Best idea for the UN would be to make them to actual solve an issue in a country, by force if necessary.
You might find it hypocritical, but I guess I see the purpose of an international body differently. The U.N. is proof that most of the world's various viewpoints are too divergent to be of any use. Therefore, if a body is to be implemented, it must have a coherent viewpoint. We need a body formed purely on Western ideas and views. We can include a few countries in this group that may differ from our viewpoint, but we shouldn't include countries that completely oppose our views -- China and Russia being the most significant countries that fit this description.CameronPoe wrote:
lol. Just ignore one of the world's biggest energy and mineral resource sources and the most populous country on earth..... pretty damn arrogant. I agree with Russia and China on this one: this is not a matter impinging on international security - it is a domestic matter for Zimbabwe and possibly South Africa as they seem to be directly affected by the deluge of refugees. Your UN idea is ludicrous - it is thought through purely on the basis that you are an American. Why should America be on the council if Russia and China aren't? Has not the US vetoed about a gazillion Israeli resolutions? Hypocritical to the max.Turquoise wrote:
They felt strongly about vetoing it because they have to worry about looking like hypocrites when it comes to human rights abuses and corruption.
In short, China and Russia should not be part of anything remotely like a Security Council. A more valid council would have America, the U.K., France, Germany, and Japan as its members. Maybe we could add India and Brazil as well.
As I said before, if they want a group, they can make their own (just like my proposal for us making one). The U.N. is utterly useless.
Well I don't subscribe to creating all-encompassing non-democratic organisations whose goal would be to direct a world full of a myriad of diverse peoples. Grassroots political development is what I prefer - not top-down western cultural and political imperialism. And you're right on your second point: you would get a counterbalance international organisation if you attempted it - heightening tension and providing refuge for anyone whose views you oppose and who your new 'UN' would seek to impose their will on. It would be as useless, bad and divisive as the current UN.Turquoise wrote:
You might find it hypocritical, but I guess I see the purpose of an international body differently. The U.N. is proof that most of the world's various viewpoints are too divergent to be of any use. Therefore, if a body is to be implemented, it must have a coherent viewpoint. We need a body formed purely on Western ideas and views. We can include a few countries in this group that may differ from our viewpoint, but we shouldn't include countries that completely oppose our views -- China and Russia being the most significant countries that fit this description.
As I said before, if they want a group, they can make their own (just like my proposal for us making one). The U.N. is utterly useless.
The Security Council and the UN itself are worthless with the veto. Period.
Fair point, but I think you'll find that the world outside of the West is even more top-down than we are. The West provides the most freedoms to its citizens of any group. For example, look at how much wealth disparity there is in India. Look at how few freedoms most African citizens have.CameronPoe wrote:
Well I don't subscribe to creating all-encompassing non-democratic organisations whose goal would be to direct a world full of a myriad of diverse peoples. Grassroots political development is what I prefer - not top-down western cultural and political imperialism. And you're right on your second point: you would get a counterbalance international organisation if you attempted it - heightening tension and providing refuge for anyone whose views you oppose and who your new 'UN' would seek to impose their will on. It would be as useless, bad and divisive as the current UN.Turquoise wrote:
You might find it hypocritical, but I guess I see the purpose of an international body differently. The U.N. is proof that most of the world's various viewpoints are too divergent to be of any use. Therefore, if a body is to be implemented, it must have a coherent viewpoint. We need a body formed purely on Western ideas and views. We can include a few countries in this group that may differ from our viewpoint, but we shouldn't include countries that completely oppose our views -- China and Russia being the most significant countries that fit this description.
As I said before, if they want a group, they can make their own (just like my proposal for us making one). The U.N. is utterly useless.
The West is faring the best of any part of the world because of our more democratic approach to things and because of our business practices. Now, admittedly, we garner a good portion of our wealth from imperialism, but I'd rather be the oppressor than the oppressed, if you know what I mean.
Inevitably, whoever is in power will oppress other nations somewhat to gain power and wealth. It doesn't make it right, but I think it's a fair assessment to assume that we've been less oppressive than the Soviet Union was, China has been, or most of the Islamic World has been. You can be sure that if the Russians, Chinese, or Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Iran was the last remaining superpower, they'd be much more imperialistic than we've been.
This is why I prefer we helm things. The West is generally better in its approach than all the rest. That might be ethnocentric, but it would also seem to be true if you look at how well we live compared to the rest of the world.
Perhaps they should have a veto system like the US government: If it gets vetoed, put it to a vote in the General Assembly. Two-thirds (or maybe bump it up to three-fourths) vote against the veto, and the resolution passes.sergeriver wrote:
The Security Council and the UN itself are worthless with the veto. Period.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
ATG wrote:
Hell ya.usmarine2 wrote:
now go get stryyker ffscyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
More of a return tbh.
strykker (I think) wrote:
If you could just relay this to the.... "others", that would be fantastic!
Ok anywho, Its been a long three months. The United States Marine Corps thoroughly fucked me over... switching my MOS from Crash Fire/Rescue, to infantry, then to Artillery. Fuck that... mostly because they didn't "notice" me that had happened. I DEP'ed out on Tuesday, just shy of a month of my ship date. I interview with Los Angeles County/City Fire Departments within the next six months, and I will hopefully be getting a job for Imperial County fire in the next 2-3 months.
I have had no internet for nearly 2 months. I nearly died. But during that lull time, I have done some mountaineering, climbed El Capitan 1/3 of the way (before having to return with a sick climber, emo).
Answers to questions:
1. Have you stabbed anyone lately?
A: No. But I did light a friend's pants on fire
2. You said you were never coming back, why are you back?
A: Notice... i'm not back.. just giving updates because some people care
3. Why did you leave?
A: Seeing as BF2 died for me a while ago, and forums kinda aren't my thing anymore, I thought it best to concentrate the normal 4 hours a day I would spend on here to other things, mainly my Associates degree in Fire Technology... which is almost done. The temp ban actually had nothing to do with my final decision.
4. Will I ever see/hear from you again?
No. Or until I remember my old account password.
Toodles.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Frankly, on a global scale, Zimbabwe is small fry. That's probably why resolutions are still being bandied around the UN instead of some countries taking unilateral action like the last time not long ago.
I think the Russian/Chinese vetoes serves a more symbolic role here: no matter who the West wants to punish, if it affects our national interest in the region, you ain't going to get what you want. Global politics isn't just your ball park basically.
As for South Africa, they're taking a soft line on Mugabe because frankly they are scared shitless of any kind of civil war or government downfall that would bring an even more massive flood of refugees across their border, worsening the already weakened economy over there.
Suffering of the Zimbabwean people? sorry, not a priority here for anyone. It just seems to be a whole lot of political muscle flexing to me. I still see no way these resolutions would help the situation in any way, no matter what moral high ground the western countries want to take. Perhaps if there were a whole lot of dissent among the populace like the media have portayed, the western countries could supply the opposition with weapons like they have done countless times before? I wonder why they have not this time round?
I think the Russian/Chinese vetoes serves a more symbolic role here: no matter who the West wants to punish, if it affects our national interest in the region, you ain't going to get what you want. Global politics isn't just your ball park basically.
As for South Africa, they're taking a soft line on Mugabe because frankly they are scared shitless of any kind of civil war or government downfall that would bring an even more massive flood of refugees across their border, worsening the already weakened economy over there.
Suffering of the Zimbabwean people? sorry, not a priority here for anyone. It just seems to be a whole lot of political muscle flexing to me. I still see no way these resolutions would help the situation in any way, no matter what moral high ground the western countries want to take. Perhaps if there were a whole lot of dissent among the populace like the media have portayed, the western countries could supply the opposition with weapons like they have done countless times before? I wonder why they have not this time round?
Last edited by maffiaw (2008-07-12 16:51:59)
Now you know how the rest of the world feels every time you give Israel a free pass with your veto.usmarine2 wrote:
"A draft resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and a number of his key allies has been vetoed at the UN Security Council.
The UK foreign secretary called China and Russia's stance "incomprehensible".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7502965.stm
I can understand why Russia and China did it (in terms of their own interests) but I wish they'd hung that fucker Mugabe out to dry.
So you can understand how Russia and China do it (in terms of their own interests), but not how the US can do it (in terms of its own interest)?Braddock wrote:
Now you know how the rest of the world feels every time you give Israel a free pass with your veto.usmarine2 wrote:
"A draft resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and a number of his key allies has been vetoed at the UN Security Council.
The UK foreign secretary called China and Russia's stance "incomprehensible".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7502965.stm
I can understand why Russia and China did it (in terms of their own interests) but I wish they'd hung that fucker Mugabe out to dry.
Someone said something about double standards in another thread somewhere...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Just because you can understand something does that automatically mean you advocate it? I sure hope not.FEOS wrote:
So you can understand how Russia and China do it (in terms of their own interests), but not how the US can do it (in terms of its own interest)?Braddock wrote:
Now you know how the rest of the world feels every time you give Israel a free pass with your veto.usmarine2 wrote:
"A draft resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and a number of his key allies has been vetoed at the UN Security Council.
The UK foreign secretary called China and Russia's stance "incomprehensible".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7502965.stm
I can understand why Russia and China did it (in terms of their own interests) but I wish they'd hung that fucker Mugabe out to dry.
Someone said something about double standards in another thread somewhere...
I am no fan of either Russia or China.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-14 02:38:58)
So are you saying you understand the US's approach in the UN vis a vis Israel?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I understand the relationship between the US and Israel quite clearly.FEOS wrote:
So are you saying you understand the US's approach in the UN vis a vis Israel?
Last edited by Braddock (2008-07-14 04:59:15)
Sanctions hurt the people, not the government. No one can seriously expect the people of Zimbabwe to overthrow the government, and they're the ones starving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_war_of_independencesome_random_panda wrote:
No one can seriously expect the people of Zimbabwe to overthrow the government, and they're the ones starving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Re … %281917%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_revolution
etc., etc.
One can very seriously expect Zimbabweans to pull their hands out of their asses and take fucking action.
That sounds good.Perhaps they should have a veto system like the US government: If it gets vetoed, put it to a vote in the General Assembly. Two-thirds (or maybe bump it up to three-fourths) vote against the veto, and the resolution passes.
It would mean the end of Israel so I'm in favour.
Fuck Israel
The problem in Zimbabwe is it is a divided nation. Tyrannical regimes can only hold onto power when they have a certain amount of support. When there is a genuine desire amongst a majority to stand up and overthrow a regime that is when proper revolutions take place. Even if Mugabe is deposed with external force his supporters will still be running riot...in the same way that Iraq didn't turn into a picnic after Saddam was ousted.CameronPoe wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_war_of_independencesome_random_panda wrote:
No one can seriously expect the people of Zimbabwe to overthrow the government, and they're the ones starving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Re … %281917%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_revolution
etc., etc.
One can very seriously expect Zimbabweans to pull their hands out of their asses and take fucking action.
naziDilbert_X wrote:
It would mean the end of Israel so I'm in favour.
get ready for the goooooooooodwin's law patrol
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-14 20:08:20)
The Nazis never advocated the destruction of Israel.usmarine2 wrote:
naziDilbert_X wrote:
It would mean the end of Israel so I'm in favour.
We need to start a new club. Without them in it. The UN is a farce at best.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
America was pretty divided too with the Tories/Loyalists and the Militiamen, but we still won.Braddock wrote:
The problem in Zimbabwe is it is a divided nation. Tyrannical regimes can only hold onto power when they have a certain amount of support. When there is a genuine desire amongst a majority to stand up and overthrow a regime that is when proper revolutions take place. Even if Mugabe is deposed with external force his supporters will still be running riot...in the same way that Iraq didn't turn into a picnic after Saddam was ousted.CameronPoe wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_war_of_independencesome_random_panda wrote:
No one can seriously expect the people of Zimbabwe to overthrow the government, and they're the ones starving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Re … %281917%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_revolution
etc., etc.
One can very seriously expect Zimbabweans to pull their hands out of their asses and take fucking action.
Yes, but your enemies had to sail over the sea to get to you, and could simply stop coming. Mugabe's support live in Zimbabwe.