Who's ready for world war 3?!

[ludahai]

I have to say I actually agree with this sentiment. The UN, IMO, is nothing more than a "puppet" of the US.

HUH?!?!? Did I wake up in a time warp and end up in 1965?!? Forty years ago, that was largely true. However, you need to wake up and look at the UN today. It is largely inimical to US interests, and has been since the dozens of totalitarian states that inhabit much of Africa and Asia had been admitted to the United Nations. The era of U.S. domination of the UN ended (in my opinion) in 1971 when the U.S. could no longer prevent the seating of Communist China in the UN.

 

[Mixed View]

I ready for it. As long as we are against France!

 

[Kelzie]

So long as that restructuring puts power in the hands of democratic states, yes, I would be much happier. Somehow, I don't think you mean that however.

What's with the hate? I am actually more for an electoral college type representation, the bigger your population, the more representatives you have, and the more power you have. There would be no such thing as one country being able to veto, it would be majority rules in a lot ot cases, and maybe 2/3 for the really impotant ones (declarations of war, etc). That said, the UN would still have to respect the rights of sovereignty for many cases (ie the LDCs couldn't gang up on the MDCs and vote for them to distribute their money)

And I don't know what you're crying about. Out of almost 200 countries in the world, 121 are democratic. That's the majority.

Although I do also agree that if your representatives don't represent the will of the people (ie in non-democratic countries) than you should have less representatives. I know there's a scale measuring democracy somewhere. Maybe the number of representatives you should have would be multiplied by the percentage of how democratic your country is. That would provide even more incentive for countries to inact democratic rules...

 

[rudy0908]

What's with the hate? I am actually more for an electoral college type representation, the bigger your population, the more representatives you have, and the more power you have. There would be no such thing as one country being able to veto, it would be majority rules in a lot ot cases, and maybe 2/3 for the really impotant ones (declarations of war, etc). That said, the UN would still have to respect the rights of sovereignty for many cases (ie the LDCs couldn't gang up on the MDCs and vote for them to distribute their money)

And I don't know what you're crying about. Out of almost 200 countries in the world, 121 are democratic. That's the majority.

Although I do also agree that if your representatives don't represent the will of the people (ie in non-democratic countries) than you should have less representatives. I know there's a scale measuring democracy somewhere. Maybe the number of representatives you should have would be multiplied by the percentage of how democratic your country is. That would provide even more incentive for countries to inact democratic rules...

Sorry Kelzie, but I think thats a terrible idea. India and China would get way too much power. Every nation should get one and only one vote. Why should their population matter when only one representative is voting? I wouldn't want some US votes attributed to me.

 

[Kelzie]

Sorry Kelzie, but I think thats a terrible idea. India and China would get way too much power. Every nation should get one and only one vote. Why should their population matter when only one representative is voting? I wouldn't want some US votes attributed to me.

Oh but it isn't. India might because they're a democracy, and why shouldn't they? They speak for a greater part of the worlds population than we do. Why should, oh, Thailand, have just as valuable a vote as the US when they are so much smaller? It makes no sense. The fairest way to have a world council is to have the amount of people that you are voting for dictate either a) how many representatives you have, or b) how much weight your vote carries. I haven't decided which yet.

And China wouldn't. There's already some sort of measure out there for how democratic a country is. The amount of votes you get would be related to how democratic your country is.

What do you mean you wouldn't want some US votes attributed to you?

 

[ludahai]

What's with the hate? I am actually more for an electoral college type representation, the bigger your population, the more representatives you have, and the more power you have. There would be no such thing as one country being able to veto, it would be majority rules in a lot ot cases, and maybe 2/3 for the really impotant ones (declarations of war, etc). That said, the UN would still have to respect the rights of sovereignty for many cases (ie the LDCs couldn't gang up on the MDCs and vote for them to distribute their money)

And I don't know what you're crying about. Out of almost 200 countries in the world, 121 are democratic. That's the majority.

Although I do also agree that if your representatives don't represent the will of the people (ie in non-democratic countries) than you should have less representatives. I know there's a scale measuring democracy somewhere. Maybe the number of representatives you should have would be multiplied by the percentage of how democratic your country is. That would provide even more incentive for countries to inact democratic rules...

I don't know where you get that 121 countries of the 193 in the world are democratic (keep in mind, one democratic country is continually denied entry into the U.N.) Many countries that CLAIM they are democratic in reality are NOT. i.e. North Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.

I think your idea is a good one, but unwieldy due largely to who makes the decision of who is democratic and who is not? Are Communist China and Singapore going to decide who is democratic or the U.S. and Germany?

 

[Kelzie]

I don't know where you get that 121 countries of the 193 in the world are democratic (keep in mind, one democratic country is continually denied entry into the U.N.) Many countries that CLAIM they are democratic in reality are NOT. i.e. North Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.

I think your idea is a good one, but unwieldy due largely to who makes the decision of who is democratic and who is not? Are Communist China and Singapore going to decide who is democratic or the U.S. and Germany?

There's an independent group called Freedom House that tracks democracy in the world. Here's an article on it off their website. In case you don't want to read it, I'll post the relevant stuff.

"By the close of our century liberal and electoral democracies clearly predominate, and have expanded significantly in the Third Wave, which has brought democracy to much of the post-Communist world and to Latin America and parts of Asia and Africa. Electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 62.5 percent of the world’s population."

"At the same time liberal democracies— i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law— are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population."

Anyway, you should check it out, they have their methodology somewhere on the site.

Just cause you mentioned them:

North Korea: Totalitarian Regime
China: Authoritarian Regime
Malaysia: Restricted Democratic Practice (doesn't count as a democratic country)
Singapore:Authoritarian Regime

Trust them now? They're a good group, no bias that I can see.


Here, I found their methodology for this particular study.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/methodology.htm

 

[kal-el]

HUH?!?!? Did I wake up in a time warp and end up in 1965?!? Forty years ago, that was largely true. However, you need to wake up and look at the UN today. It is largely inimical to US interests, and has been since the dozens of totalitarian states that inhabit much of Africa and Asia had been admitted to the United Nations. The era of U.S. domination of the UN ended (in my opinion) in 1971 when the U.S. could no longer prevent the seating of Communist China in the UN.

The false pretext used by the US during the present conflict that we are over there to "liberate" the Iraqis is a great example, of how the UN submits to the every wimb of the US. If the UN had a real "democracy" internally, then China would definetly be a majority in the desicion-making with about 25% of the world populus. But the US, who only represents about 5% of the world, pushes to invade Iraq unilaterally, and so there is a cowardly, Anlgo-American military attack against a soverign country who was No threat to us, or their neighbors, for that matter, and as there was some courage to oppose this brutality by countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China. These countries openly opposed this blantant aggression carried out without the approval of the UN.

 

[Kelzie]

The false pretext used by the US during the present conflict that we are over there to "liberate" the Iraqis is a great example, of how the UN submits to the every wimb of the US. If the UN had a real "democracy" internally, then China would definetly be a majority in the desicion-making with about 25% of the world populus. But the US, who only represents about 5% of the world, pushes to invade Iraq unilaterally, and so there is a cowardly, Anlgo-American military attack against a soverign country who was No threat to us, or their neighbors, for that matter, and as there was some courage to oppose this brutality by countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China. These countries openly opposed this blantant aggression carried out without the approval of the UN.

Why should a country that's not democratic be able to participate fully in a democratic organization? Seems a little odd to me...

 

[Crispy]

Oh but it isn't. India might because they're a democracy, and why shouldn't they? They speak for a greater part of the worlds population than we do. Why should, oh, Thailand, have just as valuable a vote as the US when they are so much smaller? It makes no sense. The fairest way to have a world council is to have the amount of people that you are voting for dictate either a) how many representatives you have, or b) how much weight your vote carries. I haven't decided which yet.

And China wouldn't. There's already some sort of measure out there for how democratic a country is. The amount of votes you get would be related to how democratic your country is.

What do you mean you wouldn't want some US votes attributed to you?

Hows about a system like we have where one house has equal representation and one has representation based on population? I always thought that was a fair way to empower member states without favoring small populations.

 

[Crispy]

Why should a country that's not democratic be able to participate fully in a democratic organization? Seems a little odd to me...

I would think it would be according to UN principles of Human Rights and equality rather than democracy. If a communist nation is actually abiding by such basic standards but implements a communist government that works for it and the rest of the world community, why bash it? Not saying I agree with communism but I think these other principles are more important than the system of government. What do yall think?

 

[Kelzie]

Hows about a system like we have where one house has equal representation and one has representation based on population? I always thought that was a fair way to empower member states without favoring small populations.

Actually, I like that too, but I think smaller populations would get lost, not empowered, if we based everything off of population. We're talking differences in magnitudes of ten here in varying populations. So I like that...two different houses...anyone know Kofi's telephone number? :lol:

 

[nefarious_plot]

I think it shows how insanle people are to think Bush is sane. Invasion of Iran or Syira will spark a regional conflict wich in turn most likely willl spill over to global conflict. Saying God told him to start war is all the evidence for insanity I need. The fact that people suppport him after sying that shows that the Christian Fundemntalists in America are every bit as insane and terrorists minded as the Islamic ones.

As far comparison to world wars. I know wholl babling that and I happily have found the ignore option for that nonesence.

There is nothing comparable to ww2 in these events. Other then the blooodshed.

 

[Crispy]

Actually, I like that too, but I think smaller populations would get lost, not empowered, if we based everything off of population. We're talking differences in magnitudes of ten here in varying populations. So I like that...two different houses...anyone know Kofi's telephone number? :lol:

Actually your gonna have to convince China before you call Kofi

 

[Kelzie]

Actually your gonna have to convince China before you call Kofi

Well, ludahai lives in that neighborhood. I'm sure he can just make a couple phone calls, and we can have this whole thing worked out by Monday. World peace by next Thursday...:lol:

 

[Crispy]

Well, ludahai lives in that neighborhood. I'm sure he can just make a couple phone calls, and we can have this whole thing worked out by Monday. World peace by next Thursday...:lol:

LOL, well I think your pushing an aggressive schedule, I figure we'd at least need another weekend to work the kinks

 

[Kelzie]

LOL, well I think your pushing an aggressive schedule, I figure we'd at least need another weekend to work the kinks

Fine, I'll give us another week...but we should take care of the whole "poverty" thing then too...

 

[Crispy]

Fine, I'll give us another week...but we should take care of the whole "poverty" thing then too...

Whoa, now we're talking scope creep lol. I suppose we can tackle poverty in this one but I'd be inclined to add the AIDS pandemic to the list here and just extend the project out a couple of weeks then lolol.

 

[Kelzie]

Whoa, now we're talking scope creep lol. I suppose we can tackle poverty in this one but I'd be inclined to add the AIDS pandemic to the list here and just extend the project out a couple of weeks then lolol.

That's a better plan. Hey I'd like a million bucks too.





And a pony. :mrgreen:

 

[Crispy]

That's a better plan. Hey I'd like a million bucks too.





And a pony. :mrgreen:

Neither of which is out of the question

 

[Billo_Really]

Has anyone noticed the unprecedented war maneuvers that just ended between Russia and China. The largest such war games in recent history. Why did they do this in concert with each other? Can it be possible they are a little unnerved by US aggression and its chickhawk foreign policy. Is it possible these war games were done in a "just in case" scenario.

Soon Iran will join them as Ally's. If we attack Iran, we might whined up facing nukes from two countries we don't won't to fight.

 

[Kelzie]

Has anyone noticed the unprecedented war maneuvers that just ended between Russia and China. The largest such war games in recent history. Why did they do this in concert with each other? Can it be possible they are a little unnerved by US aggression and its chickhawk foreign policy. Is it possible these war games were done in a "just in case" scenario.

Soon Iran will join them as Ally's. If we attack Iran, we might whined up facing nukes from two countries we don't won't to fight.

What about the one we did...I think it was before 9/11...with one of our Generals as the head of some third world country, and he sunk like a third of our ships on the first day...so we refloated them and made him lose. Where was I reading that...you should know Billo.

 

[128shot]

we....won't....invade....Iran....anytime....before.....2010......

just trust me. Really, don't get your hopes up.

 

[nefarious_plot]

I hope we wont ever..Iraq is a big enough bloodbath. Iran would be 10 times worse.

2010 is signifigant why?

 

[128shot]

this would be around the time Iran is finishing its nukes...