[TUC]

I saw a post by the admin that a user was banned for "anti isreali" views, the posts that I found by the user in question were leaning in favor of the palestinians.....so I felt I should post this.

I dont agree with what isreal does, in fact I dont even agree with Isreal......

I can only pursuade people to browse the following folders:

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/

espacialy those from the years 1946-1950 (respective seesions 1-5)

In 1949 there should be a resolution (69) there that discusses the admission of israel to the UN, yet the link is broken and instead yields resolution 78. I do wonder why they dont want people reading that. are they afraid?

The way I see this topic is the following:

Jews were prosecuted throuout history, and in the late 30s and early 40s of the 20th Century one state did go too far with this. It may have been a coincidence that the occupation of Arab teritories by the UK was falling to pieces, but it surely was a verry "nobel" thing to do to give up some of this teritory, to simple people no one wanted. I say it like this because noone wanted the Jews, and they didnt want to live in germany any more. So the Swiss granted imigration to those with money, the US excepted the scientists and that left the simple Jewish people (simple in the sence of no money nor expertise) with no where to go. So they got "their" land which was previously occupied but this occupation was going down, and they were granted permission by the "world" to continue this occupation.
The palestinian people do not have the right to kill women and children nor anyone else. But noone has the right to take the land of other people.....

I better end this to ensure that this post lives, and for all those people that still dont see the injustice about the "state" of Israel, to read those resolutions, please do.

[smashthestate]

If we're going to deal with countries by how many U.N. resolutions they have broken, the I strongly suggest you take a close look at Turkey. They are almost tied with Israel for the numbers of U.N. resolutions they have broken:

http://www.fpif.org/pdf/gac/0210unres.pdf

I, however, don't think the U.N. should even exist. We have enough corruption that exists already within the separate countries, Imagine the corruption that would eventually occur with an organization that governs the world! Follow the wise words of Lord Acton:

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The last thing we need on this Earth is an all-powerful council of the most powerful countries deciding the fate of the world--an ideal breading ground for corruption.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The last thing we need on this Earth is an all-powerful council of the most powerful countries deciding the fate of the world--an ideal breading ground for corruption.

All powerful? We wish. You misunderstand the purpose of the UN. It is not a rival power pitting itself against everyone else. It represents all the countries, and thus the UN can only be as good, bad, and powerful as its participating members make it - meaning every country in the world. If its corrupt, irrelevant or too narrow, then that is an issue for the member states, without whom, it wouldn't even exist. I would be the first to agree that it needs reform - first and foremost it needs to modify, or even abandon the permanent 5 in the SC. Its just a joke that France and Russia still have a place there.

[smashthestate]

All powerful? We wish. You misunderstand the purpose of the UN. It is not a rival power pitting itself against everyone else. It represents all the countries, and thus the UN can only be as good, bad, and powerful as its participating members make it - meaning every country in the world. If its corrupt, irrelevant or too narrow, then that is an issue for the member states, without whom, it wouldn't even exist. I would be the first to agree that it needs reform - first and foremost it needs to modify, or even abandon the permanent 5 in the SC. Its just a joke that France and Russia still have a place there.

I don't think so. I think we all know which countries drive the U.N. To say that the U.N. equally represents ALL of its members is perfectly stupid.

[MB Edit: ...and how is that so?]

[MB.]

first and foremost it needs to modify, or even abandon the permanent 5 in the SC. Its just a joke that France and Russia still have a place there.

I agree with this- however I feel very strongly that the Russians- who posses the largest number of nuclear missiles outside of the US- deserve to be on the council. France and England should be replaced with the EU's defense force (Yes, I am aware that that doesn't exsist yet).

[smashthestate]

Mr. Bill, if you have a reply to my posts, can you please refrain from replying with an edit to my post? Just make a normal post, golly.

[MB.]

When I [MB Edit: talk like this] its means you need to support your statement, otherwise I can't really see the point of leaving it on the board.

Then again, I tend to agree with you, when you say that the UN is ran by the biggest Gorilla.

[Noumenon]

The UN represents all nations? That is a delusion. 100% of the power is held by the 5 security council members, and the rest have no real power at all. The General Assembly passes resolutions, but they have no binding power, so they are really just suggestions at best. I don't understand why anyone supports this organization at all, most especially the left wing. Aside from their humanitarian efforts anyway, which is the only thing the UN is good for.

The solution, however, is not to give the countries in the General Assembly power. That would not be a good situation, seeing how most of the countries in the world are not democratic (not truly anyway). Do you really want a bunch of unelected power-hungry thugs, like, say, Castro, running the world? Thats what would happen if we gave the general Assembly power.

The UN itself is fundamentally flawed. Giving non-democratic countries any say in world affairs is a mistake, and allowing 5 countries, who act on self-interest, to run the show is also a mistake. What we should do is keep the UN as it is, but also create a league of democratic nations, which would really be in charge of the security of the world. It would be like a replacement for NATO (which doesn't really have a purpose anymore) that any democratic country can join. No one country has veto power; they all vote equally. However, no country is forced to contribute troops to the effort if they disagree. That way, if the US is against their decision, it can refuse to contribute troops, giving it some more power relative to other nations.

[MB.]

What we should do is keep the UN as it is, but also create a league of democratic nations, which would really be in charge of the security of the world.

And that worked out SO well in 1919. The fact is, the only reason the UN does function is because of the imbalance of power. Without such an imbalance what is the use of this institute? Though, yes, I agree the SC needs to be restructured (basically just replace France and England with an EU security force, once one exsists), I think the UN has worked so far, and done its primary task admirably (ie, prevent thermal nuclear warfare).

[Efrem Da King]

The league of nations included non democraticies Mr Bill.

[MB.]

I'm aware of that. But are you asumming that haveing only democratic nations in the ficticous 'leauge' will someone trip a magic switch and make all the involved countries more resonable?

[TUC]

I recently read a book where someone inherits an account with 1 trillion dollars, from some relative that has lived 500 years ago and decided to put his money into an account........with this account comes a prophesy that the air will save the world by returning the lost future to humans........he decides to make a fund that will manage to keep expenses lower then intrest, with the aim to elect a world speaker the media in the book calls it world president.

The book closes with the man being shot and thereby the money goes to some corrupt investment advisor he had briefly employed.

pure fiction.....he'll die much faster then that.

[MB.]

Oh no! Tuc's gone mad!