Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6825
Should a Country with a Space Program that can feed itself and most of the world  get the same number of votes in the U.N. as say a country or ( continent for that matter ) that has yet to produce its first canoe ?


Check in and curse at me. Comment on use of Caps etc.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6723
1. The US should withdraw from the United Nations, as it should have done decades ago.

2. The space program needs to be a regulatory body at most; private and commercial space exploration will go a lot farther for a lot less money than any government could ever hope to.

3. To answer your question, yes. The UN should be one vote per country, which is one of the very reasons why the US needs to remove itself from it ASAP.
Tigg@lot
noob on tour
+1|6762|NRW,Germany
2/3 of all money in the world belongs to 1/6 of the world population. From these 1/6 more than 60% live in the USA.

If you ask people in Europe why the USA invaded Iraq most people will say because of the oil and definately not because they wanted to help the supressed people.
If you ask people in Europe why the USA fought in Somalia most people will say because of the diamonds and definately not because of the genocide.

If the UN voting system would be changed so the US would get more votes than for example India it would show that money is all you need to rule the world leaving the US quite hated all around the world.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6825

Tigg@lot wrote:

2/3 of all money in the world belongs to 1/6 of the world population. From these 1/6 more than 60% live in the USA.

If you ask people in Europe why the USA invaded Iraq most people will say because of the oil and definately not because they wanted to help the supressed people.
If you ask people in Europe why the USA fought in Somalia most people will say because of the diamonds and definately not because of the genocide.

If the UN voting system would be changed so the US would get more votes than for example India it would show that money is all you need to rule the world leaving the US quite hated all around the world.
Good good, sounds about right. However if we invade for oil, why is it in shorter supply now? Why did we leave Iraq the 1st time? Why then did we give France Germany and basically the entire Earth's surface at one time or another back to its Right full owners save, American Indians and Palestinians.
Kniero
Banned
+1|6734|AZ
Well, if you want to be a (legitimate) conspiracist, you could easily say that it appears we are in short supply of oil because they are creating a back-logged storage system so they can juice it for money for a longer span of time. OR, you could also say that the Iraqi government hasn't yet been formed to a degree capable of conform by those seeking to use Iraq as an advantage for oil.

Fo' Shweez?,
Teh Kniero
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6723

Tigg@lot wrote:

it would show that money is all you need to rule the world
That's how the world works. It's Darwinism imbued into sociology. Those species better able to adapt to the environment are the ones that thrive. Those cultures better able to aquire and increase wealth, which in turn extend human lifespan and foster better education and thus technological progress, are the ones that prosper and succeed.

Money is indeed all you need to rule the world because property is essential to civilization. If you'd rather we have a system where money is no longer an issue then you'd either have to support strict socialism, which is a practical impossibility on a large scale, or you'd have to push for a return to small, nomadic tribes of humans that engage in very little trade if any.

So unless you plan on wiping out the majority of the world's population and starting over, money is most certainly going to rule the world for as long as humans reign supreme on this planet.

Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-11-29 09:02:38)

Tigg@lot
noob on tour
+1|6762|NRW,Germany
First:
I´m not one of those people who think that Iraq was only invaded because of the oil as I know that there isn´t even that much oil in Iraq (actually it´s 2.7% of the world production).
I don´t want to blame or piss off anyone. I don´t want to say that the lives lost since the invasion of Iraq were pointles as the people of Iraq now have the oppurtunity to build a better future.

The only thing I want to say is that it is wrong to think just because you live in wealth you can tell other people what to do. It´s the same as a dictatorship.


About money:
The reason most european countries and the USA have the money is because they took it from those countries that were technological not as advanced in the past. Most of the thrid world countries were former colonies of european countries. People were enslaved to work so the rich countries could gather even more money.

BTW: You know how Britain got Hong Kong as a colony? Here´s the answer.

About Iraq:
The war in Iraq (Iraqi Freedom) began because there could´ve been weapons of mass destruction wich till now were never found (I think you now those nice pictures of mobile laboratories Powell showed). It was started without the permission of the UN wich is the reason that only US and British soldiers were fighting instead of the NATO as in Desert Storm (the reason Iraq wasn´t completely invaded during Desert Storm is that the UN send the troops there to defend Kuwait and not to get rid of Saddam so the US troops would´ve fought alone if they wanted to get rid of Saddam during Desert Storm).
Short after the main war in Iraq was over the US government threatened the Iran and a lot of people thought this would be the next war zone because it was quite similar to the threat against Iraq before the war began.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6723

Tigg@lot wrote:

The only thing I want to say is that it is wrong to think just because you live in wealth you can tell other people what to do. It´s the same as a dictatorship.
Plutocracy, not dictatorship.

About money:
The reason most european countries and the USA have the money is because they took it from those countries that were technological not as advanced in the past. Most of the thrid world countries were former colonies of european countries. People were enslaved to work so the rich countries could gather even more money.
Right. That supports my statement in full. I can name at least one former colony that didn't end up a third world country.

About Iraq:
The war in Iraq (Iraqi Freedom) began because there could´ve been weapons of mass destruction wich till now were never found (I think you now those nice pictures of mobile laboratories Powell showed). It was started without the permission of the UN wich is the reason that only US and British soldiers were fighting instead of the NATO as in Desert Storm (the reason Iraq wasn´t completely invaded during Desert Storm is that the UN send the troops there to defend Kuwait and not to get rid of Saddam so the US troops would´ve fought alone if they wanted to get rid of Saddam during Desert Storm).
Short after the main war in Iraq was over the US government threatened the Iran and a lot of people thought this would be the next war zone because it was quite similar to the threat against Iraq before the war began.
Ask the Kurds who were gassed about biological weapons.
dshak
Member
+4|6801
to answer the main question of the first post... yes. also, stop using caps like that, I feel a murderous rage coming on...

Last edited by dshak (2005-11-29 13:58:09)

Tigg@lot
noob on tour
+1|6762|NRW,Germany

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Right. That supports my statement in full. I can name at least one former colony that didn't end up a third world country..
I know about two while one was for criminals in the beginning ^^

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Ask the Kurds who were gassed about biological weapons.
As I´ve mentioned in my last post I don´t want to say that it was a bad idea to attack the Iraq afterall but the reasons why it was attacked seem fishy.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6825

Kniero wrote:

Well, if you want to be a (legitimate) conspiracist, you could easily say that it appears we are in short supply of oil because they are creating a back-logged storage system so they can juice it for money for a longer span of time. OR, you could also say that the Iraqi government hasn't yet been formed to a degree capable of conform by those seeking to use Iraq as an advantage for oil.

Fo' Shweez?,
Teh Kniero
Interesting, can you validate this or is it a Gut Feeling? Still makes you think. Iraq, well look how long it took the USA to get a Goverment set up. We stayed in Germany for 8 years after WWII. hell we are still in the Balkans no ?
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|6825

dshak wrote:

to answer the main question of the first post... yes. also, stop using caps like that, I feel a murderous rage coming on...
lol

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard