BF2S Forums A few questions

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

1. Do you believe that the idea of an international body composed of all the nations of the world is an effective way to manage world affairs? Yes - got to 2a, no - go to 2b

2a. If yes, then is the United Nations an effective body for carrying out such a task? Has it fulfilled its purpose? No - go to 3.

2b. If no, then what do you propose to ensure that the world does not descend into a state of militaristic imperialism which was present until the middle of last century, and led to countless wars for many centuries, culminating in two world wars?

3. What changes are required at the UN to ensure that it fulfills its role and becomes a relevant and powerful entity in world affairs?

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

1. Do you believe that the idea of an international body composed of all the nations of the world is an effective way to manage world affairs? Yes - got to 2a, no - go to 2b

2a. If yes, then is the United Nations an effective body for carrying out such a task? Has it fulfilled its purpose? No - go to 3.

2b. If no, then what do you propose to ensure that the world does not descend into a state of militaristic imperialism which was present until the middle of last century, and led to countless wars for many centuries, culminating in two world wars?

3. What changes are required at the UN to ensure that it fulfills its role and becomes a relevant and powerful entity in world affairs?

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

1. Do you believe that the idea of an international body composed of all the nations of the world is an effective way to manage world affairs? Yes - got to 2a, no - go to 2b

2a. If yes, then is the United Nations an effective body for carrying out such a task? Has it fulfilled its purpose? No - go to 3.

2b. If no, then what do you propose to ensure that the world does not descend into a state of militaristic imperialism which was present until the middle of last century, and led to countless wars for many centuries, culminating in two world wars?

3. What changes are required at the UN to ensure that it fulfills its role and becomes a relevant and powerful entity in world affairs?

1) I don't bash the "United" Kingdom so there goes that theory

2) Saying the UN is a body that comprises all the nations in the World is a little simplistic.  For a start, it is only the UN security council that has business dealing with wars and avoidence of conflict and even there are only five permanent members (China, Russia, France, UK, USA) of that council; whom also get a veto.  So, nothing goes through if any of those five disagree.

So, as you can guess it's less of United Nations and more like Five countries dictating what the rest of the World does.  The UN is a great idea but can't work if certain countries have more diplomatic powers than others....

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

Spark wrote:

1. Do you believe that the idea of an international body composed of all the nations of the world is an effective way to manage world affairs? Yes - got to 2a, no - go to 2b

2a. If yes, then is the United Nations an effective body for carrying out such a task? Has it fulfilled its purpose? No - go to 3.

2b. If no, then what do you propose to ensure that the world does not descend into a state of militaristic imperialism which was present until the middle of last century, and led to countless wars for many centuries, culminating in two world wars?

3. What changes are required at the UN to ensure that it fulfills its role and becomes a relevant and powerful entity in world affairs?

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

1. Do you believe that the idea of an international body composed of all the nations of the world is an effective way to manage world affairs? Yes - got to 2a, no - go to 2b

2a. If yes, then is the United Nations an effective body for carrying out such a task? Has it fulfilled its purpose? No - go to 3.

2b. If no, then what do you propose to ensure that the world does not descend into a state of militaristic imperialism which was present until the middle of last century, and led to countless wars for many centuries, culminating in two world wars?

3. What changes are required at the UN to ensure that it fulfills its role and becomes a relevant and powerful entity in world affairs?

1. NO, reasons are self evident..............They are not doing it.

2b. Did I miss something? When exactly has the wars stopped. Wars have been fought since man starting walking up right. There is NOTHING that is going to change that. As long as man thinks for himself, has different opinions, different attitudes, raised differently, different moods, different passions, different possessions, different religious beliefs, there will always be wars. Make us all the same, raise us in a test lab. Then maybe you will have peace. Ya might as well try and figure out how we can keep a lion from hunting or a fish from swimming.

3. I don't want the UN governing the world. Greed is another of mans flaws, and unescapable, can you imagine the greed that will emulate from men who control the world?? I would rather not.


Bottomline, in the realms of reality..........Man will always war.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

1. Do you believe that the idea of an international body composed of all the nations of the world is an effective way to manage world affairs? Yes - got to 2a, no - go to 2b

2a. If yes, then is the United Nations an effective body for carrying out such a task? Has it fulfilled its purpose? No - go to 3.

2b. If no, then what do you propose to ensure that the world does not descend into a state of militaristic imperialism which was present until the middle of last century, and led to countless wars for many centuries, culminating in two world wars?

3. What changes are required at the UN to ensure that it fulfills its role and becomes a relevant and powerful entity in world affairs?

1. NO, reasons are self evident..............They are not doing it.

2b. Did I miss something? When exactly has the wars stopped. Wars have been fought since man starting walking up right. There is NOTHING that is going to change that. As long as man thinks for himself, has different opinions, different attitudes, raised differently, different moods, different passions, different possessions, different religious beliefs, there will always be wars. Make us all the same, raise us in a test lab. Then maybe you will have peace. Ya might as well try and figure out how we can keep a lion from hunting or a fish from swimming.

3. I don't want the UN governing the world. Greed is another of mans flaws, and inescapable, can you imagine the greed that will emulate from men who control the world?? I would rather not.


Bottom line, in the realms of reality..........Man will always war.

Yes, but we haven't seen large-scale inter-country wars since the second WW. Look at the causes of the first world war and you'll see that one of the top ones was a militaristic imperialistic fervour.

So you support consolidating the world into large-scale empires again? Because that's what the UN can prevent.

And you are also against international co-operation or have severely misconstrued the question.

Last edited by lowing (2007-01-02 05:22:57)

aardfrith wrote:

lowing wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

Spark wrote:

I have a few questions to ask of the UN-haters on this forum, as UN-hating seems to be as apparent as US-hating (if it's got the word 'united' in it, hate it seems to be the common trend)

I haven't seen anyone bashing West Ham United on here.  Reading did it at the weekend, 6-0, but that was on a football pitch.

1.  No.

2b. The world should unite under a single country's banner, with a single world leader.  I propose me. 

3.  If we're going down the UN route, it needs to have a single council encompassing each and every nation, with no vetos and everything put a vote whereby each nation has a single, equal vote.  Majority rules.  None of this UN Security Council elitist rubbish.

Good in theory, and what happens when a country who voted the other way sees that the vote is NOT in his countries best interests? Dare I sayyyyyyyyyyyyyy war??........I give you Israel........Voted to be recognized by the UN and yet they have been fighting for survival ever since.

Enforcement is a difficult thing.  That's why I prefer the solution at 2b.   What we need is someone with super-human powers to rule the world for us.  I'll grudgingly accept the post, if I get the powers of Superman (I prefer the evil one in Superman II).

All bow down to King Aardfrith.

My first proclomation would be to have a harem of nubile concubines.  Starting with Wilma Deering, off Buck Rogers.  Damn, she was cute in that flight suit.

Seriously though, if everyone has an equal say, what's going to happen when one country says "no"?  Are they going to invade somewhere knowing that it'll be them against the rest of the world?  I don't think so.

Spark wrote:

The idea behind the UN is that every nation gets a say in how the world should be run. I believe that this is a conecpt we should still be working towards.[/b]

Spark wrote:

I think the best solution (and the most obvious one) is democracy. Hell, Americans are trying to bring democracy into the world, why not make the whole world democratic? Remove the veto power of the UN. Make all members equal. No, better yet, give members votes depending on the relative population and economic and global power (so the US would get many, many more votes than say, Indonesia even though they have relatively similar populationsd (in terms of scale)). That way you stop one small nation stalling progress but you don't have it ridiculously inbalanced in terms of developing countries.

EVieira wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

The idea behind the UN is that every nation gets a say in how the world should be run. I believe that this is a conecpt we should still be working towards.[/b]

Will never happen a small 3rd world country will never be allowed to be the final decision on the fate of another more economically, politically or militarily significant country. Nor should it.

Again sticking to the realms of reality and human nature.

We supposedly live in the same world. If the US decides to invade Mexico, Somalia should vote to condemn this act. Just as Brazil voted no on the recent US invasion of Iraq.

In the same manner, US should vote Yes on the intervention in Somalia to stop their bloody civil war.

PS:  These are hypothetical votings, I don't know if they actually happened or if Somalia is still in civil war.

lowing wrote:

EVieira wrote:

lowing wrote:

Will never happen a small 3rd world country will never be allowed to be the final decision on the fate of another more economically, politically or militarily significant country. Nor should it.

Again sticking to the realms of reality and human nature.

We supposedly live in the same world. If the US decides to invade Mexico, Somalia should vote to condemn this act. Just as Brazil voted no on the recent US invasion of Iraq.

In the same manner, US should vote Yes on the intervention in Somalia to stop their bloody civil war.

PS:  These are hypothetical votings, I don't know if they actually happened or if Somalia is still in civil war.

and if the country that is voted against does not stop their action, what is the rest of the world prepared to do.?Go to war!.............Wait scratch that. ................................I mean deadline them to death.