing accross the plains.

The UN will never amount to anything more than a bunch of whiny wishy-washy impotent bickering politicians unable to do anything- not because they lack power, but because they lack courage, honesty, and integrity.

If you cant uphold your own word, then you shouldnt even open your mouth. Why the stupid UN passed resolutions against Iraq is beyond me since they obviously dont care about keeping them.

Abolish the Ted-Turner UN and replace it with something better.

[Edric O]

Nothing but flames, Emprworm, nothing but flames...

What I meant was that you should prove that the UN can, in fact, enforce its resolutions properly. I was under the impression that they simply don't have the power to enforce them.

[emprworm]

Ok, Edric. You want evidence? Fine. lets see: the UN has 191 members- I have listed them here along with the date of joining the UN

Afghanistan -- (19 Nov. 1946)

Albania -- (14 Dec. 1955)

Algeria -- (8 Oct. 1962)

Andorra -- (28 July 1993)

Angola -- (1 Dec. 1976)

Antigua and Barbuda -- (11 Nov. 1981)

Argentina -- (24 Oct. 1945)

Armenia -- (2 Mar. 1992)

Australia -- (1 Nov. 1945)

Austria-- (14 Dec. 1955)

Azerbaijan -- (9 Mar. 1992)

Bahamas -- (18 Sep. 1973)

Bahrain -- (21 Sep. 1971)

Bangladesh -- (17 Sep. 1974)

Barbados -- (9 Dec. 1966)

Belarus -- (24 Oct. 1945)

Belgium -- (27 Dec. 1945)

Belize -- (25 Sep. 1981)

Benin -- (20 Sep. 1960)

Bhutan -- (21 Sep. 1971)

Bolivia -- (14 Nov. 1945)

Bosnia and Herzegovina -- (22 May 1992)

Botswana -- (17 Oct. 1966)

Brazil -- (24 Oct. 1945)

Brunei Darussalam -- (21 Sep. 1984)

Bulgaria -- (14 Dec. 1955)

Burkina Faso -- (20 Sep. 1960)

Burundi -- (18 Sep. 1962)

Cambodia -- (14 Dec. 1955)

Cameroon -- (20 Sep. 1960)

Canada -- (9 Nov. 1945)

Cape Verde -- (16 Sep. 1975)

Central African Republic -- (20 Sep. 1960)

Chad -- (20 Sep. 1960)

Chile -- (24 Oct. 1945)

China -- (24 Oct. 1945)

Colombia -- (5 Nov. 1945)

Comoros -- (12 Nov. 1975)

Congo -- (20 Sep. 1960)

Costa Rica -- (2 Nov. 1945)

C

[Anathema]

A major step forward to a better UN would be to dump the veto system. Right now, even if all members except one country such as the US or Russia, the decision goes to the litter bin.

This won't solve everything, but it's an excellent first step.

[emprworm]

the problem i am citing in regards to enforcing already passed resolutions is irrelevant to vetoing. Obviously Vetoing is meaningless when things that pass mean nothing anyway. The first and foremost problem is legitimacy. Sine the UN isnt legitimate, everything else crumbles.

Veto is not a first step. Legitimacy is. Legitimacy is the sole factor in determining a valid organization. Without it, everything else is garbage- including veto rules.

Abolish the UN. Replace it with something legitimate that means what they say and doesn't waffle like quivering jello.

[Anathema]

Yes! Replace the UN with American world domination!

Say what you will, but without the UN the world would have looked a lot different today. We can't just start from scrap, we must improve the current system rather then junk all of it.

[emprworm]

then the UN can start by enforcing its resolutions, otherwise they will be (hopefully) ignored by the US.

If you pass something, enforce it, or shut up

[Anathema]

That's just another flame ::).

[Edric O]

The Romanian military equipment is so old and unreliable that we couldn't hurt a fly... but don't tell anyone. ;D

Emprworm, all you have shown is that most of the UN member states can easily act if they wish to. But what about the UN itself? Does the UN command an army? Can the UN give orders to the armies of its member states? NO! So all that military power CANNOT be used by the UN, unless the respective countries feel like it. So the UN as a whole must beg for military assistance from someone every time it wants to enforce something.

[emprworm]

edric what you are proposing is NOT the UN.

the UN is *supposed* to be the UNITED N-A-T-I-O-N-S not a nation unto itself.

we are supposed to help each other. if the UN passes a resolution, then the world members come together and pool their resources and get the job done. There are MORE than enough soldiers in the UN to get the job done. AND IN FACT< there are countries READY AND WILLING to do it. Problem is the UN is a typical bunch of whiny politicians that care nothing about getting the job done and dont care about their own resolutions. Heck the US will even do the UN job all by itself- thats just how honorable we are. but the UN isnt about honor- its about cowardice and beaucracy

.

[Anathema]

porblem is the UN is a typical bunch of whiny politicians that care nothing about getting the job done.

That just shows how biased you are. Most of the UN peeps do care about what happens, they just talk to much.

the UN is *supposed* to be the UNITED N-A-T-I-O-N-S not a nation unto itself.

Dude ::).

All Edric says the UN should have more power to perform its responsibilities. He never said the UN should run the policies of a country.

[emprworm]

the UN is a combination of nations which have abundant military resources. The UN does not need seperate military resources- the last thing this world needs are more freaking weapons. please for all that is right and good, dont call for more weapons!!

If the UN is UNWLLING (note I say unwilling--- not unable) to back up its own resolutions, it needs to be abolished.