One of the MANY reasons why the UN is a Joke

[emprworm]

Discriminating against countries based on their political systems is a dangerous route to start with, in addition to the fact that without representation from a good deal of the world, international legitimacy would have no meaning in most of the world.

lol, then thus you have the illigitimate organization called the UN.

if you want free nations to be part of this organization, then you better not start giving too much credence to dictatorships. You need to think very seriously the policy of allowing dictatorships the ability to represent the the "voice" of their people, and take part in the governorship of the world, which is filled with free people. A dictator should have NO ABILITY to cast a free vote in the UN. that is pure, unfettered bigotry. What logical right does a dictator have to cast a vote in anything?

By allowing this, you make your organization into a farse. A sham. A joke.

Should free nations honor an organization that allows dictators to participate in the governing of the rest of the free world? When you allow bigotry like that, then you wind up with countries like LYBIA heading human rights.

If the UN is going to legitimize dictatorships and grant them equal voice in the governership of the world's citizens, then peace loving free nations should have no part in such a corrupt body.

The US would be better suited to depart the UN.

[Egeides]

emprworm: Do you think that USA is better than UN or do you believe that none of them is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

[emprworm]

emprworm: Do you think that USA is better than UN or do you believe that none of them is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

yup.

now to you: Do you think the UN is better than the US, Britain, Spain, Australia, Italy put together and that neither the US, Britain, Spain, Australia, or Italy is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

[SurlyPIG]

It should never have accepted totalitarian nations from the start. I know it sounds absolutely barbaric to the victims of dictators, but the UN should be democracies only and have no associations with dictatorships. Trading with dictators fuels their ability to stomp on their people. However, should the nations choose to become democratic they should recieve assistance in establishing a rep or direct democracy, receive all types of foreign aid and be actively engaged in trade to help their economies start up ie have reverse tariffs on the part of the other free nations for a given period of time or until their economy is at a measureable acceptance through things such as GDP, GNP, employment, salaries etc.

[emprworm]

It should never have accepted totalitarian nations from the start. I know it sounds absolutely barbaric to the victims of dictators, but the UN should be democracies only and have no associations with dictatorships. Trading with dictators fuels their ability to stomp on their people. However, should the nations choose to become democratic they should recieve assistance in establishing a rep or direct democracy, receive all types of foreign aid and be actively engaged in trade to help their economies start up ie have reverse tariffs on the part of the other free nations for a given period of time or until their economy is at a measureable acceptance through things such as GDP, GNP, employment, salaries etc.

Ace's argument is solid. I don't think it can be refuted reasonably, but lets see

[Egeides]

emprworm: Do you think that USA is better than UN or do you believe that none of them is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

yup.

now to you: Do you think the UN is better than the US, Britain, Spain, Australia, Italy put together and that neither the US, Britain, Spain, Australia, or Italy is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

Yup. Each time USA participated into the "democratization" of a country, it was disaster. EACH regime it changed went for worst. EACH time it was profitable for USA (lobbies, politicians...). If the interventionists would accept to not make profits from their interventions, then I could look at it twice... Do you remember colonialists countries? Each time they were serving excellent reasons to population in favor of intervention. So true that people were FOR Appartheid before Ghandi (which made a mediatic shock).

Would US lobbies accept to not profit from it more then now?

[Gobalopper]

What about Japan?

[Egeides]

It should never have accepted totalitarian nations from the start. I know it sounds absolutely barbaric to the victims of dictators, but the UN should be democracies only and have no associations with dictatorships. Trading with dictators fuels their ability to stomp on their people. However, should the nations choose to become democratic they should recieve assistance in establishing a rep or direct democracy, receive all types of foreign aid and be actively engaged in trade to help their economies start up ie have reverse tariffs on the part of the other free nations for a given period of time or until their economy is at a measureable acceptance through things such as GDP, GNP, employment, salaries etc.

I agree. And I disagree that it is what USA is doing. USA is presently trading with dictators and is their best ally (as with Saddam, Israel is now the best exemple). Also, Israel gets weapons from USA and is then reselling them to dictatorship... May be discrete, same result (Suharto I think, many in latino America, etc.).

But about "democratic only", one thing: HOW do we judge this? And should those who get better get a little place? Is it what is actually done?

[Edric O]

Yea, I know its lame to complain about something and not have a solution. heh, cuz I don't know a solution to it.

Finally! At last you admitted it! But at least you had the courage to do so... I respect that. Still, Emprworm, next time when you have no viable solution to something, try not to whine and moan so much about it, okay?

Dictatorships should get NO vote in the UN.

That's ridiculous. The last time an international organization (namely the League of Nations) tried to do that, the dictatorships simply left and refused to recognize its legitimacy. A few years later, they banded together and unleashed World War 2.

The fact is, Emprworm, you MUST talk and negotiate with dictators, unless you want to start a Holy Jihad to rid the world of them (which would quickly degenerate into World War 3).

What you're basically saying is "our way or the highway". You would instantly antagonize all dictatorships, and they will unite under a common purpose - to see you dead. And thus, WW3 begins...

It should be a number of factors including power, both military and economic, human rights, landmass of the country, etc. Basically there should be some sort of scorecard for rating countries instead of giving everyone one vote.

In other words, Gob, you just want more power to yourself.

[Egeides]

What about Japan?

Japan? Have to say I do not know this case perfectly well but here what I have:

First, the japanese people were already an organized society and all. It didn't took it from hell to paradise. Japan was already on its way to something pretty good, and US

Second, USA gvt got, and still have, a certain control over japan that they still appreciate and refuse to let go (some Japanese complain seriously about what was done by US marines, planes at night over residential sectors, etc.)...

Third, the Nagazaki bomb is very discussable... Droped on a place that could only be a problem for future rebuilding and wasn't the first place to go against the military.

Forth, I don't know what are all the conditions that were asked to Japan, but it doesn't mean there wasn't some strange stuff... Anyway, you can give problems to a country, but there's a limit to this if you don't want people on your baskets.

If it still forms ONE exception, well I'm glad about it in fact... But the something like 15 last ones were massacres, puting guys like Pinochet/Saddam/Laden and others at power. AND LOOK NOW WHO IS PROPOSED: it's not a democrat!!! Look at all possibilitie and you'll see that the more honest people are not the ones that give the best post-Saddam deals... They want someone who does what they want, that's why they're chosing this kind of people (murderers, etc.)...

So, IF Japan is a correct case, is it okay to consider it'll become like this and not like the many many many other all more recent cases? Espescially that we look at the post-Saddam direction proposal and it's exactly the habitual bad picture...

[Egeides]

Besides, letting votes to be unequal from a member to another will just bring more powerful = more votes. Exactly the same like you give more votes to some people in some countries (aristocracy, etc.).

[emprworm]

emprworm: Do you think that USA is better than UN or do you believe that none of them is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

yup.

now to you: Do you think the UN is better than the US, Britain, Spain, Australia, Italy put together and that neither the US, Britain, Spain, Australia, or Italy is competent to decide about an invasion of Iraq?

Yup. Each time USA participated into the "democratization" of a country, it was disaster. EACH regime it changed went for worst. EACH time it was profitable for USA (lobbies, politicians...). If the interventionists would accept to not make profits from their interventions, then I could look at it twice... Do you remember colonialists countries? Each time they were serving excellent reasons to population in favor of intervention. So true that people were FOR Appartheid before Ghandi (which made a mediatic shock).

Would US lobbies accept to not profit from it more then now?

lol, that is utter poppycock. First of all you speak as if we have done hundreds of them, when in reality there is only a few. South Korea and Japan are both successes. Afghanistan is also progressing towards success. We helped the French in Vietnam...a mistake.

Germany and France in WWII was a success.

You are mis-informed.

[emprworm]

Dictatorships should get NO vote in the UN.

That's ridiculous. The last time an international organization (namely the League of Nations) tried to do that, the dictatorships simply left and refused to recognize its legitimacy. A few years later, they banded together and unleashed World War 2.

Fine, then other countries can back out and you can have your little dictatorial appeasing UN which puts countries like Lybia as head of its HR.

[Egeides]

Dictatorships should get NO vote in the UN.

That's ridiculous. The last time an international organization (namely the League of Nations) tried to do that, the dictatorships simply left and refused to recognize its legitimacy. A few years later, they banded together and unleashed World War 2.

Fine, then other countries can back out and you can have your little dictatorial appeasing UN which puts countries like Lybia as head of its HR.

Is this ironic??!! Hey!! The US put many more dictatorship to power than any support UN may have given by trying to negociate!!! US is PRESENTLY supporting people lot worst than Iraq: Israel, Turkey. This not counting all what it've done recently. For Kosovo, THE US OFFICIAL SAID: it would cost less lives to not attack like this. All these people moving did worst, and they agreed with that. Afghanistan? Look at which government they instaured...

[emprworm]

Is this ironic??!! Hey!! The US put many more dictatorship to power than any support UN may have given by trying to negociate!!!

Name them. Name every dictatorship that the US formed. And then cite the proof. Because I say you are speaking out of ignorance.

US is PRESENTLY supporting people lot worst than Iraq: Israel, Turkey.

neither of those countries is worse than Iraq. Turkey and Israel are free nations whos people do not suffer under brutal tyrrany. How many Turkish refugees are in the world? How many Israeil refugees are in the world? Zero maybe?

Yet 100,000 Iraqi refugees since 1991 and increasing daily.

You speak but don't have a clue. Back up your claims or cease your speaking.

Afghanistan? Look at which government they instaured...

a democracy. It is not a failure. It is not finished yet, but it is most certainly not a failure. How has it failed?

Again, cite evidence for your preposterous claims because all you have done is spewn anti-american propoganda.

TRUTH: You just hate america, and have nothing to substantiate your propoganda

[nemafakei]

"In other words, Gob, you just want more power to yourself"

Edric, that was uncalled for.

"You just hate america, and have nothing to substantiate your propoganda"

Almost as bad

Hm. Try this: Empr, how far, if at all, do you agree that without dictatorships involved, the UN would mean that the world would be divided into (broadly) two opposing, conflicting, and perhaps warring factions (with and without dictatorships)?

[emprworm]

"In other words, Gob, you just want more power to yourself"

Edric, that was uncalled for.

"You just hate america, and have nothing to substantiate your propoganda"

Almost as bad

Hm. Try this: Empr, how far, if at all, do you agree that without dictatorships involved, the UN would mean that the world would be divided into (broadly) two opposing, conflicting, and perhaps warring factions (with and without dictatorships)?

yea, it was almost as bad, I admit. :P

I agree with your statement completely.....with or without the dictatorships involved. the world is already that way, and the 21st century world should start making a push to move beyond dictatorships. they should not be endorsed, not enabled. dictatorships should be shunned by the 21st century free world in all ways possible.

[Dante]

I like dictatorships. See "The Contest."

Democracy is weak.

[Edric O]

dictatorships should be shunned by the 21st century free world in all ways possible.

As I have said, in that case you'll end up starting World War 3. Is that what you want?

[SurlyPIG]

Insubstantial. There's no way to know that. In this day and age, it is time-honoured, tested, and true that dictatorships do not work. Should there be a war it will most certainly involve the dictatorship obliterated into a zillion pecies.

[Egeides]

Though I wouldn't predict WW3, I wanted to make one comment: there really is a way to know if a war may degenerate or not. You look at all the positions and you see if each party will keep its position until the end (like if there is an escalation of violence) and if they are both strong enough to fight one against the other. But I do not really expect Europe and USA to fight against each other :P

[Dude_Doc]

But communism also involves dictatorship.

[Anathema]

Ace, that's bullcrap. The Egyptian empire lasted almost 3000 years, and they weren't particulary democratic. As of yet there still has to be a democracy that breaks their record. Freedom is not a factor in how succesful a nation is, the ability to keep your people from getting to unhappy is.

For Emp and Ace: The US supported coups and political assasinations all across Latin America, and made such a mess there as to ensure they'd stay impoverished for the next 50 years. If a nations government was leftist in the slightest, the US would carpet bomb half the country and then send in some troops to secure what's left of it. Where they didn't succeed in enforcing their will, like Cuba, they enforce trade sanctions. While Cuba, a fairly nice place for the people, is being sanctioned the US sells anthrax to Sadam. Yet they still wonder why they lost all credibility...

[Egeides]

Earthnuker, I know all this but would you be able to find sources? I know I can name a few hundred pages work called Year 501 but they probably wont go read it... Also, if you get sources, I'd be interested to see from where they come from: maybe they will be new databanks to me :P

[SurlyPIG]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You're actually saying that the US, Israel, and Turkey are WORSE than Iraq?

Since you've ignored this before, I ask again; If you had to live in one of the following places, which one would you choose; (current day) Iraq, or (current day) US?

Earth, notice how I said in this day and age. I'm talking '90s here. I don't care what opressed slaves did in Egypt thousands of years ago.