29-04-2003 03:18									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think World government is a novel idea, but in practice it sucks because nobody can agree. And if a supposedly democratic country like the US can defy the UN just so some politician can run his own little agenda, well, then yes, it does suck.

	29-04-2003 03:20									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It just occured to me, the UN issues some of the coolest stamps this side of Jupiter.

Maybe it's worth the effort after all.

But UN affairs in general are still booring.

	29-04-2003 03:24									#33
	Increase Your PM Length

Hey, I support one-world government. Just so long as it's not oppressive, then things should turn out ok....ppl think that just because it's one big governmental entity it's going to be an evil thing.

So long as it's not a fundamentalist government, I support it. I hate fundamentalism.

	29-04-2003 03:28									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan Gee, how is the UN supposed to uphold International Law when one of its chief members, the US, doesn't obey international law?

Which "Chief" members obey all international laws?

I would argue that the US is as good as anyone at supporting the rule of law around the world.

	29-04-2003 03:29									#35
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Plato where did you see me say that the "US wants to destroy the world"?

Jesus if that's your level of intelligence (or should I say paranoia) then I don't see any point in talking further.

	29-04-2003 03:30									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It is very easy to have the kinds of you saying how great I speak BTW. All I have to do is agree with you or mildly flatter you really you should see yourself

	29-04-2003 03:33									#37
	Suffering from ads?

Plato-True, but if you look at all the protocols or "legislation" that the UN has created, you'll see that the US stands out. The Kyoto protocol was called "irrelevant" and the bill for children's rights (forgive me, I can't find the exact info) wasn't signed by the US and I believe S. Africa.

	29-04-2003 03:34									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 I can assure you that if the US wanted to "destroy the world" that it could certainly do it.

You go girl LOL

That's the level of debate that has made OT such a bore lately


BTW to say that the US doesnt want to udnermine the UN (my point) is to say the sun doesnt rise from the east.

	29-04-2003 03:40									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan Plato-True, but if you look at all the protocols or "legislation" that the UN has created, you'll see that the US stands out. The Kyoto protocol was called "irrelevant" and the bill for children's rights (forgive me, I can't find the exact info) wasn't signed by the US and I believe S. Africa.

those are secondary IMO.


To the important ones: It is real simple: The US has attacked countries without UN security council authorization.

	29-04-2003 03:42									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 Plato where did you see me say that the "US wants to destroy the world"? Jesus if that's your level of intelligence (or should I say paranoia) then I don't see any point in talking further.

well the UN was designed to keep the peace in a world that no longer exists. the one who wants to destroy it is the US with its actions since it feels to emprisoned in it now.

I see...You meant destroying the peace. Sorry

	29-04-2003 03:44									#41
	Put an end to popups!

? How can you call the environment and children's rights secondary? They shouldn't be put in a tier system where things can get shifted to meet the political ideal's of whomever is in charge.

Albeit, human rights IS a top priority here, but don't these fall under human rights legislation, if not indirectly?

	29-04-2003 03:44									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Destroy/undermine the UN! It's ok; my bad english

	29-04-2003 03:46									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 those are secondary IMO. To the important ones: It is real simple: The US has attacked countries without UN security council authorization.

Paiktis...Wrong. UNSC resolution 1441, and two others (can't remember the exact numbers...676 and 989?????) can legally be interpreted as authorization to use force. Since your point is international law then your argument has no merit. It was sanctioned by the UN, just not "blessed".

	29-04-2003 03:49									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan ? How can you call the environment and children's rights secondary? They shouldn't be put in a tier system where things can get shifted to meet the political ideal's of whomever is in charge. Albeit, human rights IS a top priority here, but don't these fall under human rights legislation, if not indirectly?

Neithier of these issues is secondary. Kyoto had the correct goal, it was just extremely faulty in the way it pursued it. This is also the case in the Children's rights treaty, but I can't remember the specifics.

	29-04-2003 03:56									#45
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap As winston said, the development arm (Unicef, Who, and others) do vital work aorund the world and have greatly helped the poor of this world, whle the veto power and other constraints meant to make national soverignty pre-eminent weaken its ability to carry out collective peace actions: only when all 5 veto members agree on a course of action can it happe. The way to fix that would be to remove the Veto power.

I agree that the various UN agencies do some vital work that no one else would agree to undertake but I must respectfully disagree about removing the veto power. Face it, the majority of the world's countries, and I dare say people, are still ruled by military dictatorships & authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. Giving them the power to out vote the the modern democracies & the Great Powers is a recipe for making the world a worse place and not a better one.

All to often the U.N.'s various committees and subcommittess degenerate into a series of three ring circuses where the world's worst dictators & mass murders grand stand and continually horass their political enemies instead of dealing with the world's most pressing problems or even discussing the issue which the subcommittee was originally created to address. What's worse is that many of these tin pot dictators and Banana Republic Presidents already use the UN as a giant welfare agency which they pack with thier cronies and fellow criminals.

If we really wanted to make the UN live up to its ideals then we should make it a forum where only the world's democracies can hold positions of influence. We should be naming and shaming the world's many military dictators and, yes, we should be striping voting powers & aid money from countries which are not democracies and who do not respect basic human rights.

Of course this will never happen because the Chinas, Saudi Arabias, North Koreas, and Zimbabwes of the world won't allow it. They will continue to murder, imprision, torture, and censor their own citizens while demanding that their corrupt & ruthless elites continue to be treated like Great Men instead of the theives and thugs that they are.

	29-04-2003 03:59									#46
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Hmmm, my bad. It sounded like ppl were putting these issues on the back burner. Even if the Kyoto protocol was faulty, at least it would be a step in the right direction. If the US decided to sign it, at least it would show the world that the US see's the need to clean up the environment.....but I guess they didn't see it that way.

	29-04-2003 04:07									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Oerdin, What you are describing is an alliance, not a world body. Unfortunately, it takes all (or most all) countries to make the UN forum appropriate. The three ring circuses that you describe serve a purpose in usually exposing these dictatorships and banana republics to the world for what they are.

WRT the veto power, I agree. It must remain in place. When authorization to use force can pass the US, Russia, China, UK, and France, then the action is most likely to be world wide accepted with or without a UN. My point is that the UN does not prevent action in a case like Iraq, where there have been a couple of dozen resolutions outlining the world communities distaste for what was happening there and demanding change. Once this is done, then a member body should be able to take action even without broad support. Not one of the UNSC people proposed a resolution ordering Iraq not to be attacked. This could have been done. Even over a US/UK veto, the "opposing" countries could have claimed the "moral" victory everyone saw as important. The fact that this did not happen speaks both volumes for the "opposing" countries true positions and the ultimate effectiveness of the UN.

	29-04-2003 04:09									#48
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Frankychan Hmmm, my bad. It sounded like ppl were putting these issues on the back burner. Even if the Kyoto protocol was faulty, at least it would be a step in the right direction. If the US decided to sign it, at least it would show the world that the US see's the need to clean up the environment.....but I guess they didn't see it that way.

Kyoto was not really about cleaning up the environment. It was about redistributing where the pollution came from. Ultimately it was about redistributing wealth from the US to developing nations.

	29-04-2003 04:12									#49
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

? I thought that it tried to implement new environmental regulations? Wasn't one aspect somewhere along the lines that all the industrial nations had to install air scrubbers or what-not to reduce the amount of particles released into the air?

Maybe I'm thinking of different regulations but I know that the US scoffed at the idea....calling it, "Too costly".

	29-04-2003 04:17									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Kyoto set mandatory pollution reduction targets for developed nations, while allowing developing nations to increase pollution far above the developed nations reduction. The "scrubbers" you detail are already installed in a large part of the US and The Clean Air Act has moved the US discharge per ton of fuel burned into one of the better ranges. The problem is that the US is the major consumer of fossil fuel. To mandate a reduction in this without setting limits on developing nations would cause industry to move to locations where they could produce.

	29-04-2003 04:28									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kyoto didn't/doesn't just have a few problems. It is fatally flawed in that it allows 90% of the countries to increase emitions to an unlimited degree while severally penalizing a handful of wealthy countries. The only way to substantially decrease CO2 output would be to dramatically increase the tax on gasoline and heavy industry since that's where most of the CO2 we can do something about is coming from (Agriculture is also significant but how do you decrease the amount of gas a cow farts or burbs?).

After the tax levies are put in place people will still want to buy steal, paper, automobiles, and all that stuff but now these items will be made in poor third world countries which are not required to cap CO2 emitions. In fact almost all of these 3rd world countries have no enviromental enforcement at all so that means not only will we not decrease world wide CO2 output but we will also make the world's enviroment worse and ruin the 1st world's economy.

That's not good policy by any measurement.

	29-04-2003 04:29									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Kyoto was bad.

	29-04-2003 04:32									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Does the UN suck?

In it's current state, yes.

However, it could, and would, be a lot worse, if UN wouldn't exist.