- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Mesquite, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Gandhi>Bush said:I personally think the UN is a great idea, but today it has turned corrupt, stagnant and useless. Any ideas about how reform? Do you think it should just be thrown out? Have at it.
That is actually a good idea, ludahai. I would revise it a bit and say keep a reformed UN, let non-democratic countries have a seat, limited voice, limited aid, and no vote. That might give them more incentive to move toward democracy.The problem is that so long as you give the non-democratic nations the same voice as democratic nations, it will remain a body inherently opposed to the protection of democracy and human rights.
It is time for the democratic nations of the world (yes, including France) to form its own organization, and only admit the China's and Burma's of the world once they truly become democratic.
Arch Enemy said:I personally we just need to make more restrictions and penalties for those who lie about their actions. We need to demolish the whole idea that one vote from a Council Country and the action will be halted. It should be like a real vote.. Majority rules.. you're never going to have an action that EVERYONE will enjoy.. just impossible.
SourceApr 27, 7:24 PM (ET)
By LEYLA LINTON
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Zimbabwe was re-elected Wednesday to the Human Rights Commission, drawing scathing protests from the United States and other countries charging that the African nation is one of the world's worst rights violators.
William J. Brencick, the U.S. mission representative, said Zimbabwe had "blatantly disregarded the rights of its own people" and its re-election to the U.N. human rights watchdog was inappropriate.
"We remain deeply concerned that the government of Zimbabwe maintains repressive controls on political assembly and the media, harasses civil society groups, and continues to encourage a climate where the opposition fears for its safety," he said.
How is that unacceptable? That is actually what democracy is.ludahai said:If it is one-country, one-vote and everything is done by a simple majority of countries, then the non-democratic countries of the world will have most of the power in the United Nations as most nations of the world are not democracies.
This is unacceptable!
ShamMol said:How is that unacceptable? That is actually what democracy is.
Nope, not really. Democracy...one vote per person...kinda the way that the UN works, or one vote per country. We even have a semi-House of Reps with the permenant power given to some nations who are considered more important (instead of in the Rep bigger).ludahai said::rofl
Allowing a government that does NOT represent its people the same vote as one that DOES represent its people is a democracy? That is warped logic if I have ever seen it.
Deus Ex Machina said:For example, isn't it possible that the people of China are relatively content with their government?
The U.N. should have no business being a champion of democracy.
Gandhi>Bush said:I would like to see a UN that gets things done. I would like to see a UN that gives a damn about the genocide in Sudan. I would like to see a UN that isn't as corrupt as the Oil for Food scandal showed it is. We need a body like the UN, but it needs reform.
Atlas said:Last time I visited the U.N. web site and the U.N. itself I have been informed that the U.N. needs 250 billions in order to fix most of the world problems (i.e. hunger, basic vaccination for all, Child soldiers, tribal conflict, education, partial disarmament, water problems, and so on; this statistic can be found on the U.N. web site and if you do not find it tell me I surely still have it on my PC).
Now does 250 billions sound like a large sum? It is a joke. The world expenditure for weapons is at 950 billions (for 2004). The US, spends more or less 500 billions when it comes to the military and the arms trade.
By: Atlas
Gandhi>Bush said:I find this to be the most distressing part. 250 billion dollars? That's chump change when it comes to global standards.
Deus Ex Machina said:I am definitely uncomfortable with the notion of withholding U.N. voting rights from non-democracies.
It actually flies in the face of their national sovereignty -- the right of a nation to choose its own government and system. Democracy is not always the best government for all people at all times. Oftentimes, people want to have a strong autocratic ruler, expecially when such rule accompanies promises of combatting corruption.
For example, isn't it possible that the people of China are relatively content with their government?
What's important is that the choice of government is made with the nation itself, and not by a foreign occupier. It is in this protection of national sovereignty that the U.N. should involve itself.
The U.N. should have no business being a champion of democracy.
RightatNYU said:That number is a complete fallacy.
250 billion to cure "hunger, basic vaccination for all, Child soldiers, tribal conflict, education, partial disarmament, water problems, and so on"
That's completely absurd to imagine that's true. The US spends 250 billion on education EACH YEAR ALONE, so how on earth is 250 billion going to solve all educations problems world wide?
Those numbers have obviously been tampered with.
And secondly, where would that money come from? Try collecting 250 BILLION from nations without any actual enforcement ability to do so.
Gandhi>Bush said:Okay let's just toss this up for a second...
I did this research after seeing one of those commercials about giving a cup of coffee a day to put food and shelter over kids heads in africa. You know what I'm talking about? I'm sure you do. We've all seen 'em. I did this along time ago.
A cup of coffee being about a dollar we'll say everyday.
There are currently 90 million starving people in Africa.
$1= 1 day.
365 days in a year.
365 x 18? 16? we'll say 17.
365 x 17 = 6205
$250,000,000,000/6205 = Approximately 40,290,088.6 children will eat from the time they are born until they are 17.
250 billion dollars is quite off if we're talking about the 90 million starving people in africa, but if that bald guy on TV knows his stuff, it wouldn't take much more to help out some children.
The number of people could be increased as the age they can start working goes down. Remember I chose 17 to go with. How old could a child start working for wages in africa? I don't know.
Gandhi>Bush said:Well, let's assume that you can feed someone on a dollar a day. We're looking at Africa's hunger problem going away for a little over $500,000,000,000. Do you really think the world would have a problem getting that kind of money?
That's about a war and half's worth.
But to get back on topic,
Do you have any other ideas for the UN, what they should be doing, how they could be better, etc.?
political obliteration is the only solution. [/QUOTE] Or should we just say world peace is over rated and have no place to for everyone to communicate all together?[/QUOTE]QUOTE=Gandhi>Bush]So Mr. Righter, you think the UN is a bad idea all together? Do you have any suggestions for what could make it less incompetant, impotent, inconsiderate, and intolerant of U.S. ideals? Should it be reformed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?