First off, I'm no fan of the United Nations, but there are things that could be done to update the security council from the world of the 1940's into the 21st century. 1) Get France off the Security Council. What purpose do they serve? If they want a continental European country on the Council, put Germany on it. 2) Place India on the Security Council. Country has a huge population, might as well put them on the Council. 3) In a perfect scenario, the Council would be U.S., India, China, Germany, Great Britain, and Japan, expanding the Council by one seat. I know taking Russia off could be viewed as dangerous, but they are a fragment of what they used to be. If Russia is kept on, expand the thing to 7.
I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
i know NOTHING about the U.N., but shouldn't they have at least 1 country per contenent?
or to break it down, each geographical area. [central america, middle east, etc...]
Raw rhymed with glory. Smackdown made me all shades of happy. WWE is getting good again. The crops? Jeezum Spice! Someone stole my crops. What in the ham fat is going on. That's just poo-doo! That's just my 2.458 Yen.
Right now, the Permanent Security Council are France, U.S., Britain, China, and Russia, the five winning partners in World War II (France Wins, France Wins. There's something you don't hear everyday.) There are another 10 spots on the Council that rotate between members, but the 5 permanent members have veto power.
I want you to know, I agree with everything I've just said.
You say "reorganize" I say "disband". The United Nations no longer has any moral authority when they condemn Israel but let the Palestinians go, accuse white Eruopeans of racism while turning the other cheek on Zimbabwe, and throws the US off the panel on human rights and replaces us with Syria.
If we need an organized batch of socialists, all we need is China.
Yup... the UN is pretty much a joke. Not much more to add to that. It was a great idea, I think, but the very fact that they are totally ignored, have some of the most corrupt people in the world involved, and are really best at patting their own back, they are worthless. NATO has more power and influence anyway... and at least that has standards of admittance!
Craig Reade "Pool Boy"Detroit Lions! 1-3! On the road to oh and sixt... Wha?
Wow, more people making fun of France. Maybe I should disown my heritage or something sense everyone hates us so much.
The UN serves a purpose, but is slowly eroding. An overhaul may not be nesscessary as long as they actually do what they claim to be made for, presevation of life and human rights.
Habs: 6-1-0-0. Lost to the Mapleleafs (ARG!). Renegades: Last place. All you need to know. Man of the Week: Jose Theodore hasn't lost a step. Goat of the Week: CBC for not signing Ron MacLean right away. Next VG Review: Chorno Cross. Next OSVG Review: Mike Tyson's Punchout
Originally posted by JaguarSo... uh... who would be allowed to stay in the UN besides Costa Rica and Canada?
I'll handle it, guys...
Why do you hate America?
Hahahahahahaha... thanks, OFB. I'll field the answer.
"The U.S. flag is a symbol of tyranny and oppression to people in thirld-world countries. Our imperialistic, oil-grubbing administration is out to conquer the entire globe so that Dick Cheney can fill his Cadillac Escalade for less than 10 cents a gallon.
Fuck the warmongers, man; I don't pledge alliegiance to these united $tate$."
Now, that was a fun role reversal.
(edited by PalpatineW on 3.10.02 2248) Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Russia may not be what they used to be, but they still have nukes and are the regional big gorilla. You can't kick them off the security council.
Germany and Japan are weird additions because the security council is essentially all the countries that can kick major ass by themselves if need be (mostly becuase of nukes). The idea is that if these countries have to do everything together (or at least with the approval of all of them), the possibility of large-scale war is averted. Whether is works or not is another story. I know, no France jokes please.
Of course, by this rational, Israel should be on the Security Council, which would be a cold day in hell. India would be a good addition, probably the only one that I'd add.
The problem with the U.N. is that they're organized based on a 55-year old world order. The world's changed, they need to change. They're still needed, even if only for educational exchange and what-not.
All the rich diplomats and visiting dignitaries also bring in a lot of money to New York, so maybe I'm biased.
We should go to war with Iraq, if for no other reason than they violated the resolution that ended the GUlf War. Period.
If we went to war with every country that broke a U.N. resolution cockroaches would be running the earth.
The United Nations no longer has any moral authority when they condemn Israel but let the Palestinians go, accuse white Eruopeans of racism while turning the other cheek on Zimbabwe, and throws the US off the panel on human rights and replaces us with Syria.
Let the Palestinians go? How about let the Saudis, Syrians, Libyans, etc. go? The Palestinians actually have a pretty decent record of democracy and human rights compared to these guys, and they don't exactly have a whole lot to work with. I wouldn't condemn the Palestinians so much, especially given their situation. It's those other Arab countries that sit back and hate on Israel for human-rights violations while they don't let women drive, chop off people's hands on a regular bases, haven't allowed a semblance of an free election in their entire history, drove out all their Jews 50 years ago and would lynch one if they ever saw one, and let such Muslim countries as Nigeria, Turkey, and the Sudan practice a whole lot worse oppresion of their religious and ethnic minorities without nary of word are the countries that really piss me off.
Zimbabwe is weird situation. I'm of the mind that the gov. essentially shouldn't have strung the whites along for so long. They kicked out the colonial govt. in 1980, and had the chance to go "OK, this shit's over now, whitey's got to go, or at least give up all their stolen wealth and land from colonial times." Instead they said "OK, you guys can stay and keep your land if you support my govt. and give me money...oops, I'm in a tough election battle and you've got to give it back now 20 years later."
Is this "Racism?" That one's tough. I'm more inclined to say it's a regualar old class-battle. But class and race lines in that country are are essentially the same things. It's not like here, where blacks on average are poorer than whites, but there are rich and poor black people, and rich and poor white people. There are honestly 0 poor white folks in Zimbabwe. It's impossible to separate the class issue, which is a completely legit issue (I'd hope even you die-hard conservatives can admit that their situation and history don't exactly lend themselves to an America-style Horation Algeirs story as a solution) and the race issue, which is less so.
(edited by MoeGates on 4.10.02 1054) Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
the security council is essentially all the countries that can kick major ass by themselves if need be (mostly becuase of nukes).
India would be a good addition, probably the only one that I'd add.
I have several friends who are Indian, who I like a lot. But one thing surprised me about them. When India was doing nuclear testing underground, the opinion given to me was, "Finally. Now everyone will have to respect India, because we have the bomb." I couldn't believe that I was hearing this. But now years later, I see it was justified. India managed to finally play with all the big boys in world politics, why? Because they have the fucking bomb.
The only thing holding India back from a more prominent position is the fact that Pakistan would throw a fit if we favored them. And they have the bomb too.
"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."
"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."
"Who do you love?"
-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
Yes, it is theoretically possible that he could have been saying that about the two white girls on the team, and not the 8 black girls on the team. However, nappy signifies curly hair, and both the white girls have straight hair. http://www.