Põdi Posted March 5, 2002 Report Share Posted March 5, 2002 A historic vote was passed at the weekend. See Satireweb's view on the matter......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmett.hendrick Posted March 5, 2002 Report Share Posted March 5, 2002 LOL thats good Bye bye neutrality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grayfox Posted March 5, 2002 Report Share Posted March 5, 2002 nice, but someone trying to be a bit too funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2002 Report Share Posted March 5, 2002 Does this mean we'll finally get some decent fondue? All this neutrality stuff, not helping either side with their cheesy dishes is finally OVER! Go Swiss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hellbinder[CE] Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 The UN is Evil. Wait a few years when all our individual countries sovrenty is completely gone. We will all be ruled by a Totalitarian Socialistic "Big Brother" society. Or do you guys really think that Human nature has gotten any better over the last several thousand years? One world government will not be a happy place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 quote:The UN is Evil. Wait a few years when all our individual countries sovrenty is completely gone. We will all be ruled by a Totalitarian Socialistic "Big Brother" society.First of all, it's spelled sovereignty. Secondly, the UN is anti-socialist (it regards the pursuit of private property as a fundamental human right). Thirdly, the UN does not have the power to impose any kind of globally central government (it can't even enforce the rulings of its own international court). Fourthly, the UN is totally dependent on funding from the member states, of which the USA pays 22-25%, hence the strong American influence over the organization (if the USA resigns, the UN is dead, period). If the UN is attempting to impose a one world government, it's because the American elite wants them to, and it would take a lot longer than a few decades let alone a few years. [ 03-07-2002, 06:06: Message edited by: Menchise ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hellbinder[CE] Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 quote: First of all, it's spelled sovereignty Thanks for the tip You dont pay to much attention to whats really going on do you.... I'd catch up on my UN reading if I were you. They are proposing some pretty scarry things even as I Write this. I give it 10 years TOPS before it has its own TRUE Military force, Own Currency, Own Trade Laws and Security policies ETC.... All opperating independantly and with Jurisdiction over Member Nations. The UN is increasingly socialist every day. It is not based on private enterprise. (not that I think that private enterprise rulling the world is any better). [feel free to correct my spelling some more, i left some nuggets in there for you. I know it stokes your ego.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hellbinder[CE] Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 oh, did you know they are voting to increase their yearly budget to over 1 trillion dollars? A HUGE increase in operating funds. Sounds small by todays standards, but give it a few years..... [ 03-07-2002, 15:19: Message edited by: Hellbinder ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 quote:I'd catch up on my UN reading if I were you. They are proposing some pretty scarry things even as I Write this.1. Like what? 2. They're still proposals. Proposals cannot be implemented without a ratification by two thirds of the General Assembly. quote:The UN is increasingly socialist every day. It is not based on private enterprise.1. Then why is there an ongoing discussion about the possibility of multinational corporations funding the UN in exchange for representation? 2. Why does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that the pursuit of private property is a fundamental right? 3. What are some examples of the UN turning socialist? quote:feel free to correct my spelling some more, i left some nuggets in there for you. I know it stokes your ego.I point out spelling mistakes so that they won't be repeated. It's not an ego thing. quote:oh, did you know they are voting to increase their yearly budget to over 1 trillion dollars? A HUGE increase in operating funds. Sounds small by todays standards, but give it a few years.....An increase in funding does not conclusively prove anything. The important question in that context is, "Where is that money going?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted March 7, 2002 Report Share Posted March 7, 2002 Just the fact itself that UN is proposing some of the things they ARE proposing is showing how ridiculous and power hungry UN is. Also I VERY MUCH don't like the fact that it's trying to flex it's muscle in the US and is sugesting that US constitution is old/outdated and needs to be changed. Who the @#$@# are they to tell US that our constitution is outdated and some of our laws barbaric (like the right to own a firearm for example). Also the reason US doesn't pull out from UN because right now it's harder to do than it sounds. It's not like US can say "we just quit, get off our land" (UN "offices" are located in NY after all), but trust me, when enough people get pissed off and will have enough of that the US WILL be out of UN and they WILL get off our land SO FAST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 The UN is one of my buttons, I hate that POS organization. Wouldn't know thier @#$ from a hole in the ground, but they sure do want to take away our guns and hold sway on our lands as International monuments or some such garbage. They want thier own Army, they want a TRADE tax in order to finance themselves. They are hungry for power, if the tax occurs, I would be watching my back and that UN army thing is not a nice deal either. This new world court is a joke thank god, see milosoviks trial, what a kangaroo court. If they wanted to be taken seriously, I think he just blew that out of the water!! ROFLMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrai Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 laws are made to be broken, or were made cause someone doesnt like the fact someone else got away with it and they couldnt. the UN is funded mostly by the US, so that means the UN is a front for the US on getting into other countries and imposing thier will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 The UN charter includes it having its own armed force. Been so since it was first drafted. UN's failures have largely been the fault of the member nations, that see it as nothing more than a global non-aggression safety blanket (you hit me and the whole world hits you.). And even in this duty it fails miserably. Why? Because its got no armed forces. You think that the world wouldve given a rat's ass about Kuwait if it was the leading exporter of Watermelons instead of oil? Just look at the half-assed UN effort in the yugoslavian conflict. It wasnt until NATO stepped in that anything got done. What did yugoslavia offer the wealthy nations that could veto/influence a UN decision? Nada.. zilch. Thus, no interest at all to help. Just send in a token bunch of blue helmets..until the crap hit the fan. Members only act on their own self-interest (as every and all sovereign nation on earth does).. thus no effective measures are ever taken. Unless its good for them. Like oil. oil goood. UN evil? Thats kinda ackward.. the UN is mainly run by the major powers.. and u know who those are (at least one of them). Is it each individual member's fault instead? YES. Yet, as Murphy states, "If a group of people are at fault, no individual is to be blamed". Nice tiddy loop in which everyone messes up and no one dirties their hands. "The UN is increasingly socialist every day. It is not based on private enterprise" It cant be based on private enterprise. Ever. Thats the whole point. UN is to be a worldwide organization run BY member NATIONS. Not by Bill Gates & ilk. "I give it 10 years TOPS before it has its own TRUE Military force, Own Currency, Own Trade Laws and Security policies ETC.... All opperating independantly and with Jurisdiction over Member Nations." I hope its so. Own military will mean that they will be able to DO what they originally were intended for. KEEP THE PEACE. Own currency? EXCELLENT. Trade laws? Security policies? "All opperating independantly and with Jurisdiction over Member Nations" Sounds good to me. Whats the point of appointing a mutual overseer, giving it all the responsability and none of the tools? You know why this is so scary to member nations? It would make them all EQUAL under one body of law. Will Iraq be allowed to keep bombarding its neighbors with chemical weapons? They've been doing it for decades. No one gives a sh*t about it.Unless they're hurt by it. Kurdish child != < 1 barrel of oil. "Not us" syndrome. And while many of you US folks may not like it, what about the Cuban embargo? "not us" say the rest of the world. Cuba rots in the meantime. No oil in cuba though . Or the chinese invasion of Tibet? African slavery (diamond trade comes to mind)? Almost every nation has its own shame.. and it aint over yet you know.. it will keep happening until someone with enough international authority comes into place.. with the fangs to back its bark. The UN becoming a 1-world government? That'd be nice, albeit impractical. There's a better solution, a better system. One that has been working and proven over the last few hundred years. Yes gringos, thats YOU. The USA. Each of your states has its own laws, own regulations.. yet all answer to the federal system. Federal law. (please correct me if im wrong, some of the terms I use may be the wrong ones). Thats almost unheard of before. In my own country its 1 law for the whole land. No exceptions. I havent heard of any Euro nation having different laws for different parts of their lands. Heck, must be because we like the metric system UN would be the federal system. Each nation would be something like a state. Each one ruling its people as they see fit.. but under certain set parameters and rules. Each one equally represented in the fed. system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Tac: The UN charter includes it having its own armed force. Been so since it was first drafted. UN's failures have largely been the fault of the member nations, that see it as nothing more than a global non-aggression safety blanket (you hit me and the whole world hits you.). And even in this duty it fails miserably. Why? Because its got no armed forces. You think that the world wouldve given a rat's ass about Kuwait if it was the leading exporter of Watermelons instead of oil? Just look at the half-assed UN effort in the yugoslavian conflict. It wasnt until NATO stepped in that anything got done. What did yugoslavia offer the wealthy nations that could veto/influence a UN decision? Nada.. zilch. Thus, no interest at all to help. Just send in a token bunch of blue helmets..until the crap hit the fan. Members only act on their own self-interest (as every and all sovereign nation on earth does).. thus no effective measures are ever taken. Unless its good for them. Like oil. oil goood. UN evil? Thats kinda ackward.. the UN is mainly run by the major powers.. and u know who those are (at least one of them). Is it each individual member's fault instead? YES. Yet, as Murphy states, "If a group of people are at fault, no individual is to be blamed". Nice tiddy loop in which everyone messes up and no one dirties their hands. "The UN is increasingly socialist every day. It is not based on private enterprise" It cant be based on private enterprise. Ever. Thats the whole point. UN is to be a worldwide organization run BY member NATIONS. Not by Bill Gates & ilk. "I give it 10 years TOPS before it has its own TRUE Military force, Own Currency, Own Trade Laws and Security policies ETC.... All opperating independantly and with Jurisdiction over Member Nations." I hope its so. Own military will mean that they will be able to DO what they originally were intended for. KEEP THE PEACE. Own currency? EXCELLENT. Trade laws? Security policies? "All opperating independantly and with Jurisdiction over Member Nations" Sounds good to me. Whats the point of appointing a mutual overseer, giving it all the responsability and none of the tools? You know why this is so scary to member nations? It would make them all EQUAL under one body of law. Will Iraq be allowed to keep bombarding its neighbors with chemical weapons? They've been doing it for decades. No one gives a sh*t about it.Unless they're hurt by it. Kurdish child != < 1 barrel of oil. "Not us" syndrome. And while many of you US folks may not like it, what about the Cuban embargo? "not us" say the rest of the world. Cuba rots in the meantime. No oil in cuba though . Or the chinese invasion of Tibet? African slavery (diamond trade comes to mind)? Almost every nation has its own shame.. and it aint over yet you know.. it will keep happening until someone with enough international authority comes into place.. with the fangs to back its bark. The UN becoming a 1-world government? That'd be nice, albeit impractical. There's a better solution, a better system. One that has been working and proven over the last few hundred years. Yes gringos, thats YOU. The USA. Each of your states has its own laws, own regulations.. yet all answer to the federal system. Federal law. (please correct me if im wrong, some of the terms I use may be the wrong ones). Thats almost unheard of before. In my own country its 1 law for the whole land. No exceptions. I havent heard of any Euro nation having different laws for different parts of their lands. Heck, must be because we like the metric system UN would be the federal system. Each nation would be something like a state. Each one ruling its people as they see fit.. but under certain set parameters and rules. Each one equally represented in the fed. system.Yeah, but what UN is trying to do is come into other countries (US for example), critisize their laws, and try to CHANGE them as to what THEY think it should be like. Well, to hell with that. Don't you know that the bigger the governing body, the larger the corruption, the more things can be "missing" and "unaccounted" for. UN is trying to be that LARGE governing body, and what I don't like the most about it is that it's trying to impose it's opinions and make them laws. Who do they think they are>? US has got it's own problems without some other inforcer wannabe butting in and trying to change things the way they see fit. What US needs to do is RE-READ the constitution and not by the lawyers or workers of government, but by some SMART people chosen out of the general public. And after that, it needs to take a loooong goood look at the laws and corruption we have right now in the government body. Then what we need to do is as hard and painfull it might be, GET RID of all that corruption. It will be just like curing cancer, but it will be well worth it. That whole cleansing process is long overdue. Large companies hire consultants once every 5 to 10 years to go through it's staff/paperwork and see what is needed and what can be done away with. WHY don't we have the same in government. It seems like if you got a government job, you are set for life, no matter how incompetent you are, and if there is some law or regulation it almoust never gets revised, no matter if it has outlived it's usefullness or is completly unneeded. Now think about all this and tell me why we can't "clean" our laws and people working for government every 10 years or so? Because those who work for government DON'T WANT it to be done, because thousands of them would loose their jobs for incompetence or just because they are not needed and just sucking money out of our taxes, that's why. Whooh, anyway. I gotten way off topic here. Anyway, UN is a joke, and sooner or later people will realize it and then we will see some changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menchise Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 quote:Just the fact itself that UN is proposing some of the things they ARE proposing is showing how ridiculous and power hungry UN is.What proposals are you referring to? quote:Also I VERY MUCH don't like the fact that it's trying to flex it's muscle in the US and is sugesting that US constitution is old/outdated and needs to be changed. Who the @#$@# are they to tell US that our constitution is outdated and some of our laws barbaric (like the right to own a firearm for example)So what? The USA does the same thing to other countries and they don't listen either. quote:Also the reason US doesn't pull out from UN because right now it's harder to do than it sounds. It's not like US can say "we just quit, get off our land" (UN "offices" are located in NY after all), but trust me, when enough people get pissed off and will have enough of that the US WILL be out of UN and they WILL get off our land SO FAST.1. Contradiction: you say that resigning from the UN is harder than it sounds, then you say that it will happen "SO FAST". Make up your mind. 2. I don't think the US Government has the authority to evict the UN from its headquarters in New York because it's located on private land (donated by Rockerfeller). quote:It cant be based on private enterprise. Ever. Thats the whole point. UN is to be a worldwide organization run BY member NATIONS. Not by Bill Gates & ilk.That could change in the near future. It's already being discussed. quote:I hope its so. Own military will mean that they will be able to DO what they originally were intended for. KEEP THE PEACE. Own currency? EXCELLENT. Trade laws? Security policies? "All opperating independantly and with Jurisdiction over Member Nations" Sounds good to me. Whats the point of appointing a mutual overseer, giving it all the responsability and none of the tools? You know why this is so scary to member nations? It would make them all EQUAL under one body of law.Who watches the watchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 "That could change in the near future. It's already being discussed" As a source of funding and development, but to have any kind of influence in the council? Wont happen. "I don't think the US Government has the authority to evict the UN from its headquarters in New York because it's located on private land (donated by Rockerfeller" Yes they can. "Who watches the watchers?" The watched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soback Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 Hey Menchise. I don't know how to do multiple quotes so I am going to keep editing this post to answer some of the stuff you have above. For starters, I am very much fired up about UN saying that the constitution should be either changed or done away with since it's old and has no purpose in these times. What ties into that is that they have attacked our right to bear firearms which is in constitution. What they said is that is barbaric and started quoting other countries which has strict gun control laws and trying to point out that they have less gun related crimes. (which is not entirely true - for one, they might have less gun related crimes just because the weapon of choice might be different as it is easier to get, and second I am interested in their TOTAL ammount of crimes, reason being is the GOOD guy owning a gun will thwart off the criminal from comiting his crime) That will answer your first question. Second. Yes US tries to influence other countries and that's just a part of being a country is to try and have more influence and more power. But what is UN? Is it a country, is it a government --> NO. Then why the hell is it trying to influence US? I don't know. As for the part that other countries just ignore US demands then when things get tough, US steps in with force. Is UN going to back up it's influence with force in US be it political or economical? Well if it will then it brings back the question, WHY is US funding some organization (and that's what it exactly is and should stay - not try to become some governing force) that is trying to inforce it's opinions upon US? Third. Reread the part in my post about how US CAN separate from UN but it's hard, and then me saying that UN will get off US soil SO FAST. You will realize that little part in there that says that right now it's not as easy as it sounds BUT when PEOPLE WILL GET FED UP with UN the US will separate from UN and they will get off our land SO FAST. Right now not everyone is just as fed up with UN as some of us are. Fourth. Exactly. UN is trying to change. Change from what it was originaly designed to do into something more. And by more I don't mean something more good. It's trying to change itself into a form of governing body, and don't you see the danger of governing body that has the interests of many countries to consider? It means that is will pick and choose witch interests to impose, but that won't be good for all the countries and thus chaos, corruption, and unfairness will plague UN like nothing before it. And Fifth. Like I said before, the larger the governing body, the larger the corruption/waste within it. If UN becomes so influential that it can actually inforce it's proposals onto others, then who do you think makes those decissions/proposals so that they can be enforced onto others? Somehow I doubt that whoever will have that power in UN will do things for the good of the peole. More like they will do things for the good of themselfes. As for the part of who watches the watchers? Well, someone whos bank account will receive monthly installments if you know what I mean. [ 03-08-2002, 14:32: Message edited by: Soback ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 "But what is UN? Is it a country, is it a government --> NO." It should become a sort of government.Just like your federal system. "Then why the hell is it trying to influence US? I don't know." Because its a member nation? The only remaining superpower? Politics is the art of influence. "As for the part that other countries just ignore US demands then when things get tough, US steps in with force. Is UN going to back up it's influence with force in US be it political or economical?" Military force would be useless against the US. But there are severe economical and political factors that could be just as effective. The US is not self-sufficient you know. "Well if it will then it brings back the question, WHY is US funding some organization (and that's what it exactly is and should stay - not try to become some governing force) that is trying to inforce it's opinions upon US?" Because its easier for the US to enforce its opinions upon others in an "international" council? To rally others for its own cause? (Gulf War?) Easier to justify actions taken? (Panama?) Facilitates pressuring other nations into doing their will? And its just not the US that does that, all major players in the UN play that game. As I said above, every nation acts in its own self-interest, fek the rest. The US can leave the UN any time it wants. Problem is, it will lose a great chip in the poker game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrai Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Tac: "But what is UN? Is it a country, is it a government --> NO."actually it does own land, i read a report stateing that the US Senate gave them our national parks and most the worlds land too. iv posted the report, i had saved on my comp. link was old so i found the current one, has a new title from the looks of it, but this is the one i had saved US Senate Gives UN Control Over 70% Of World's Land Mass By Henry Lamb ┬® 2000 WorldNetDaily.com http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18828 12-9-00 The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote. Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package. At the recent climate change talks in the Hague, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) said the treaty had not been ratified, until corrected by one of his staff. Phone calls to Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), and other Senators, caught staffers off guard: Nobody knew how their boss voted on the ratification. They could not know -- there was no recorded vote. This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1994. It has been locked up in the Foreign Relations Committee since. Normally, treaties of such monumental importance are debated in committee and then forwarded to the Senate floor for further debate and disposition. Not this time. The treaty appeared in a package of 34 treaties -- most of which were single-issue treaties with single nations, dealing with stolen vehicles, criminals, and the like. The Desertification Treaty, however, is not a single-issue treaty with a single nation. This treaty is one of several environmental treaties that emerged from the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. One of those treaties, the Convention on Climate Change, was ratified in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity failed ratification in 1994. The Convention to Combat Desertification was skillfully maneuvered through the Senate to avoid the public reaction which killed the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70% of the earth's land area -- virtually all of the land that is not covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, this new treaty creates a structure through which all other environmental treaties are supposed to be integrated under a common United Nations implementation regime. A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on October 18, 2000 -- whether or not it knew what it was doing. On November 17, the Clinton administration delivered the ratification documents to the United Nations. The United States is now bound by the international law that claims the power to dictate land use in 70% of the earth's land. The name of the treaty implies that it is concerned about deserts -- in fact, it is concerned about all land use. To combat desertification, the treaty seeks to prevent land use that its enforcers think may lead to desertification. Converting forests to pasture, for example, or pasture to row crops, or crop land to subdivisions, are all uses that may lead to desertification, according to literature produced by the United Nations. There is no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes to land use under the jurisdiction of the U.N. The U.N. sees its role to be the establishment of policy -- it is up to the participating nations to see that the policy is implemented. The recent rash of land acquisition measures promoted by the administration and Congress seeks to get more land under federal ownership. The vast expansion of regulatory control over land use by all federal agencies makes it easier for the United States to comply with its international obligations under a variety of international treaties. This new treaty extends even further the U.S. obligation to control land use. According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United Nations. Withdrawal from the treaty cannot even begin until after three years of participation -- and then another year must pass before withdrawal is recognized by the U.N. -- assuming, of course, that there is some desire in the Senate to withdraw. Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International. sorry for the long post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 Control does not mean ownership. Gawd thats a huge pile of legalese. My head hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrai Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Tac: Control does not mean ownership. Gawd thats a huge pile of legalese. My head hurts. if u control u own it. thats the meaning of ownership, unless ur lending it, and waasnt lended to the UN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2002 Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 you dont own your leased car. But you control it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Põdi Posted March 8, 2002 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2002 Jesus, I go down to Lugano for a couple of days, and what was a tongue-in cheek post becomes a full-blown political debate! Now, THAT'S what I call progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2002 Report Share Posted March 9, 2002 You're despicable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrai Posted March 9, 2002 Report Share Posted March 9, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Tac: you dont own your leased car. But you control it. yes but only limitedly, miss a paymnt and see if they dont exert thier control with the quickness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now