Pages: 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 52

 

2011-03-19 15:35:59
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...
Then, would you agree with removing the security council and leaving those matters to individual nations, reducing it to a mainly humanitarian organisation and perhaps a hub for international political discussion?

With emphasis on it just being discussion and not a entity that can draft resolutions over other nation's foreign policy issues

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 15:37:28)

inane little opines
2011-03-19 15:39:11
menzo
̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#
+616|6591|Amsterdam‫
United Arab Emirates pledges 24 aircraft to Libya operation, Qatar between 4 and 6 - AFP via BBC
https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png
2011-03-19 15:39:15
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Jay wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Shocking wrote:


Seriously?

I mean, seriously?

Have you even been reading any of the examples (and those are just some) I gave you? Jesus. 70 years of western manipulation of the UN and you flat out deny it doesn't work. Oh, and complete inaction when the opponent is a little too powerful on the world stage.
Inaction in lots of instances does not make a case against the UN, with no UN there would be no action in even more instances. In a truly global economy a global democratic system is essential. I only wish it was more democratic.
More democratic? Are you daft? Oh wait, you are the asshole that thinks squatting is beneficial to society. Wtf would you care if people voted on how you spend your money? You have none.
It's not other people voting on how you spend your money. Not really. There is no difference to the government you vote for determining how much they tax you. It's exactly the same principle, except to a lesser extent.

Anyway, I suspect I've got more money than you
2011-03-19 15:39:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Shocking wrote:

Then, would you agree with removing the security council and leaving those matters to individual nations, reducing it to a mainly humanitarian organisation and perhaps a hub for international political discussion?

With emphasis on it just being discussion and not a entity that can draft resolutions over other nation's foreign policy issues
Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 15:42:13
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Shocking wrote:

Then, would you agree with removing the security council and leaving those matters to individual nations, reducing it to a mainly humanitarian organisation and perhaps a hub for international political discussion?

With emphasis on it just being discussion and not a entity that can draft resolutions over other nation's foreign policy issues
Not exactly. I've already said the changes I'd like to see, security resolutions enacted when agreed to by a big majority of the general assembly.

Of course participation in the enforcement of any resolutions would be purely voluntary.
2011-03-19 15:42:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Inaction in lots of instances does not make a case against the UN, with no UN there would be no action in even more instances. In a truly global economy a global democratic system is essential. I only wish it was more democratic.
More democratic? Are you daft? Oh wait, you are the asshole that thinks squatting is beneficial to society. Wtf would you care if people voted on how you spend your money? You have none.
It's not other people voting on how you spend your money. Not really. There is no difference to the government you vote for determining how much they tax you. It's exactly the same principle, except to a lesser extent.

Anyway, I suspect I've got more money than you
Not in the slightest. You want the ability to vote how my military is used then pay the bill. Until then your opinion and voice are meaningless, just like the UN. More democratic... lol. Thatcher hit that one on the head.

Last edited by Jay (2011-03-19 15:43:39)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 15:44:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Jay wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:

More democratic? Are you daft? Oh wait, you are the asshole that thinks squatting is beneficial to society. Wtf would you care if people voted on how you spend your money? You have none.
It's not other people voting on how you spend your money. Not really. There is no difference to the government you vote for determining how much they tax you. It's exactly the same principle, except to a lesser extent.

Anyway, I suspect I've got more money than you
Not in the slightest. You want the abiloty to vote how my military is used then pay the bill. Until then your opinion and voylte are meaningless, just like ylthe UN. More democratic... lol. Thatcher hit that one on the head.
No I don't (unless you mean that I don't support your military invading places unilaterally).

Any enforcement of UN resolutions is purely voluntary. Just because your government always feels the needs to get involved doesn't mean they have to.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 15:50:54)

2011-03-19 15:47:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Then, would you agree with removing the security council and leaving those matters to individual nations, reducing it to a mainly humanitarian organisation and perhaps a hub for international political discussion?

With emphasis on it just being discussion and not a entity that can draft resolutions over other nation's foreign policy issues
Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
I believe in democracy not plutocracy, which is what we have at the moment. For global issues, global democracy is the best way of governing those.
2011-03-19 15:51:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Then, would you agree with removing the security council and leaving those matters to individual nations, reducing it to a mainly humanitarian organisation and perhaps a hub for international political discussion?

With emphasis on it just being discussion and not a entity that can draft resolutions over other nation's foreign policy issues
Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
I believe in democracy not plutocracy, which is what we have at the moment. For global issues, global democracy is the best way of governing those.
You believe in kleptocracy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 15:51:14
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...

Jay wrote:

Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
ughhh

Bertster7 wrote:

Not exactly. I've already said the changes I'd like to see, security resolutions enacted when agreed to by a big majority of the general assembly.

Of course participation in the enforcement of any resolutions would be purely voluntary.
That would end up being a complete clusterfuck, I don't even know where to begin.

What even makes you think that nations with such incredibly diverse cultures could form a unity without severe clashes and it being manipulated in exactly the same way we have manipulated the security council? Why should nations with infinitely more power bow down to a general assembly, for idealistic reasons? That's just being completely deluded, you have thousands of years of history against you.

I'll tell you one thing; the world can never be unified. It should never be unified, that will completely destroy this planet. Much like Bismarck thought of Europe in 1870 (although because of the course of history that statement in regards to Europe is now irrelevant), but on a worldly scale - still very relevant.
inane little opines
2011-03-19 15:54:49
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
ughhh

Bertster7 wrote:

Not exactly. I've already said the changes I'd like to see, security resolutions enacted when agreed to by a big majority of the general assembly.

Of course participation in the enforcement of any resolutions would be purely voluntary.
That would end up being a complete clusterfuck, I don't even know where to begin.

What even makes you think that nations with such incredibly diverse cultures could form a unity without severe clashes and it being manipulated in exactly the same way we have manipulated the security council? Why should nations with infinitely more power bow down to a general assembly, for idealistic reasons? That's just being completely deluded, you have thousands of years of history against you.

I'll tell you one thing; the world can never be unified. It should never be unified, that will completely destroy this planet. Much like Bismarck thought of Europe in 1870 (although because of the course of history that statement in regards to Europe is now irrelevant), but on a worldly scale - still very relevant.
The biggest factor is no vetoes and everyone having a voice. Not complete unity, but general consensus. It works for everything else.

Strange that you should include an example that contradicts your point....

Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 15:55:56)

2011-03-19 15:55:26
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...

Jay wrote:

You believe in kleptocracy.
exactly
inane little opines
2011-03-19 15:56:52
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...

Bertster7 wrote:

The biggest factor is no vetoes and everyone having a voice. Not complete unity, but general consensus. It works for everything else.
So who's gonna be there to enforce the ideals of this sunshine assembly?
inane little opines
2011-03-19 15:58:17
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...

Bertster7 wrote:

Strange that you should include an example that contradicts your point....
It doesn't contradict my point at all, it was very accurate in Bismarck's time because the rest of the world was completely irrelevant. Now, to survive in a global climate the EU needs to unite - this was absolutely not the case prior to the 1st world war, or even the second.
inane little opines
2011-03-19 15:58:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
ughhh

Bertster7 wrote:

Not exactly. I've already said the changes I'd like to see, security resolutions enacted when agreed to by a big majority of the general assembly.

Of course participation in the enforcement of any resolutions would be purely voluntary.
That would end up being a complete clusterfuck, I don't even know where to begin.

What even makes you think that nations with such incredibly diverse cultures could form a unity without severe clashes and it being manipulated in exactly the same way we have manipulated the security council? Why should nations with infinitely more power bow down to a general assembly, for idealistic reasons? That's just being completely deluded, you have thousands of years of history against you.

I'll tell you one thing; the world can never be unified. It should never be unified, that will completely destroy this planet. Much like Bismarck thought of Europe in 1870 (although because of the course of history that statement in regards to Europe is now irrelevant), but on a worldly scale - still very relevant.
The biggest factor is no vetoes and everyone having a voice. Not complete unity, but general consensus. It works for everything else.
It does a fantastic job of destroying minority voices and making them irrelevant. The assumption that people of your ilk always make is that your voice will always be in the majority. It won't. If you got your way you'd spend your time whining about how you have no say and how unfair everything is. I have no idea why people still put forth the ridiculous idea that democracy is somehow more fair. It's even less fair than the current systems we have. It's pure majority rule. There's nothing glamorous about that. It's a bludgeon whose intent is to force conformity to the majorities whims.

For someone that comes off as mildly intelligent you really haven't put a lot of thought into the stances you back.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 15:58:39
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Jay wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:


Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
I believe in democracy not plutocracy, which is what we have at the moment. For global issues, global democracy is the best way of governing those.
You believe in kleptocracy.
Your government spending money on the international stage is your problem. There is no need for it in this day and age and I'd be perfectly happy for the US to be more isolationist.
2011-03-19 15:59:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Shocking wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Strange that you should include an example that contradicts your point....
It doesn't contradict my point at all, it was very accurate in Bismarck's time because the rest of the world was completely irrelevant. Now, to survive in a global climate the EU needs to unite - this was absolutely not the case prior to the 1st world war, or even the second.
I disagree. The EU needs to devolve back to what it was. Open borders and free trade? Absolutely. Unified government? Absolutely not.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 16:01:50
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...
How would Europe survive with America on one side, China on the other and Russia reaping the benefits of our disunity? For our voice to be heard, and independance to be respected, it's imperative to form a single entity.
inane little opines
2011-03-19 16:01:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


I believe in democracy not plutocracy, which is what we have at the moment. For global issues, global democracy is the best way of governing those.
You believe in kleptocracy.
Your government spending money on the international stage is your problem. There is no need for it in this day and age and I'd be perfectly happy for the US to be more isolationist.
If the US were isolationist, what purpose would the UN serve? We're the only ones that ever support the security council resolutions. Even if we aren't sending troops, we're paying for it. If we became isolationist, the UN would go the way of the League of Nations.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 16:01:55
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5382|Cleveland, Ohio

Dilbert_X wrote:

110 Cruise missiles fired, so much for the US keeping out of this one.
aye

its fucking bullshit
2011-03-19 16:02:08
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Jay wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

Of course not. His ultimate goal is a one world government socialist utopia. He wants more power given to the UN, not less.
ughhh


That would end up being a complete clusterfuck, I don't even know where to begin.

What even makes you think that nations with such incredibly diverse cultures could form a unity without severe clashes and it being manipulated in exactly the same way we have manipulated the security council? Why should nations with infinitely more power bow down to a general assembly, for idealistic reasons? That's just being completely deluded, you have thousands of years of history against you.

I'll tell you one thing; the world can never be unified. It should never be unified, that will completely destroy this planet. Much like Bismarck thought of Europe in 1870 (although because of the course of history that statement in regards to Europe is now irrelevant), but on a worldly scale - still very relevant.
The biggest factor is no vetoes and everyone having a voice. Not complete unity, but general consensus. It works for everything else.
It does a fantastic job of destroying minority voices and making them irrelevant. The assumption that people of your ilk always make is that your voice will always be in the majority. It won't. If you got your way you'd spend your time whining about how you have no say and how unfair everything is. I have no idea why people still put forth the ridiculous idea that democracy is somehow more fair. It's even less fair than the current systems we have. It's pure majority rule. There's nothing glamorous about that. It's a bludgeon whose intent is to force conformity to the majorities whims.

For someone that comes off as mildly intelligent you really haven't put a lot of thought into the stances you back.
Yes, majority rule - democracy. That's exactly what I'd like to see. Whether I disagree with the decisions that might be made, I totally believe in the rights of the majority - rather than of the richest. You might not believe in democracy, but I do. It's not less fair than the current system we have, it's more fair - by definition.
2011-03-19 16:04:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5503|London, England

Shocking wrote:

How would Europe survive with America on one side, China on the other and Russia reaping the benefits of our disunity? For our voice to be heard, and independance to be respected, it's imperative to form a single entity.
Survive in what way? You hardly have fear of military invasion. Economically, trade with each other is more important than trade with the rest of the world.

Just so we're clear, I want the US federal government to lost most of its power as well and to see that power returned back to the state level. I'm not picking on the EU. I loathe the Federal style of government.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-03-19 16:04:45
menzo
̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#
+616|6591|Amsterdam‫
https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png
2011-03-19 16:05:29
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6144|...
I'm not talking about doing away with the cultural identity of every state, though. I'd still like France to be France and every nation governing itself, just that foreign policy should overlap entirely. Our interests are intertwined everywhere anyway.

A much more loosely based overseeing government than what you'd normally see in a country. I realise that trying to force a single identity will not work.

Jay wrote:

Survive in what way? You hardly have fear of military invasion. Economically, trade with each other is more important than trade with the rest of the world.

Just so we're clear, I want the US federal government to lost most of its power as well and to see that power returned back to the state level. I'm not picking on the EU. I loathe the Federal style of government.
Smaller individual nations are completely subject to pressure from large outside ones. The US has been driving our foreign policy quite a lot and I'm 100% sure that's not entirely voluntarily. Russia is violating airspace every damn day and regularily likes to do some chest beating, and I'm sure that when China sees an opportunity to exert some power they surely will.

Bertster7 wrote:

How would Europe survive? Easily. Europe has the strongest economy of any of those entities (for now).
It does if you add each one of them up, but without a common foreign policy that is completely meaningless.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-19 16:09:19)

inane little opines
2011-03-19 16:05:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6727|SE London

Shocking wrote:

How would Europe survive with America on one side, China on the other and Russia reaping the benefits of our disunity? For our voice to be heard, and independance to be respected, it's imperative to form a single entity.
How would Europe survive? Easily. Europe has the strongest economy of any of those entities (for now).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-03-19 16:06:47)

 

Pages: 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 52

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard