U.S. in a Post-U.N. World

[punkbass2000]

That's the most ridiculous bunk of bullcrap I've heard in my life. What did you have that programmed into your head by your U.S. 6th grade social studies class? b1g br0th3r pWn35 u!

Welp, can't argue with that.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The land in which the UN building is located on is in fact donated by Rockafella. in addition you should also read up on how/who built the UN building. As well as the numerous different countries and indivuals who donated differently towards the UN.

 

[amadeus]

Will anyone tell me what the UN is doing to stop a Third World War? Will anyone tell me who would start such a war if there wasn't a UN?

The UN being some kind of mystical peace force is a bunch of nonsense and everybody knows it. It's just a platform for every deranged third world tin pot communist banana republic tyrant dictator to get their perverted world view in the public forum.

 

[h4ppy]

Will anyone tell me what the UN is doing to stop a Third World War? Will anyone tell me who would start such a war if there wasn't a UN?

The UN being some kind of mystical peace force is a bunch of nonsense and everybody knows it. It's just a platform for every deranged third world tin pot communist banana republic tyrant dictator to get their perverted world view in the public forum.

The U.N. serves best as a place to talk to other nations, thus avoiding war. It is more effective than the Peace Keeping parts, which would never be called out in a World War due to Security Council veto.

 

[The Last Conformist]

So, according to kenScott, the US should take over the world? Well, we've got a quite respectable number of nukes that say we're not joining you.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Will anyone tell me what the UN is doing to stop a Third World War? Will anyone tell me who would start such a war if there wasn't a UN?

The UN being some kind of mystical peace force is a bunch of nonsense and everybody knows it. It's just a platform for every deranged third world tin pot communist banana republic tyrant dictator to get their perverted world view in the public forum.

*Coff* UNHCR *Coff*
*Coff* WHO *Coff*

At least save the parts of the UN which have been successful and effective.

 

[amadeus]

That wasn't what I was talking about, FF. I was talking about how people think that without the UN, the entire world would just explode into some massive world nuclear war.

 

[BasketCase]

So, according to kenScott, the US should take over the world? Well, we've got a quite respectable number of nukes that say we're not joining you.

We've got SDI. Neener.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I consider this more likely:

U.N. in a Post-U.S.-dominated World

 

[Jawz II]

We've got SDI. Neener.

your S.D.I dosent work

HAH!

 

[CurtSibling]

This is not like a game of CIV, where a special 'wonder' stops a world war.

A world war will only happen when an arrogant nation decides to tip the balance.

The question is, who is that nation???

.

 

[Aleph-Null]

We should save no part of the U.N. Lets get the facts straight, the U.N. is a 'beauracracy' the longer that beauracracy is allowed to grow or "reform" in order to "strengthen" it the more dangerous it becomes. How long until the U.N. itself is the entity which begins world war 3. Imagine this: A man has just allowed everyone into his house, be they murderers, drug dealers, whatever... he allows them to run wild... for a time... Sooner or later UNSG is going to start giving order.

Understand also, the U.N. has not ended any war. The U.N. is itself, a theater of war, thanks to the allowance for nation's to become members who were not "united" with the principles and spirit of the organization's founding. In conclusion, the U.N. failed as an instrument of peace because it provided no incentive for its member nation's to improve themselves prior to membership. Imagine for instance, that the U.N. required each prospective member to ratify and adhere to the UNDHR prior to membership. That would have push many nations which desired membership to push democratic reforms in order to have their voice heard in the General Assembly. Instead, the U.N. failed due to a very familiar occurence that we are all aware of....

Analogy: Imagine that you are in a Civ 3 clan. Which clan would you prefer to be in, one which the founder asks every person on the planet on to join, or the small closely knit elite clan which know eachother's every move? Well?

Exactly. The U.N. failed as institution for that very reason. It is time that the U.S. begin preparing for a post-U.N. world. Belief that the U.N. is necessary to end war is ****ing stupid. We've already discussed its G.O.O.D. successor which could easily fulfill the forum. The U.N. failed, and now we must come up with something superior. The U.S. should not lower itself to the level of the U.N.

In regards to your weapons, we now have airborne laser missile defensive systems. As for Sydney, the United States is an eternal military alliance of free, sovereign, eternal, and independent states... Like Texas.

 

[Princeps]

Yes, UN is in trouble... But I don't see the point of disbanding it. Can't we just reform it?

Anyway, world should not prepare for post-UN world, but for Post-US world.

Disoliving the UN would harm the US' reputation badly, The reputation that it needs.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I would be glad to see the US trying to dissolve the UN. It would be very funny. In the end, it would only marginalize the US.

Washington has no interests in getting rid of the UN.

 

[Aleph-Null]

The U.S. could very easily dissolve the U.N. by shifting its economic machine towards its replacement and by allying with Japan in its removal. Most of the world views the U.N. as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. It would be very easy to disband the U.N. and replace it with something else.

As for a post-U.S. world, it is exactly this type of attitude by U.N. cheerleaders which speak to the importance of dismantling this failed organization, the U.N.o. The only reform required by this U.N.o. is that which reforms it out of existance.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The U.S. could very easily dissolve the U.N. by shifting its economic machine towards its replacement and by allying with Japan in its removal. Most of the world views the U.N. as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. It would be very easy to disband the U.N. and replace it with something else.

As for a post-U.S. world, it is exactly this type of attitude by U.N. cheerleaders which speak to the importance of dismantling this failed organization, the U.N.o. The only reform required by this U.N.o. is that which reforms it out of existance.

Ken Scott, this is so sad you cannot express your views of the World on the French radio.

When we hear you talking, all the considerations which can lead people to vote "no" to the European constitution suddenly disappears ! In some way... you're a magician ! Keep talking.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Most Americans today do not wish to see the U.N. reformed, but rather abolished all together. How will the world be changed once the U.N. Organization been shut down? Will another organization replace it? Will governments give up on attempts at creating massive one world government bureaucracies which too easily fall to delusions of "manifest destiny"

How will the U.S. need to adjust its foreign policy to cope in a Post-U.N. world?

As it is now, the UN doesn't do anything except function as an international charity and humanitarian organization. It has no real power on its own, so any treaties it brokers are only enforceable as long as the signatories are in a position to the enforce them.

If it ceased to exist, all that would happen is that all those charity organizations would be independent. There may be other international bodies to lay down international treaties, but those exist already as it is, and function as such, so there probably will be next to no change there.

There are no governments that are trying to use the UN to form a world-state. That's just a myth perpetrated by millenialists and conspiracists. There are states that are exploiting the UN for their own political gain, but that's not the same as a world-state.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Marla, I hate to inform you but the U.N. (that's how the french spell 1 isn't it?) is not the end of human evolution. It would be a failure of the imagination if we Americans, who first imagined the U.N., could not imagine its superior.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Marla, I hate to inform you but the U.N. (that's how the french spell 1 isn't it?) is not the end of human evolution. It would be a failure of the imagination if we Americans, who first imagined the U.N., could not imagine its superior.

Could someone be more arrogant ?

Keep talking Ken Scott, that's great. Many Europeans who'll soon vote in referendums on the European Constitution are hearing you. You're currently convincing them to vote "yes" despite their temptations to the "no". Thanks Ken, keep talking.

 

[Aleph-Null]

As it is now, the UN doesn't do anything except function as an international charity and humanitarian organization. It has no real power on its own, so any treaties it brokers are only enforceable as long as the signatories are in a position to the enforce them.

If it ceased to exist, all that would happen is that all those charity organizations would be independent. There may be other international bodies to lay down international treaties, but those exist already as it is, and function as such, so there probably will be next to no change there.

There are no governments that are trying to use the UN to form a world-state. That's just a myth perpetrated by millenialists and conspiracists. There are states that are exploiting the UN for their own political gain, but that's not the same as a world-state.

A beauracracy which proposes 'reforms' will eventually 'reform' itself into a governing authority once it reaches a certain level of authority. Furthermore, as you said, the U.N. is obviously not required to maintain peace or perform charitable activities. It is essentially useless. Therefore, it is a drain on tax dollars and it is our obligation to cut wasteful government spending, especially on an organization which is considered to be nothing more than a theater of bridge-burning war to nation's like France, Germany, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, etc.

Now, what does the U.N. do, the U.N. creates an 'alternate' authority. When Kofi Annan says something is "illegal" or "legal" he is assuming a certain authority, on what does he possess the authority to do so, his fanatical and radical delusions of manifest destiny.