Being that this "War on Terror" is a global issue; why do we not have a global anti-terrorist organization?
At the moment each country is doing their own little thing... divided and vulnerable due to general lack of cooperation and mistrust. Right now from my own viewpoint... it seems like The United States of America has adopted this as it's own game of which all other countries must cooperate. So the United States rearranges it's intelligence community so that it continuously seems to get in it's own way while tripping over it's own feet.. it seems that it is due time for some actual "Thing" to change.
It's only logical:
We had the League of Nations[1920-1946] which was geared toward disarmament; preventing war through collective security; settling disputes between countries through negotiation diplomacy; and improving global welfare.
But then that couldn't handle the stresses of modernization
then we made the United Nations which claims to be a "global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity."
It does seem that it indeed cannot handle the degrees of responsiblilty that are required such as is demonstrated with the epidemic of global terrorism, impending nuclear threats, continuing human rights failures and ESPECIALLY with the SLAUGHTER going on currently on the continent of Africa.
So waht next? I say the U.N. should go the way of the dodo.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- International Global Intelligence
International Global IntelligenceFollow
And then what? Why would the next global organization be any better suited to the task?
Or are you saying we should do away with the idea of a global organization of nations entirely?
Or are you saying we should do away with the idea of a global organization of nations entirely?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
and the UN is a bunch of PUS[Aqua][/Aqua]SIES!
From what I know about the U.N. (very little) it seems to be similar to the Asylum. Just a bunch of yahoo's sitting around bickering and chatting instead of getting any work done. all while others yell and complain about them non-stop (forum=28?)
that and the admins can be the G8, only ones with any real power(money) anyway.
that and the admins can be the G8, only ones with any real power(money) anyway.
bbking wrote:
From what I know about the U.N. (very little) it seems to be similar to the Asylum. Just a bunch of yahoo's sitting around bickering and chatting instead of getting any work done. all while others yell and complain about them non-stop (forum=28?)
that and the admins can be the G8, only ones with any real power(money) anyway.
that and the admins can be the G8, only ones with any real power(money) anyway.
WEll, the League of Nation was all talk as well.. but the DID mean well... they just didn't really have the muscle or the courage to back it's **** up.
as for the UN.. it seems to swing toward the "hand-out" approach to dealing with problems.. but I think that after a certain length of time ANY organization must be recreated as something newer and better suited to the ever-changing needs of global society.
Not to mention to root out the deeply engrained corruption.
deeply engrained corruption? nonsense!
I declare Shanangans!
Big oil/tobacco/anything else ftw!
I declare Shanangans!
Big oil/tobacco/anything else ftw!
Youshutup wrote:
The terrorist threat has been blown out of all proportion by people who capitalise on paranoia. The only police this world needs is a force to help it fend off the only country left in the world able to seriously **** everyone else off and get away with it.
Darfur? and everything else?
UN deals with these problems like old people fu[Azure][/Azure]ck.
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Youshutup wrote:
The terrorist threat has been blown out of all proportion by people who capitalise on paranoia. The only police this world needs is a force to help it fend off the only country left in the world able to seriously **** everyone else off and get away with it.
Darfur? and everything else?
UN deals with these problems like old people fu[Azure][/Azure]ck.
Exactly. The problem with the UN is that while it has a mandate to "solve problems", it has no established methodology to create those solutions. Couple this with no "status penalties" for member states, and you essentially have a situation where only the softball problems get addressed and they get softball solutions. The UN as a body has consistently shown an utter lack of ability to handle any real problems in the world it's supposed to be making better.
It's actually an incredibly good example of why every sane government in the world has more then just a legistlative branch...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Sadly.. I think I'm basically talking about a realWorld Police
Great movie, if only for the visual and technical aspects.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I don't think I'll get any support for this now that Gbaji has agreed with me
oh sweet politics
Yes, it is the self imposed limitations that cause me to call upon a new way of doing things. The UN has outlived it's usefulness.. I am not speaking of trying to reincarnate the body... Waht is needed is something completly different.
I'm sure if I had studied political science I could be more specific.... but alas.... I am but a lowly philosophy major..
oh sweet politics Quote:
Well, genius, the UN has exactly as much power and ability to act as it's most powerful constituent states allow it to have. Do you see where I'm going here?
Yes, it is the self imposed limitations that cause me to call upon a new way of doing things. The UN has outlived it's usefulness.. I am not speaking of trying to reincarnate the body... Waht is needed is something completly different.
I'm sure if I had studied political science I could be more specific.... but alas.... I am but a lowly philosophy major..
When the UN was set-up, there aws a provision, that it would have its own army, with all the nation-states chipping in, so that they could go and "make peace" in countries that were waging war.
But obviously, not a single nation-state wanted to give up part of their army, or their "soveriegnty", so that provision became dead letter law.
The UN is only as good as the nation-state want it to be. And the problem is, not many want it to be more than a glorified talking-shop, at least when it comes to international peace and security.
But the UN does a million other things.
Most of modern International law was implemetned through UN treaties. The World Health Organisation, the World Food Program, the UN Development Agency, etc... all of these are attached to the UN and depend on it. it does **** laods of work on the field, but no one talks about it cos who wants to hear that the UN monitoring team in Zambia was satisfied with the electoral process?
As for the World Police, it would take a World Goverenment for it to exist. Which the UN could be, or could've been, but superpowers (and nomalpowers) will not give up their soverereignty for something they cant 100% control.
Just look at the whole fuss with ICC, and the Bush not even wanting to recognise it.
In theory though, I think most of the large-scale problems of the world can only be solved by a powerful Interntional Organisation.
To put it another way: In the Middle Ages in Europe, you had all these little fiefdoms dominated by local warlords. They spent most of their time and money kicking the **** out of each other, gaining twenty yards, and then losing it. The only way for it to stop was to have a very strong centralised power. Which eventually happened through force, and hurray, they had a King in France who would control what the local big shots did.
We need the world equivalent to that. Well, apart from the "king" bit.
But obviously, not a single nation-state wanted to give up part of their army, or their "soveriegnty", so that provision became dead letter law.
The UN is only as good as the nation-state want it to be. And the problem is, not many want it to be more than a glorified talking-shop, at least when it comes to international peace and security.
But the UN does a million other things.
Most of modern International law was implemetned through UN treaties. The World Health Organisation, the World Food Program, the UN Development Agency, etc... all of these are attached to the UN and depend on it. it does **** laods of work on the field, but no one talks about it cos who wants to hear that the UN monitoring team in Zambia was satisfied with the electoral process?
As for the World Police, it would take a World Goverenment for it to exist. Which the UN could be, or could've been, but superpowers (and nomalpowers) will not give up their soverereignty for something they cant 100% control.
Just look at the whole fuss with ICC, and the Bush not even wanting to recognise it.
In theory though, I think most of the large-scale problems of the world can only be solved by a powerful Interntional Organisation.
To put it another way: In the Middle Ages in Europe, you had all these little fiefdoms dominated by local warlords. They spent most of their time and money kicking the **** out of each other, gaining twenty yards, and then losing it. The only way for it to stop was to have a very strong centralised power. Which eventually happened through force, and hurray, they had a King in France who would control what the local big shots did.
We need the world equivalent to that. Well, apart from the "king" bit.
Recent Visitors: 400
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (400)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- International Global Intelligence
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC