Originally posted by menace71Without parents, kids fight.
My dad was a Korean War Vet. He told me that he felt that over all the war seemed pointless. All he wanted to do was make it home. He was telling me that equipment failure was a big issue. He said a lot of the equipment was WW1 vintage. I know he was proud to be an American but he struggled with Korea. I think Vietnam politics ruled. Our military basically ...[text shortened]... ple was strong. I've been reading a book called the tunnels of Cu Chi it's crazy.
Manny
Without a justice system, adults fight.
Without a legitimate, authoritative UN, nations fight.
War is only a means, never the end.
Originally posted by spruce112358True
Without parents, kids fight.
Without a justice system, adults fight.
Without a legitimate, authoritative UN, nations fight.
War is only a means, never the end.
True
True
Meaningless, but I suppose generally true
Now, good luck constructing a "legitimate, authoritative UN." If you have a proposal for how to do that, I'm all ears.
Originally posted by sh76The process is simple:
Now, good luck constructing a "legitimate, authoritative UN." If you have a proposal for how to do that, I'm all ears.
1) Require UN representatives to be elected in their member nations; that is, a free and fair monitored election must be held before a delegate would be seated. This makes the UN democractic.
2) Remove veto powers over resolutions by the permanent Security Council members. That power is inconsistent with democracy.
Then the rest will follow naturally. The first thing the elected delegates will do is revise the UN Charter. This would result in an International bill of Human Rights and an International Supreme Court among other things.
But it is rarely simple to get human beings to do the "right thing," even when it IS simple. Look at stopping smoking and paying attention to diet and exercise!
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Wrong!! Just use the example of the US federal government. Give them endless amounts of revenue and a standing army and the world will be theirs. So are you willing to pony up and create another monster? The level of democracy involed is but smoke and mirrors and a non sequiter
The process is simple:
1) Require UN representatives to be elected in their member nations; that is, a free and fair monitored election must be held before a delegate would be seated. This makes the UN democractic.
2) Remove veto powers over resolutions by the permanent Security Council members. That power is inconsistent with democracy.
Then t ," even when it IS simple. Look at stopping smoking and paying attention to diet and exercise!
1 edit
Originally posted by whodey...on the other hand, we have people who see international conflict, including wars, as normal and natural (not wasteful and stupid) and who distrust "Others"!
Wrong!! Just use the example of the US federal government. Give them endless amounts of revenue and a standing army and the world will be theirs. So are you willing to pony up and create another monster? The level of democracy involed is but smoke and mirrors and a non sequiter
The simple solution is rarely simple.
Originally posted by spruce112358Are you chastising me for my distrust of others? In addition, are you suggesting that war and conflict are not apart of the human condition and can magically vanish with the appearance of a strong UN?
...on the other hand, we have people who see international conflict, including wars, as normal and natural (not wasteful and stupid) and who distrust "Others"!
The simple solution is rarely simple.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 98470
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe thing that perhaps impresses me most in the modern world is the success of the American propaganda machine. The value system which has been implanted among many of its citizens is a remarkable way to allow insane (or worse, selfish) decisions to be taken in the name of democracy. Truly remarkable, and I'm sure one thing that historians will study in years to come.
Boats and planes leave this nation around the clock,Perez. If your so unhappy here ,catch one!
On a bit of a digression, the Ancient Romans similarly moulded the value system of their citizens and people, and although their was not as 'democratic' a Republic as the U.S. now has, it amounts to the same thing.
If the people have to have a say, let them think what you want them to think. A time-tested offensive mechanism utilised by Imperial powers, which the United States of America almost perfected.
Back to the topic, I reserve judgment as to Obama's greatness or fallibility (as many seem to have already decided), but I have disagreed with very few of his decisions so far -- perhaps those Americans accused of human rights violations/war crimes should have been tried... fingers crossed, one day we may actually see justice in this idiotic world of ours -- and he is pulling American troops out of Iraq, so no need for a 'cry' of any sort.
I see it as almost inevitable that there will be turmoil in Iraq once western forces leave. Anything less than that would be a miracle. Should the current U.S. administration be blamed? Are you kidding?
3 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Great. Except that you didn't deal with the most important question: How do you allocate the power; i,e, number of votes? One country, one vote? Obviously that makes no sense.
The process is simple:
1) Require UN representatives to be elected in their member nations; that is, a free and fair monitored election must be held before a delegate would be seated. This makes the UN democractic.
2) Remove veto powers over resolutions by the permanent Security Council members. That power is inconsistent with democracy.
Then t ," even when it IS simple. Look at stopping smoking and paying attention to diet and exercise!
Population alone? Please. Why would the US agree to lose its autonomy to a system where India gets 4 times the amount of influence that we do? Also, you're rewarding countries for increasing populations when the World could use some of the opposite. such a system might spell the end of China's population limiting efforts.
What other factors (other than population) should be relevant to allocating power? Per capita GNP? Military strength? Control of natural resources? Geographic area covered by the country?
Come up with a system of power allocation that the countries of the World can live with and you might have an idea. Until then, it's a pipe dream.
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358As horrible as war is, have you ever considered a worse outcome where nations were unable to overthrow a strong man/government? As horrible as war is, once it is at a conclusion it often has a rather cathartic outcome in which the evils which started it are often purged. But once you remove this possibility, how then are we to purge the evils within a government system with on one in a position to effectively challenge it? Make no mistake about it, more often than not the only way to do so is by raw force. So as horrible as war is, I would say there are worse outcomes. War is by far not the worse case scenerio. It is a form of checks and balances.
No, I wouldn't dream of chastising you.
War, yes, largely. Conflict, no.