user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
No limitation of power? That doesn't make sense. any governing body is limited by its borders. A world organization is limited by its effective power and the participation of its member nations.
Re: Corruption -- show me one governingbody that *doesn't* suffer from corruption. Why isn't the US working to make it better, rather than isolating itself and pointing fingers?
herz, it is well-known that various factions within the US fear and/or loathe the UN, seeing it as comopetition or as an obstacle for US desires. Rather than sitting back deriding it, we should be working to fix any problems you cite.
The UN is too full of corruption and immorality to fix. We should abolish and start over with something better.
rather, that Bush seems not to be held accountable.
by mojo on Wed Jul 28, 04 10:09am
[+]
'A world organization is limited by its effective power and the participation of its member nations.'
The question was directed at people who believe the UN should become THE world government, to do that it would presumably have to aquire more power than it has now, with me so far? And if it were to scoop up significantly more power, and yet keep the current unregulated structure it has now, we'd be setting ourselves up for a worldwide dictatorship.
As for corruption, yes all governments are corrupt to some extent. But in the free democratic ones there are systems set up to limit and punish offenders. There are no similiar structures set up for the UN. What could would it do the US to complain about UN corruption? We already do that and they do nothing.
herz: A lot of these "limits" are on paper -- those with money and/or power rarely find themselves limited.
Any central source of control will ultimately only be as good as the people who run it.
But this still sounds like a case of The Pot calling the Kettle *black*. US is no better, just corrupt in different ways. What's the difference?
The UN is also pretty toothless, unless arrayed against some small 3rd-world country, or going along with a bloc of 1st world countries.
This is not a case of pot calling the kettle black. The US has a constitution with limits on powers which have kept us a free and democratic nation. The UN has no constitutionally set limitations on power, and they aren't a democratic organization to begin with. Are you saying that if the US were to shred the constitution, grant you absolutely no rights, and create only one branch of government with no independent watchdog agency, that you'd be ok with that, and you'd have no problem with such a government? If the UN were to become a world government that's exactly what we'd have over the entire planet.
herz: Heh ... yeah, we are brimming with freedoms. As long as we Don't Hate America.
As for the dreaded one-world government: You assume it would be set up exactly on the model of the existing set-up. I find that doubtful.
'herz: Heh ... yeah, we are brimming with freedoms. As long as we Don't Hate America'
You've been pretty vocal about you dislike for our current administration, has anything bad happened to you because of it?
'As for the dreaded one-world government: You assume it would be set up exactly on the model of the existing set-up. I find that doubtful'
That would be the question I asked; if people who believe the UN will take over think it should remain the same.
herz: Obviously, no. It would need restructuring.
herz: My interests extend beyond just my immediate benefits/detriments. I actually give a damn about others.
The original question, as I read it, has nothing to do with whether the UN should be restructured -- it appears to be alleging that the UN gets away with too much *now*.
'So for everyone who thinks the UN should expand it's powers and form a world government, doesn't all this concern you just a little?'
The United Nations was created in the wake of World War Two by the globalist bankers like Rockefeller in order to push for a world government. They have been steadily eroding national sovereignty for over 50 years. In Britain we are just starting to see the first waves of propaganda that will swing us behind the European constitution and European Single Currency. This propaganda will take the form of threatening us with being poor if we stay out. More worrying for people who ahppen to like their country and their culture is the fact that on the floor of the UN, with all the important politicians like Colin Powell and Kofi Annan is a cult called The Lucis Trust. It used to be called the Lucifer Trust until the founder Alice A Bailey realised it aroused too much suspicion. She certainly wasn't stupid. She believed that a hierarchy of ascended Masters including Jesus and Buddha were helping good globalist bankers to create a kingdom of peace etc etc. And these people have the ear of those important people from all over the world.
Once we give up our power to a global goverment we will find it nigh on impossible to get it back. We've been watching too much Star Trek or something. The UN will not submit to an audit but it is presented as a symbol of hope for humanity.
In answer to your question, herzog, If the UN does change it will only garner itself more power. Then we should be really worried.
The United Nations was created in the wake of World War Two by the globalist bankers like Rockefeller in order to push for a world government. They have been steadily eroding national sovereignty for over 50 years. In Britain we are just starting to see the first waves of propaganda that will swing us behind the European constitution and European Single Currency. This propaganda will take the form of threatening us with being poor if we stay out. More worrying for people who ahppen to like their country and their culture is the fact that on the floor of the UN, with all the important politicians like Colin Powell and Kofi Annan is a cult called The Lucis Trust. It used to be called the Lucifer Trust until the founder Alice A Bailey realised it aroused too much suspicion. She certainly wasn't stupid. She believed that a hierarchy of ascended Masters including Jesus and Buddha were helping good globalist bankers to create a kingdom of peace etc etc. And these people have the ear of those important people from all over the world.
Once we give up our power to a global goverment we will find it nigh on impossible to get it back. We've been watching too much Star Trek or something. The UN will not submit to an audit but it is presented as a symbol of hope for humanity.
In answer to your question, herzog, If the UN does change it will only garner itself more power. Then we should be really worried.
Somewhat ... as would any new/changed form of control.
However, do you believe that some kind of world government is avoidable? Might be now, but I'd say it is only a matter of time.
'However, do you believe that some kind of world government is avoidable?'
As long as we have people in the white house we don't knuckle under to them, yes it's avoidable. Can I guarantee that we always will? Unfortunately no. Hopefully I'll be long dead before they decide to sell our soveignty to some world government.
The UN is accountable to governments. The US has only recently started complaining about the power of the UN, it's not the the UN is any more powerful, it's just that the USA can't dominate it as it used to. Some form of democratisation of the UN would be a great thing, but that's the very last thing the US government would want to see.
'The UN is accountable to governments'
Not really. They are free to be as corrupt as they want and fail constantly to perform their duties, and so far nobody has been punished for these monumental fuckups.
To be completely honest, I'm not very clear on the accountability, structure and hierarchy of the UN. I should really learn more before shouting my mouth off. I'd assumed that the members of the UN Security Council would be directly answerable to the central governments of their respective countries.
No, jd 30. We know more than you do about it.
As far as a World Government being avoidable goes then I think it is. But the really decent politicians, journalists and members of the public have got to start speaking out.
The way I feel, I think power should be more localised, rather than coalescing amongst the global super rich. Call me old fashioned if you want.
did you know that 74% of their funds come from America, & they still couldn't care less about us
Clinton was a globalist. He wanted a bigger UN army and started to make gun ownership more of an issue. Bush is exposed to the same forces.
|
|
