The Situation in Libya

@Shadow[E]: I shared your view. When I was about 9 years old. Of course the U.N. failed at a lot of things but so what? What are you going to do about it?

 

Nothing, because I think the U.N. is a failed idea at a total world government. And what views did you share at 9 years old? Please do share. If this conversation is going to lead to another internet tough guy meme fight, than please spare me the time from reading your next post. I am trying to have a intellectual conversation from one person to another and possibly read other peoples views. Not read insults and garbage.

 

The UN was never really supposed to be a world government. That would, at this point, be a really bad idea. It was a venue for international cooperation and a limiter on the abuse any nation could dole out at its populace.

 

Shadow[E]: The fact that you think of the U.N. as an attempt at creating World Government already disqualifies you from having an intellectual conversation on this topic. I just hope that it's just your ignorance speaking and not one of those New World Order conspiracy delusions. That's garbage.

 

Gotcha ijffdrie, that opens up my views a bit. Didnt see it that way really.

Higgs, it was probably ignorant to say that, but Ijff just opened it up a bit. And yes, I still do view it as that. the UN is a Anarchy, am i wrong to say that maybe one day someone somewhere will attempt to make the U.N. more than what it should be? Discuss

 

No. Mostly because what you are suggesting is closer to a world government. And I like living in a country with its own laws, like gay marriage and semi-legal weed use, and culture very much thank you. The UN works best as a venue for international cooperation.

 

@Shadow[E]: In short - No because U.N. is far too democratic to act as a government.
The day when China, Russia, U.S.A and Brazil will be able to consistently agree on things to the extent where they will be able to make U.N. into their agent of world governmentship will be the day where we no longer need one.

 

I do to, but when people here the words "World Government" they automatically relate or assume to dictatorship and conspiracy and total world domination. I never meant it in that way, I meant a world in which countries would ultimately answer to the U.N. For international co-op or not. Does the U.N. work? sure, but has it also failed at solving problems? Sure, becuase states are sovereign. I think the world could have been just as good without the U.N. dont you think? Cuase international Co-Op doesnt need a governmental body, it could have been easy enough to just have an agreement from both parties.

Just my thoughts and response if anyone 'assumed' i meant world nazi dictatorship world order

 

What's your problem with the U.N. then? The U.N. is there as a platform for international co-op when countries are willing to do so. When they aren't the U.N. has no power anyway. And in terms of humanitarian work it has done a fair amount of good work (except from their retarded and criminal encouragement of circumcision as a prevention to AIDS) so why not just let live it's own life in the background like it did throughout most of it's existence anyway.

 

I am not assuming dictatorship. I am assuming fair and even distribution of resources and voting rights across the world. If the entire world was to vote on a subject, gay rights, women's rights, religious freedom and my semi-legal ability to smoke weed would probably be set back quite a bit. Not to mention the amount of jobs that would be lost if governments stopped supporting their local jobs so that they wouldn't go to foreign countries.

 

I didnt mean you Lol, i meant the words are always associated with dictatorship, conspiracy and domination. And Higgs, I like to stir up debate and arguments. I learn new things. I really dont have a problem with the U.N. but I am taking an IR class and a kid was Anti-U.N. and raised good points about it, thus i brought it to the table.

Thats why I was a bit aggressive when I told you I didnt wanna hear kiddy bull$hit but rather a real conversation.

 

that's fine. Also, ignore higgs when he tells you it's not fine in one of the posts after this. I'm not anti-UN, but I am anti-what most people see as what the UN is supposed to do.

 

"gay rights, women's rights, religious freedom"
None of these things should ever be succeptible to vote in the first place.

EDIT:
@Shadow[E]: So what were some of these good points? Because so far you are just whining that the U.N. fails to solve everything it intended to solve. Nobody pretends otherwise. But why would you want to get rid of it just for that? As long as it doesn't do harm (and as I mentioned in the AIDS thing it actually might be doing so) where is the debate?

 

Well, there are of course the organisation costs of the UN and the amount of time our politicans need to spend time on UN issues instead of national.

Sure, I agree, but the fact is that many are. Remember proposition 8?

 

"Remember proposition 8?"
Fortunatelly in the U.S.A. they have a functioning constitution and reasonably reliable supreme court that enforces these things regardless of how widespread peoples bigotry is. Without these two things I doubt the U.S. would progress much further than the 1950/60s by now.

 

Edit**

Meh, we got way off topic from libya rofl. Im done.

@Iffj,

Im thinking about bringing back the clan board

 

Oh sweet, thought clan E didn't exist anymore, since your clan forum site was removed.

And, as much as the way the judges are chosen annoys me, I do agree that they do a fairly good job of enforcing the constitution. But I think enforcing such a constitution on the current world would be a bit hard. Like world war 3 hard. I think this is the first time i mentioned world war 3 twice in one topic.

 

On another note France and the UN are showing they mean business in The Ivory Coast atm. Guess they don't want the embarrassment of having a massacre occur when their forces are already on the ground.

 

Massacres already did occur. Thousands of civillians were killed, hundreds at a time. France is there for the same reason that it stay in all of its former colonies - to support the current ruler and provide stability in exchange for political influence when it comes to French interests.

 

I realise that higgs...and of course since it's hard for the media to see a village being murdered the massacre avoided is more centered on taking out heavy weapons which of course also play a significant military advantage for France. However the UN recognises the risk heavy artillery plays when used in Abidjan.

I admit my reason more matches the UN and not an individual player like France. Gbagbo has out manouvered the UN for the last few months there so they do not mind France stepping up attacks. Wish I could find my source material but google news is terrible with it's flood of copy and paste websites.