TMA_1 Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 First of all, N.A.T.O has served its purpose. I agree with many that it should be abolished. It was set up to protect western civilization from other nations during the cold war. Though there is tension, there is no need to conglomerate power like this. Each nation can individually choose for alliances. We dont need a preset standard.As for the U.N. first of all, I believe that humans are way too immature to fully extend power to a global democratic agency. The U.N. Has done some great things, but this could have been accomplished just as easily by individual nations choosing to help one another as allies. I think that the U.N. pushes nations down. Democracy has its problems. it forces those nations that are monetarily and militarily superior, to sacrifice some of its power. It does not help the people of individual nations either.Look what is happening now in america because of the various global entities. Jobs are given to people outside of america because of cheap labor outside of the U.S. The People are forced to become dependant on other nations for various items that are needed in everyday life. it is even going so far as to cut off our voice and individual power. It is becoming harder and harder for us as american people to have a strong voice. International groups and events are taking power from the people. Did you know that many many business' in america arent american owned? Sure, internationalism helps those who are rich and those who are powerful, but it sets back those who are in third world countries, who are given little or nothing. It doesnt help the average workers of many nations. I mean we americans have to compete for jobs from people whoa rent even americans. Since when is it that a nation favores people outside of their territory? Sure we should help out those who have trouble in other nations. but why take away from those who already dont have much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Hmm. Do UNICEF, ILO, WHO mean anything to you?Consider also the fact that power is not held too firmly by international organisations.After the LoN, you'd have thought the UN would have been equipped with an army... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 the ones you listed do help.lol What I am saying is, is that there isnt enough to help all and that we arent at a stage of maturity to handle the responsibility of taking account of international politics like we do now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.