| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Your opinion on the UN |
| Leave it the way it is |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| Change it |
|
38% |
[ 7 ] |
| Dump it |
|
38% |
[ 7 ] |
| Dump it and create something new |
|
16% |
[ 3 ] |
| Other |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: The UN |
 |
|
The UN has a lot of problems. Corruption, bias against the US and Israel (though not as much as some of the posters on this site think), has little power, has to rely on too many countries, etc etc.
Anyways, I still think the idea of the UN is great. Most people here just complain about it though (sometimes with good reason) What do you think we could do (I mean our countries) to make it better? Or should we just dump it? Or should we dump it and create something new? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think counties that have bad human rights records ought to lose their UN vote.
This could be measured several ways by the way the observe Geneva conventions , how they treat their minorites -anyway there would be several measuresNow there are those that will say that the US has a bad human rights record ( I don't agree ) but anyway.
The US could fairly easliy get in complience with all international agreements but its enemies could not. It would be a great incentive for the US to get all the up into compliance while at the same time it would isolate just about every government in the world that was hostile to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations 
Everyone remember Orwell's ANIMAL FARM?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_farm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Hoiw would this effect all nations that are hostile tot he US? |
This is about the UN, a global organisation. Who the hell cares about nations hostile to the US, I am more worried about oppressive nations (and while these do tend to be hostile to the US, this thread is not about the US) hostile to nations that live by what the UN stands for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The UN is a nice forum. But we have to be realistic about our expectations of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think they ought to start a rival UN ,
where Only
Europe ,
US
India
Japan
Australia
Canada
South Korea
Taiwan
Russia
South Africa
Thailand
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Turkey
Singapore
maybe a few others
have a vote.
Votes by this group would carry more moral authority than UN votes.
When the UN especially the General Assemby gives a vote that the US doesn't like they could take it for a re- vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The UN does some nice things (UNESCO, for example). But then Hitler made the trains run on time.
The Security Council is a farce. Scrap it. Keep the bureaucracies that actually do something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Who the hell cares about nations hostile to the US |
*raises hand* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think they ought to start a rival UN ,
where Only
Europe ,
US
India
Japan
Australia
Canada
South Korea
Taiwan
Russia
South Africa
Thailand
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Turkey
Singapore
maybe a few others
have a vote.
Votes by this group would carry more moral authority than UN votes.
When the UN especially the General Assemby gives a vote that the US doesn't like they could take it for a re- vote. |
Sounds like the EN (Exclusive Nations). I don't agree because there's nothing preventing other nations forming their own alliances and keeping them secret and then it'll be even harder to ascertain what they're up to. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
otis
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
The UN is a complete joke.
Talk about a bunch of eunichs.
This one made me laugh. The UN a few years back set up a human rights commission. One of the countries they selected for the program: Libya.
Talk about a bunch of weasals who don't have the balls to stick up to anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I voted "change it."
| otis wrote: |
| The UN a few years back set up a human rights commission. One of the countries they selected for the program: Libya. |
That's right. I don't have the list of members, but I do know that the U.S. govt did not take the commission seriously because its members were mainly human rights abusers, using their membership to shield themselves from international criticism, I understand, and, further, when they surveyed the entire globe, the only problem they saw was Israeli human rights abuses, and they passed one excessive resolution after another against Israel and did little else.
Here's something from Wikipedia...
| Quote: |
The Commission has been repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves have dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives have been elected to chair the commission.
Another criticism is that the Commission has not been used for constructive discussion of human rights issues, but as a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission is largely to defend themselves from such attacks.
In May 2001, the United States, which had been a member since the establishment of the body in 1947, was not elected to the Commission. The technical reason for this was lack of sufficient support from European States which were critical of Washington's opposition to the creation of the International Criminal Court. The United States was elected to the Commission again in 2003.
On May 4, 2004, United States ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the commission following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an �absurdity�, pointing out Sudan�s problems with ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region.
Activist groups have long expressed a concern for the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Vietnam on the commission. These countries have variously been accused of human rights violations, and the concern is that they will work against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights, thus indirectly promoting despotism and domestic repression.
One major consequence of the election of Sudan to the commission is the lack of willingness for some countries to work through the commission. Indeed, on July 30, 2004 it was the United Nations Security Council, not the Commission, that passed a resolution threatening Sudan with unspecified sanctions if the situation in the Darfur region did not improve within the next 30 days. The Security Council passed the resolution 13�0, with China and Pakistan abstaining. The reasons given for the action were the attacks by the Janjaweed Arab militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region in western Sudan. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think they ought to start a rival UN ,
where Only
Europe ,
US
India
Japan
Australia
Canada
South Korea
Taiwan
Russia
South Africa
Thailand
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Turkey
Singapore
maybe a few others
have a vote.
Votes by this group would carry more moral authority than UN votes.
When the UN especially the General Assemby gives a vote that the US doesn't like they could take it for a re- vote. |
Sounds like the EN (Exclusive Nations). I don't agree because there's nothing preventing other nations forming their own alliances and keeping them secret and then it'll be even harder to ascertain what they're up to. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot. |
I said a few others but IMHO there are nations lots of them whose governments are so sinister that they don't deserve a voice in international affairs. North Korea would be an example. North Korea's government doesn't represent its people it represents the wishes of Kim Jong Il. When North Korea votes it is just Kim Jong Ils opinion.
Does anyone think that Uganda under Idi Amin or Cambodia under Pol Pot ought to have a voice at the UN? Ought Saddam's Iraq where most of the people were against him and persecuted by him or the Sudan which commits genocicde or even Khomeni's Iran have a voice at the UN? No they ought not to.
When Saddam was in power Iraq's vote at least on the UN General Assembly was the equal of that of the US. Why should that be. All the states of the mideast together have about the same population as the US , less GDP and are less free but they enjoy 23 times the vote of the US. Is that ok?
Other nations would be free to make up their own UN . ( I wasn't talking about alliances though let me add there are already alliances at the UN for instance. Iran (perhaps several others ) and China have an arrangement whereby China goes along with criticism of Israel and in exchange there is no mention of Tibet whatsoever at the UN.
As I said let other nations have their own UN , it would not have the persusive authority of the group I suggested.
There of course are already other parallel organizations that already exist - like the so called non aligned nomovement .
The US does't belong to any rival organziation but it oght to.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:31 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think they ought to start a rival UN ,
where Only
Europe ,
US
India
Japan
Australia
Canada
South Korea
Taiwan
Russia
South Africa
Thailand
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Turkey
Singapore
maybe a few others
have a vote.
Votes by this group would carry more moral authority than UN votes.
When the UN especially the General Assemby gives a vote that the US doesn't like they could take it for a re- vote. |
Sounds like the EN (Exclusive Nations). I don't agree because there's nothing preventing other nations forming their own alliances and keeping them secret and then it'll be even harder to ascertain what they're up to. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot. |
Well technically I think that there is some law or other prohibiting secret alliances.
Joo Seriously, Mexico? Turkey?? RUSSIA???
 Which type of human rights abuses were you talking about if you're overlooking the gassing and wholesale slaughter of whole regions buddy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Joo Seriously, Mexico? Turkey?? RUSSIA??? |
they are democracies. Even Russia. What is the problem with Mexico?
Turkey is one of the most free and tolerant regimes in the region. You need a muslim nation there . Better Turkey than Iran, or Saudi Arabia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Turkey's all right if you're not a Kurd I suppose. But if we're going to make an exclusive UN, I would debate the necessity of having a muslim nation there at all.
All this said, I'm generally positively inclined towards the Turks, I'm just pointing out that they do have problems. I will Definately grant that they seem to be doing a lot more to correct their deficiencies than most nations are.
As for Mexico, Mexico is a democracy where if you aren't in power, you probably aren't going to get into power; a nation run by gangsters, with through the roof corruption at all levels; and a mass refugee problem, not to mention some large and quite oppressed minorities.
I think Mexico has a lot of potential, but I think it's a long way from being anything like a free and equal democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
