Happy United Nations Day!!!
- Thread starter MitchSchaft
- Start date
unclehobart
New Member
Im not worried. The UN cant even produce a decent Christmas card let alone do anything meaningful.
unclehobart
New Member
Coulda swore we wuz one of the G8.HeXp£Øi± said:
MitchSchaft
New Member
Damn gubment.
MitchSchaft
New Member
You almost sound paranoid there, Hex
.
unclehobart
New Member
our influence over a pack of 8 seems better than an influence over 200+our influence over a pack of 8 seems better than an influence over 200+
It may sound paranoid, but I agree with HeXp£Øi±, at least partially. In the future, the UN will supersede nation states. As we can see already from many of the other threads here, many believe the nation state, and its national sovereignty aren't so important (ok, people don't say it explicityly this way, but it IS implied). Well, they used to be! Now, the UN seems to give the right to overrule national sovereignty, at least for weaker states. Its only a matter of time until this spreads beyond merely the weaker states. We are setting a bad precedent as I have said before, one which the UN won't overlook when it seeks to expand its power someday.
However, its not necessarily a "bad thing." It depends on your perspective. As Americans, as citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, it doesn't sound too wonderful. But for others its would probably be considered an improvement. Its a matter of perspective I guess. It would be hard to oppose a TRUE United Nations, with real power, I mean other that what the US donates to it. Therefore, it probably should be easier to keep order in the world. Its not too difficult to see an argument in the light of current events to strengthen the UN. Clearly a united effort so strong, so united, and so utterly unopposable would be hard to rebel againts. However, the dissolution of nations states doesn't seem to be universally welcomed, which I think can be easily understood.
However, its not necessarily a "bad thing." It depends on your perspective. As Americans, as citizens of the most powerful nation on earth, it doesn't sound too wonderful. But for others its would probably be considered an improvement. Its a matter of perspective I guess. It would be hard to oppose a TRUE United Nations, with real power, I mean other that what the US donates to it. Therefore, it probably should be easier to keep order in the world. Its not too difficult to see an argument in the light of current events to strengthen the UN. Clearly a united effort so strong, so united, and so utterly unopposable would be hard to rebel againts. However, the dissolution of nations states doesn't seem to be universally welcomed, which I think can be easily understood.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Luis. When the UN was first chartered, it was t be a place that countries settle their differences without having to go to war. Over time, it has convoluted itself into some big, bureaucratic nightmare where nothing gets solved. Petty bickering, one-upmanship, and general anti-US sentiment have creeped into the UN, making cooperation virtually impossible. Even when the UN can agree on something, and issue sanctions et al, there is no force behind the edict. My personal take is...If you're going to govern, then govern. If all you do is talk, then you're wasting air, and wasting resources that can be best used someplace else.
Ardsgaine
New Member
Luis G said:Hitler thought the same when Germany withdraw from the Nations Society and declared invalid the Versalles treaty: they tread on "the freedom" of Germany
It was an onerous treaty. The reparations the Germans were forced to pay was one factor destroying the German economy.
Personally, I don't think the Germans were responsible for starting WWI, and I damn sure don't think the Allies had any business getting involved in what started out as a Balkan war. How many millions of men lost their lives all because Austria declared war on Serbia? Was that really something that England and France should have been concerned about? The whole thing was a mess, and when they got to the end of it (after the US came in and won the damn war for them), they needed someone to blame for the freaking waste of human life. Germany became the scapegoat. They saddled them with reparations and a demilitarization that left them all but defenseless.
Of course, Hitler was a bastard and his goal in rebuilding the military was conquest, not self-defense. I don't know how exactly you mean that comparison to apply to those of us who think that the UN is an organization dominated by the enemies of liberty. A more apt comparison would be if Hitler had stayed in the League of Nations and used it as a tool to (morally) disarm the free countries. That is what the UN does. No dictatorship should have ever been allowed to join. It should have been an alliance of free countries against the tyrannies of the world. The US should not have to ask anyone's permission to defend itself against aggression, and we damn sure shouldn't have to ask China's permission before attacking a dictatorship.