PhillyKev 0 #26 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuote...have gathered at the World Information Summit to discuss the “role of the media,” in order to set “acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.” Acceptable to whom? Are you ok with Saudi Arabia determining what is acceptable content on your website? No, but I believe Saudi Arabia has the right to limit what is published in their nation, even if I don't like it. There's no way in hell they'll ever set some kind of law regarding content on the internet. However, I don't see a problem with international regulations regarding viewing of websites that are hosted in other countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
samhussey 0 #27 December 5, 2003 The UN needs to be strengthened as an international peace and human rights group, pursuing justice on the world stage. It doesn't have nearly enough influence now. I would like to see a stronger UN, but I know that others really don't. However, I think it is way out of line to try and regulate the internet too much, and even if it did need better regulation, the UN are not the organisation to do it. IMHO of course... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #28 December 5, 2003 QuoteHowever, I don't see a problem with international regulations regarding viewing of websites that are hosted in other countries. Explain this please. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #29 December 5, 2003 For instance, maybe Iran wants to make it illegal to view pornography. That's their right. I don't have a problem with categorizing certain, specific types of content and restricting the . level domain they can be posted in. Like a .porn domain. Then Iran can block the .porn domain from their internet backbone. That's just an example. There could also be restrictions based on ip address and physical location of devices hosting the content can be blocked by individual nations. I don't see that as any different than stopping other nations from broadcasting TV signals into your territory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #30 December 5, 2003 I certainly don't have a problem with that, but that's a decision and implementation best left to the individual countries, don't you think? Take for example a .porn domain. It's unrealistic, I think, to ask to restructure the entire internet. What is realistic is for Iran to invest in the technology to filter based on content, location, etc... I just don't see where the UN would fit into this. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Push 0 #31 December 5, 2003 Completely misrepresented, as usual. You could have at least done them the courtesy of looking at their webpage before you go off and blast them. The same courtesy you expect people to give you, may I add. Read their goals. Declaration of intent: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc3/td/030915/S03-WSISPC3-030915-TD-GEN-0006!R1!PDF-E.pdf Please note paragraph 4, in particular. The closest they come to what that person is describing is in section 5, where they go on about security and privacy. They also ask that no content detrimental to national security be allowed. Keep in mind that this is already the case, as has been seen with the PhD student who made a map of the fiberoptics of the US. I find it doubtful that you would find this a bad thing. The last point is about who deals with violations, which is moot. Things like paragraph 36 refer to what governments should do inside their own countries, which is already being done. Plan of action: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc3/td/030915/S03-WSISPC3-030915-TD-GEN-0005!R1!PDF-E.pdf -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #32 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuote "You can take my keyboard from my cold dead hands..." having read a fair amount of your posts and people's replies, I'm pretty sure there's some posters out there who'd like to take you up on that.... Always remember this: "When we argue on the internet, no matter who wins, we're both still idiots." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites whatever 0 #33 December 5, 2003 Quote Always remember this: "When we argue on the internet, no matter who wins, we're both still idiots." holy crap, man, can't argue with that! never mind me, it's just my sarc-ie sense of humour.. soon to be gone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #34 December 5, 2003 What the heck does all this mean? Claiming the UN is going to "take control of the internet" makes about as much sense as saying the UN is going to take control of all Cessna 152's. How do they do it? There's no effective mechanism to control the Internet - it's an inherently distributed system with no central points of control. Even in countries where governments prohibit free internet access, getting around their attempts is trivial. Sure, you can arrest people who do so and make a public example of them, but somehow I don't think the UN is going to send internet stormtroopers out throughout the world. In any case, this sentence is funny: "Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, government diplomats and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) have gathered at the World Information Summit to discuss the “role of the media,” in order to set “acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.” Acceptable to whom?" Don't we do that now? We blast the media when we don't like their coverage of a war, and we get them to pull miniseries when we don't like the tint. And we now track people's information on the net via Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program so we can look for unacceptable uses of the Internet. I'm a lot more worried about an organization dedicated to spying on US internet users, run by a criminal, than by any UN busybody who believes he can control the Internet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #35 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuote Always remember this: "When we argue on the internet, no matter who wins, we're both still idiots." holy crap, man, can't argue with that! never mind me, it's just my sarc-ie sense of humour.. I'm sure my sense of humor gets lost in all the zeros and ones as well. I dont take the web too seriously but it has great time wasting entertainment value! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #36 December 5, 2003 QuoteI get really pissed when Americans and others say UN is a no good organisation. I got friends and acquaintances wearing the blue helmet. Some were (and are) in former Yugoslavia. Others are spread over the world. They demine areas, bring food, protection and hope to a desperate population. They're shot at, intimidated, blown up and often live under harsh conditions. I can dig up (if I am allowed to post it) a picture of a Dutch fellow (also a skydiver) who's vehicle was blown to pieces by a landmine and who miraculously survived, although with pretty bad injuries. These guys are out there - not for their COUNTRY, like a blind patriot, but for the world. They're out not to conquer or secure some political or economical interest but to help their fellow man. Those that go are highly devoted men and let me assure you that what they do is in no way less than what the American soldiers have done and are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world is full of thankless ignorant people who lay no energy or thought into the trials and tribulations of the man on the ground wearing the blue helmet, driving the white painted vehicles. I say give them their due. When you diss the whole of UN and call it ineffective, you're also dissing what these men and women are doing - and sometimes DIE doing. Why do they do it? A former class mate who's a mine clearer said, with a crooked smile, "for the money. And the chicks". But we were both aware that it was a combination of thrill seeking, an adventurous spirit and a desire to make a difference. Some of the finest qualities in the human animal, and some that have made humans what they are today. Off the soap box now. Just think about it - these guys/girls are risking their lives out there - some gratitude/appreciation is in order. I have no problem with the boys on the ground. As a matter of fact my father fought under the UN flag in ROK and my cousin was stationed in Cypress. Should we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #37 December 5, 2003 QuoteShould we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Mind if I copy this and slightly alter it? I want to use it the next time someone accuses me of being anti-American or against the soldiers in Iraq next time I criticize the Bush administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tailgate 0 #38 December 5, 2003 Ok how bout if we get all the delegates together for a big UN tandem AFF boogie and turn them into skydivers. A little air time, a little beer time, some DZ vibes and maybe they would start seeing things in a different light just my silly 2cents (edited for spelling) _________________________________________________ Let me live in my house by the side of the road and be a friend to man- Sam Walter Foss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #39 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuoteShould we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Mind if I copy this and slightly alter it? I want to use it the next time someone accuses me of being anti-American or against the soldiers in Iraq next time I criticize the Bush administration. Feel free. I thought someone would ask that. [flame suit on]I hardly think the UN and its agenda is comparable to the United States and its agenda, but you are entitled to yours. Medling in the affairs of other countries for political aims is far different than an act of self defence. Remember, this thread is about the UN. The US aims in the middle east is another thread.[/flame suit on] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerry81 10 #40 December 5, 2003 Quote Medling in the affairs of other countries for political aims is far different than an act of self defence. Must........not..........touch............that............ugh!! Damn, my head's about to explode! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #41 December 5, 2003 >I hardly think the UN and its agenda is comparable to the United > States and its agenda, but you are entitled to yours. >Medling in the affairs of other countries for political aims is far > different than an act of self defence. I agree, but since when did the UN act in self defense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vonSanta 0 #42 December 5, 2003 Quote I have no problem with the boys on the ground. As a matter of fact my father fought under the UN flag in ROK and my cousin was stationed in Cypress. Should we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Alright, I get what you're saying. the thing is when someone says "the UN is worthless", they're asying the whole of the UN, which includes the blue helmeted dudes. I see where you're coming from so the rest of the text is just directed to anyone who bothers reading it. There might be factual blunders in there and there are a good deal of personal opinions/observations The soldiers are PART of the UN. When you blast the entire UN and you call it ineffective, you're indirectly and probably unintentionally blasting the soldiers. They're not mindless drones. The ones I know are professionals dedicated to their career. It is like the US armed forces - I believe that most US soldiers join the forces out of some sort of idealistic reason - at least that's part of the equation. Other things are escaping their socio-economic group, tradition and whatnot. Yet from talking to Americans that have served, they value freedom, patriotism etc very highly. Are US soldiers just pawns? Yes, as much as UN peacekeepers are - they go where they are ordered to and they do their job. There are great similarities between the relationship between the politicians in the UN and the soldiers and the US administration and American soldeirs. I agree completely - things aren't done on the political level for altruistic reasons by either of the organisations. The US administration protects American interests solely, whereas the UN tries, rather pragmatically and often in an ineffective way, to keep some sort of order and give some sort of legitimacy to things. It HAS to be pragmatic because it is NOT one nation. Nor can it be unilateralist just based on power like the US can. The US tends not to be unilateralistic though, although the current administration has taken a strategy (in a very difficult environment post 9/11) that is rather one sided. But the US admin has its job to do, just as my government has its own. I can understand why Americans are pissed at the UN. There are countries that the US doesn't like at all in it, doing their thing which is against US interests. These countries actions and votes might have a negative effect on US interests. The US might not be free as do as it pleases - in fact the UN limits US freedom of movement in a very real way. It also does the same to all the other member states - except these are much less powerful and are therefore limited less in a relative sense. Yet one must remember the context in which the UN was created - and the driving force behind it. A place were needed where things could be discussed on an international level, where troublesome situations could be debated and possible conflict be avoided. There was a need for a body where the world could come together and through pseudo-democratic means condemn or promote certain actions and values. It is also worth noticing the disparity in power-sharing in the UN. Several nations have the power of veto - a power that is immensely strong. Of course the winners of WWII - the big nations that is - got the veto power. I'd argue, based on the use of veto by these nations, that it has a LARGE part of the blame for the ineffectiveness of the UN (because it could be MUCH more effective, I agree). Look at how Russia, France, Germany, GB and China have used it. See how the US has used it. It's pretty hard to get something done when nations that at times have very different ideas and interests have to agree. All of them. How to solve that? Political horse-trading takes care of a little of it - the rest simply isn't solved. All the veto power countries are to blame for a large part of the inefficiency in the UN - the US included. Let's take a look at the Israel/Palestine situation for instance: Clicky. Just an example - I can dig up (if I google a lot) lists for the former USSR, current Russia, France, China and GB. There's an ugly and repetitive picture formed when vetoes are looked at in its entirety. But if one thinks about it, the UN is pretty good for the US with regards to voting power/values. The US has the power of veto. It shares the basic values with GB and France on human rights, democracy and freedom. Theocratic countries are underrepresented big time, as are neo-fascist states, nations with great corruption and so forth. So what stops the UN from being effective is the power of veto combined with silly nationalism (some prefer to call it patriotism) and really also the personal chemistry (or lack thereof) of the individual people sitting at the table. Egoes, basically. Yes, there needs to be changes in the UN. Just remember that the country with the most influence with regards to the UN charter at its creation and its administrative rules was the US - coming out on top after WWII as the mightiest nation ever to have existed on earth. Coming out well ahead of the Soviets, packing nukes, money and a post war agenda. Some will argue that all countries had as much influence. These people would be naeive and be lacking a clear understanding of realpolitik. There's a great many thing to critizise about the UN - for instance the way one member nation can undermine the whole organisation by a single action, the veto system, the lack of "fire power" for solving disputes definitely and quickly. But it's like democracy - it's a terrible system for governing - it's just not as terrible as the alternatives. It could do so much good, if only it was restructured. As globalisation continues, I see the role of a UN-like organisation growing, not diminishing. The UN could do so much good. It annoys me as much as anyone that the UN setup and real life hinders it. Ideals and reality in conflict. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ifrinn 0 #43 December 5, 2003 I dont know if I'm wrong here, but I think what most of the people want to say is that the UN is unsuccessful in achieving their main goal which is to prevent war. There too many examples, where the decisions of the UN were ignored and a war was started. The UN does a good job in achieving peace after a war, also the UNICEF, and most of the other org. under the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #44 December 5, 2003 What I was trying to do with my original post was to stir up some discussion on the UN. The commentary I posted illustrates how far the UN has lost its way. Its original mandate was to promote world peace and a place for dialogue between beligerant nations to prevent war. I believe the UN has failed in those aims and is quickly becoming irrelevant. Now the UN wants to become keeper of information and distibutor of wealth. That smacks of fascism/communism. That is so far from its mandate it would be funny if it wasnt scary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Push 0 #45 December 5, 2003 QuoteI dont know if I'm wrong here, but I think what most of the people want to say is that the UN is unsuccessful in achieving their main goal which is to prevent war. There too many examples, where the decisions of the UN were ignored and a war was started. And if someone like the US simply decides to ignore everyone and go kick Iraq's ass, what is the UN supposed to do? Place economic embargoes on the US and demolish the world economy? Or maybe attack the US? -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Push 0 #46 December 5, 2003 QuoteNow the UN wants to become keeper of information and distibutor of wealth. That smacks of fascism/communism. That is so far from its mandate it would be funny if it wasnt scary. Have you read the links I posted? Where are you getting this from? -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites captainpooby 0 #47 December 6, 2003 QuoteQuoteNow the UN wants to become keeper of information and distibutor of wealth. That smacks of fascism/communism. That is so far from its mandate it would be funny if it wasnt scary. Have you read the links I posted? Where are you getting this from? Actually I wasnt really replying to your post in particular. I'm new to this board and dont know how to just add a post without replying to someone specific. I just clicked your post thats all. My bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lee03 0 #48 December 6, 2003 I've got no use for the un! It is nothing but a corrupt organization bent on becoming a one world communist governmental dictatorship, set up to destroy the soverinty of all nations! I am loyal to and serve the Constitution of the United States of America, NOT the un charter! I pledge my allegience to the flage of the United States, the good old Red, White and Blue, not the tidy bowl blue rag of the un! My feeling.. get the U.S. out of the un and get the un the Hell out of the U.S.!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jimbo 0 #49 December 11, 2003 This came across my email earlier today. QuoteIf the UN oversees the Internet the same way they've done "peacekeeping" missions in the world, then not accepting SPAM will be illegal. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Jimbo 0 #28 December 5, 2003 QuoteHowever, I don't see a problem with international regulations regarding viewing of websites that are hosted in other countries. Explain this please. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #29 December 5, 2003 For instance, maybe Iran wants to make it illegal to view pornography. That's their right. I don't have a problem with categorizing certain, specific types of content and restricting the . level domain they can be posted in. Like a .porn domain. Then Iran can block the .porn domain from their internet backbone. That's just an example. There could also be restrictions based on ip address and physical location of devices hosting the content can be blocked by individual nations. I don't see that as any different than stopping other nations from broadcasting TV signals into your territory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #30 December 5, 2003 I certainly don't have a problem with that, but that's a decision and implementation best left to the individual countries, don't you think? Take for example a .porn domain. It's unrealistic, I think, to ask to restructure the entire internet. What is realistic is for Iran to invest in the technology to filter based on content, location, etc... I just don't see where the UN would fit into this. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #31 December 5, 2003 Completely misrepresented, as usual. You could have at least done them the courtesy of looking at their webpage before you go off and blast them. The same courtesy you expect people to give you, may I add. Read their goals. Declaration of intent: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc3/td/030915/S03-WSISPC3-030915-TD-GEN-0006!R1!PDF-E.pdf Please note paragraph 4, in particular. The closest they come to what that person is describing is in section 5, where they go on about security and privacy. They also ask that no content detrimental to national security be allowed. Keep in mind that this is already the case, as has been seen with the PhD student who made a map of the fiberoptics of the US. I find it doubtful that you would find this a bad thing. The last point is about who deals with violations, which is moot. Things like paragraph 36 refer to what governments should do inside their own countries, which is already being done. Plan of action: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc3/td/030915/S03-WSISPC3-030915-TD-GEN-0005!R1!PDF-E.pdf -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #32 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuote "You can take my keyboard from my cold dead hands..." having read a fair amount of your posts and people's replies, I'm pretty sure there's some posters out there who'd like to take you up on that.... Always remember this: "When we argue on the internet, no matter who wins, we're both still idiots." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whatever 0 #33 December 5, 2003 Quote Always remember this: "When we argue on the internet, no matter who wins, we're both still idiots." holy crap, man, can't argue with that! never mind me, it's just my sarc-ie sense of humour.. soon to be gone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #34 December 5, 2003 What the heck does all this mean? Claiming the UN is going to "take control of the internet" makes about as much sense as saying the UN is going to take control of all Cessna 152's. How do they do it? There's no effective mechanism to control the Internet - it's an inherently distributed system with no central points of control. Even in countries where governments prohibit free internet access, getting around their attempts is trivial. Sure, you can arrest people who do so and make a public example of them, but somehow I don't think the UN is going to send internet stormtroopers out throughout the world. In any case, this sentence is funny: "Meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, government diplomats and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) have gathered at the World Information Summit to discuss the “role of the media,” in order to set “acceptable boundaries to freedom of expression.” Acceptable to whom?" Don't we do that now? We blast the media when we don't like their coverage of a war, and we get them to pull miniseries when we don't like the tint. And we now track people's information on the net via Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program so we can look for unacceptable uses of the Internet. I'm a lot more worried about an organization dedicated to spying on US internet users, run by a criminal, than by any UN busybody who believes he can control the Internet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #35 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuote Always remember this: "When we argue on the internet, no matter who wins, we're both still idiots." holy crap, man, can't argue with that! never mind me, it's just my sarc-ie sense of humour.. I'm sure my sense of humor gets lost in all the zeros and ones as well. I dont take the web too seriously but it has great time wasting entertainment value! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #36 December 5, 2003 QuoteI get really pissed when Americans and others say UN is a no good organisation. I got friends and acquaintances wearing the blue helmet. Some were (and are) in former Yugoslavia. Others are spread over the world. They demine areas, bring food, protection and hope to a desperate population. They're shot at, intimidated, blown up and often live under harsh conditions. I can dig up (if I am allowed to post it) a picture of a Dutch fellow (also a skydiver) who's vehicle was blown to pieces by a landmine and who miraculously survived, although with pretty bad injuries. These guys are out there - not for their COUNTRY, like a blind patriot, but for the world. They're out not to conquer or secure some political or economical interest but to help their fellow man. Those that go are highly devoted men and let me assure you that what they do is in no way less than what the American soldiers have done and are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world is full of thankless ignorant people who lay no energy or thought into the trials and tribulations of the man on the ground wearing the blue helmet, driving the white painted vehicles. I say give them their due. When you diss the whole of UN and call it ineffective, you're also dissing what these men and women are doing - and sometimes DIE doing. Why do they do it? A former class mate who's a mine clearer said, with a crooked smile, "for the money. And the chicks". But we were both aware that it was a combination of thrill seeking, an adventurous spirit and a desire to make a difference. Some of the finest qualities in the human animal, and some that have made humans what they are today. Off the soap box now. Just think about it - these guys/girls are risking their lives out there - some gratitude/appreciation is in order. I have no problem with the boys on the ground. As a matter of fact my father fought under the UN flag in ROK and my cousin was stationed in Cypress. Should we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 December 5, 2003 QuoteShould we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Mind if I copy this and slightly alter it? I want to use it the next time someone accuses me of being anti-American or against the soldiers in Iraq next time I criticize the Bush administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tailgate 0 #38 December 5, 2003 Ok how bout if we get all the delegates together for a big UN tandem AFF boogie and turn them into skydivers. A little air time, a little beer time, some DZ vibes and maybe they would start seeing things in a different light just my silly 2cents (edited for spelling) _________________________________________________ Let me live in my house by the side of the road and be a friend to man- Sam Walter Foss Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #39 December 5, 2003 QuoteQuoteShould we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Mind if I copy this and slightly alter it? I want to use it the next time someone accuses me of being anti-American or against the soldiers in Iraq next time I criticize the Bush administration. Feel free. I thought someone would ask that. [flame suit on]I hardly think the UN and its agenda is comparable to the United States and its agenda, but you are entitled to yours. Medling in the affairs of other countries for political aims is far different than an act of self defence. Remember, this thread is about the UN. The US aims in the middle east is another thread.[/flame suit on] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #40 December 5, 2003 Quote Medling in the affairs of other countries for political aims is far different than an act of self defence. Must........not..........touch............that............ugh!! Damn, my head's about to explode! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #41 December 5, 2003 >I hardly think the UN and its agenda is comparable to the United > States and its agenda, but you are entitled to yours. >Medling in the affairs of other countries for political aims is far > different than an act of self defence. I agree, but since when did the UN act in self defense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #42 December 5, 2003 Quote I have no problem with the boys on the ground. As a matter of fact my father fought under the UN flag in ROK and my cousin was stationed in Cypress. Should we have sent them there? Thats a future debate. I hold all those in the armed forces in high regard. Anyone who knows me knows that is true. This post has nothing to do with them. It has to do with the UN. Not the soldiers sent to serve under the blue helmets. The soldiers are not the UN. They are pawns in the UN's game of world politics. A game I believe it plays for less than altruistic reasons. Alright, I get what you're saying. the thing is when someone says "the UN is worthless", they're asying the whole of the UN, which includes the blue helmeted dudes. I see where you're coming from so the rest of the text is just directed to anyone who bothers reading it. There might be factual blunders in there and there are a good deal of personal opinions/observations The soldiers are PART of the UN. When you blast the entire UN and you call it ineffective, you're indirectly and probably unintentionally blasting the soldiers. They're not mindless drones. The ones I know are professionals dedicated to their career. It is like the US armed forces - I believe that most US soldiers join the forces out of some sort of idealistic reason - at least that's part of the equation. Other things are escaping their socio-economic group, tradition and whatnot. Yet from talking to Americans that have served, they value freedom, patriotism etc very highly. Are US soldiers just pawns? Yes, as much as UN peacekeepers are - they go where they are ordered to and they do their job. There are great similarities between the relationship between the politicians in the UN and the soldiers and the US administration and American soldeirs. I agree completely - things aren't done on the political level for altruistic reasons by either of the organisations. The US administration protects American interests solely, whereas the UN tries, rather pragmatically and often in an ineffective way, to keep some sort of order and give some sort of legitimacy to things. It HAS to be pragmatic because it is NOT one nation. Nor can it be unilateralist just based on power like the US can. The US tends not to be unilateralistic though, although the current administration has taken a strategy (in a very difficult environment post 9/11) that is rather one sided. But the US admin has its job to do, just as my government has its own. I can understand why Americans are pissed at the UN. There are countries that the US doesn't like at all in it, doing their thing which is against US interests. These countries actions and votes might have a negative effect on US interests. The US might not be free as do as it pleases - in fact the UN limits US freedom of movement in a very real way. It also does the same to all the other member states - except these are much less powerful and are therefore limited less in a relative sense. Yet one must remember the context in which the UN was created - and the driving force behind it. A place were needed where things could be discussed on an international level, where troublesome situations could be debated and possible conflict be avoided. There was a need for a body where the world could come together and through pseudo-democratic means condemn or promote certain actions and values. It is also worth noticing the disparity in power-sharing in the UN. Several nations have the power of veto - a power that is immensely strong. Of course the winners of WWII - the big nations that is - got the veto power. I'd argue, based on the use of veto by these nations, that it has a LARGE part of the blame for the ineffectiveness of the UN (because it could be MUCH more effective, I agree). Look at how Russia, France, Germany, GB and China have used it. See how the US has used it. It's pretty hard to get something done when nations that at times have very different ideas and interests have to agree. All of them. How to solve that? Political horse-trading takes care of a little of it - the rest simply isn't solved. All the veto power countries are to blame for a large part of the inefficiency in the UN - the US included. Let's take a look at the Israel/Palestine situation for instance: Clicky. Just an example - I can dig up (if I google a lot) lists for the former USSR, current Russia, France, China and GB. There's an ugly and repetitive picture formed when vetoes are looked at in its entirety. But if one thinks about it, the UN is pretty good for the US with regards to voting power/values. The US has the power of veto. It shares the basic values with GB and France on human rights, democracy and freedom. Theocratic countries are underrepresented big time, as are neo-fascist states, nations with great corruption and so forth. So what stops the UN from being effective is the power of veto combined with silly nationalism (some prefer to call it patriotism) and really also the personal chemistry (or lack thereof) of the individual people sitting at the table. Egoes, basically. Yes, there needs to be changes in the UN. Just remember that the country with the most influence with regards to the UN charter at its creation and its administrative rules was the US - coming out on top after WWII as the mightiest nation ever to have existed on earth. Coming out well ahead of the Soviets, packing nukes, money and a post war agenda. Some will argue that all countries had as much influence. These people would be naeive and be lacking a clear understanding of realpolitik. There's a great many thing to critizise about the UN - for instance the way one member nation can undermine the whole organisation by a single action, the veto system, the lack of "fire power" for solving disputes definitely and quickly. But it's like democracy - it's a terrible system for governing - it's just not as terrible as the alternatives. It could do so much good, if only it was restructured. As globalisation continues, I see the role of a UN-like organisation growing, not diminishing. The UN could do so much good. It annoys me as much as anyone that the UN setup and real life hinders it. Ideals and reality in conflict. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ifrinn 0 #43 December 5, 2003 I dont know if I'm wrong here, but I think what most of the people want to say is that the UN is unsuccessful in achieving their main goal which is to prevent war. There too many examples, where the decisions of the UN were ignored and a war was started. The UN does a good job in achieving peace after a war, also the UNICEF, and most of the other org. under the UN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #44 December 5, 2003 What I was trying to do with my original post was to stir up some discussion on the UN. The commentary I posted illustrates how far the UN has lost its way. Its original mandate was to promote world peace and a place for dialogue between beligerant nations to prevent war. I believe the UN has failed in those aims and is quickly becoming irrelevant. Now the UN wants to become keeper of information and distibutor of wealth. That smacks of fascism/communism. That is so far from its mandate it would be funny if it wasnt scary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #45 December 5, 2003 QuoteI dont know if I'm wrong here, but I think what most of the people want to say is that the UN is unsuccessful in achieving their main goal which is to prevent war. There too many examples, where the decisions of the UN were ignored and a war was started. And if someone like the US simply decides to ignore everyone and go kick Iraq's ass, what is the UN supposed to do? Place economic embargoes on the US and demolish the world economy? Or maybe attack the US? -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #46 December 5, 2003 QuoteNow the UN wants to become keeper of information and distibutor of wealth. That smacks of fascism/communism. That is so far from its mandate it would be funny if it wasnt scary. Have you read the links I posted? Where are you getting this from? -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captainpooby 0 #47 December 6, 2003 QuoteQuoteNow the UN wants to become keeper of information and distibutor of wealth. That smacks of fascism/communism. That is so far from its mandate it would be funny if it wasnt scary. Have you read the links I posted? Where are you getting this from? Actually I wasnt really replying to your post in particular. I'm new to this board and dont know how to just add a post without replying to someone specific. I just clicked your post thats all. My bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee03 0 #48 December 6, 2003 I've got no use for the un! It is nothing but a corrupt organization bent on becoming a one world communist governmental dictatorship, set up to destroy the soverinty of all nations! I am loyal to and serve the Constitution of the United States of America, NOT the un charter! I pledge my allegience to the flage of the United States, the good old Red, White and Blue, not the tidy bowl blue rag of the un! My feeling.. get the U.S. out of the un and get the un the Hell out of the U.S.!-------- To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities. --Nevil Shute, Slide Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #49 December 11, 2003 This came across my email earlier today. QuoteIf the UN oversees the Internet the same way they've done "peacekeeping" missions in the world, then not accepting SPAM will be illegal. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
