Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

United Nations

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Poll Question: Are you for or against the UN?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
14 [48.28%]
11 [37.93%]
4 [13.79%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: United Nations
    Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:47
I think people are a little bit confused about what the UN is responsible for, and what world powers are responsible for. For example, the division of Palestine, although sanctioned by the UN, is an action of the world powers at the time. As much of the world was under occupation at the time (including the Arabs) they didn't get a vote. They weren't invitited to the meeting.
It was a diplomatic decision made at the UN by other powers. As are all UN decisions.
 
If we want to talk about what the UN actually does, we should look at its beurocratic functions. For example, the ITU (International Telecomunications Union) which lays down the rules for Radiofrequency management amoungst other things. The mangament of this is something the UN actually does. If your opposed to the UN, I wonder if you would also like your neighbouring country broadcasting in frequency bands where you don't want them to. ie, have you TV signal disrupted by mobile phones and vice versa.
 
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:55
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Well, I for one never want my nation to submit to the whims of any other foreign government or organization. The patriotism in me, even though it has receded greatly in the last year, will never allow me to want the US to be subordinate to anything. 
 
 
That is so American LOL 
 
Patriotism is important because it ensures the survival rate. Nothing wrong with it idealy. It's just that when people with that kind of idea caused millions of bloodshed. Serbian assassin probably thought similar thing when he shot the Austrian archduke. That's what Japanese generals must have thought while thousands of Japanese citizens died due to Allied bombardment and, eventually, two cloud mushrooms.
 
To find perfect balance between nationalism and internationalism will be instrumental for world peace, but that's not gonna happen anytime soon~
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 14:31
Bah. Pekau, the only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism. It'll just create a world government more reprehensible than any national government ever dreams of being. 
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
TheARRGH View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Over-Lord of the Marching Men

Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 744
  Quote TheARRGH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:53
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Bah. Pekau, the only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism. It'll just create a world government more reprehensible than any national government ever dreams of being. 


and then i'll try to become president of it....Wink
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 20:34

The UN is an anarchonism. An embarassing one.  It was setup to be a talking shop, to ensure that the talking remained between the US State Department and the Soviet Foreign Ministry, not the Strategic Air Command and the Strategic Rocket Forces! It was never meant to resolve issues. It was ment to stop fighting.



Edited by Sparten - 28-Sep-2007 at 20:46
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:34
Originally posted by Sparten

The UN is an anarchonism.
 
It's the opposite, actually. UN is dictated by the Superpowers trying to meet their interests and keep the nations under control by greater good, which is majority of the Superpowers' will. When Iraq attacked Kuwait, UN reacted quickly. When North Korea threatened democratic influence in Far East, UN acted. When Suez Canal was threatened, UN acted. When Balkan regions were exhausting themselves... UN acted to ensure no Superpowers could easily take Balkan (Namely Russia.) UN is dictatorship, absolute monarchy... (Where superpower is are gods)
 
 
 
Originally posted by Sparten

An embarassing one.  It was setup to be a talking shop, to ensure that the talking remained between the US State Department and the Soviet Foreign Ministry, not the Strategic Air Command and the Strategic Rocket Forces! It was never meant to resolve issues. It was ment to stop fighting.
 
But you said that UN is anarchonism. Make up your mind, Spartan. Why are you now saying that UN is anarchonism when they are stopping the fight?Wink
 
 
 
 
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:35
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Bah. Pekau, the only thing worse than nationalism is internationalism. It'll just create a world government more reprehensible than any national government ever dreams of being. 
 
Quite a statement, but statement nevertheless.Wink
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:43
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

I think people are a little bit confused about what the UN is responsible for, and what world powers are responsible for. For example, the division of Palestine, although sanctioned by the UN, is an action of the world powers at the time. As much of the world was under occupation at the time (including the Arabs) they didn't get a vote. They weren't invitited to the meeting.
It was a diplomatic decision made at the UN by other powers. As are all UN decisions.
 
 
  
 
I agree. UN decision is Superpowers' decision supported (Whether they like it or not) by small nations.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

If we want to talk about what the UN actually does, we should look at its beurocratic functions. For example, the ITU (International Telecomunications Union) which lays down the rules for Radiofrequency management amoungst other things. The mangament of this is something the UN actually does. If your opposed to the UN, I wonder if you would also like your neighbouring country broadcasting in frequency bands where you don't want them to. ie, have you TV signal disrupted by mobile phones and vice versa.
 
 
 
What? What UN actually does? You are confusing right there. You just said that UN's decision is Superpowers' decision. That is what UN actually do. That is the reason why we are arguing whether UN should exist or not. What is UN without Russia/former USSR, USA, Britain, France, Germany and China?
 
And about your example... UN does not decide that without being approved by Security Council. Superpowers are interested in maintaining peace and order in small countries to ensure that their economy stays strong. Why would China want destruction of Canada and US when much of their exports are sold to them? Why wouldn't United States want peace in Burma? Burma' insecure peace and order would mean deline of their economy. All economists remember fall of German Empire in WWI, and the aftermath of Great Depression. One country falls, others fall. Interntional economy is like a food chain.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 00:42
Nothing with people involved is perfect - but we really should ask ourselves: What could replace UN and do better?
 
UN is very young - give it time to mature and give nations time to listen to other nations - we all can learn from one another.
UN is not the first, but absolutely second to none, the best initiative so far towards a better and safer life, not least for the weakest.
 
Another example of how important it is to "talk"....
For centuries, most of Europe was a tormentet battlefield of rivalizing nations who only saw one good purpose - their own.
 
A little club of nations started to talk not too long ago and what came out of that?... EU did.
EU isn't perfect either, far from it - but today it's unthinkable that any nation in Europe would declare war against a neighbor; -  and why?
Because of a greater understanding between the countries - because they met, talked - negotiated.
 
If we could put the petty selfishness aside and get equally far with UN, I think much would have been acheived.
 
When people stop talking, the guns start talking. 
 
So I'll repeat the question in the first paragraph:
What could replace UN and do better?
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:12
Pekau,
SAC and SRF do not exist anymore, the cold war is over, that is why it is an anarchonism.
 
Northman, implict in the EU are the US security gurantees, the US is not about to let another European war start again.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:26
Originally posted by Sparten

 
Northman, implict in the EU are the US security gurantees, the US is not about to let another European war start again.
 
I think you confuse effect and cause Sparten - unless you want to claim that EU is an US invention?
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:50
Hardly, but the fact that the US gave a security gaurentee to the European Nations against external and internal problems, and the fact that any European conflict is against the interests of the United States is one of the reasons why the EU has succeeded. And has gone further than other initiatives in the past, like the concert of Europe for instance. Also IIRC inter-European travel was actually more intensive pre-1914 then even today.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 03:04
Originally posted by Pekau

What? What UN actually does? You are confusing right there. You just said that UN's decision is Superpowers' decision. That is what UN actually do. That is the reason why we are arguing whether UN should exist or not. What is UN without Russia/former USSR, USA, Britain, France, Germany and China?
 
And about your example... UN does not decide that without being approved by Security Council. Superpowers are interested in maintaining peace and order in small countries to ensure that their economy stays strong. Why would China want destruction of Canada and US when much of their exports are sold to them? Why wouldn't United States want peace in Burma? Burma' insecure peace and order would mean deline of their economy. All economists remember fall of German Empire in WWI, and the aftermath of Great Depression. One country falls, others fall. Interntional economy is like a food chain.

No.
Although the countries of the world define the guidelines, in the form of treaties, that the ITU operate under, the ITU is not managed by other countries. It is a function of the UN. There was a need for a world wide regulatory organisation so the ITU was created.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 30-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4262
  Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 03:31
Originally posted by Sparten

Hardly, but the fact that the US gave a security gaurentee to the European Nations against external and internal problems, and the fact that any European conflict is against the interests of the United States is one of the reasons why the EU has succeeded. And has gone further than other initiatives in the past, like the concert of Europe for instance. Also IIRC inter-European travel was actually more intensive pre-1914 then even today.
 
I think you give US way too much credit in respect to what US can do on European soil. Europeans are more critical than you might think. The European countries also quarrels amongst themselves, but they talk until a settlement is made.
 
Of course - US is a friend of most EU countries and not interested in war or conflicts amongst its friends and tradingpartners - neither are we and basically you can say - we are all interested in preserving the peace. Thats the first condition for growth and better conditions for  everyone. Maybe some parts of the rest of the world could pick up a few hints from that.
 
I hope your last remark was caused by a temporarily powersurge that emptied your brain for a few seconds - I don't think you really are serious about that.
Pre-1914, normal people didn't even own a bicycle and the few travels that took place crossborder, was exclusively done by the elite, Royalty, Nobelity and a few artists. Normal people walked - so only rarely did they visit the next parish.  
Today - every family has a car or two and can travel freely (no border control) around Europe. Each day when I drive to work on the highway, I see trucks as well as normal cars from any European country you can think of - for not to mention the airtraffic with millions of travellers.
 
Wouldn't you like to see Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and all their neighbors in a similar "peaceful" situation?
 
Back to the UN and the question I asked:  What could replace UN and do better?
 
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:39
We had such a peaceful settlement, it was called the Mughal Empire, until the Aurengzeb anyway.
 
Secondly, sir (though we have had a storm here and a few powersurges today), you seem to forget railroads, which revolutionised transport from the 1850's onwards, indeed, the whole concept of passports was abolished since they could not keep up with the explosion in railtravel, they were not introduced until WWII.
 
Finally, you give the Yanks too little credit, the presence of US troops has been the greatest guarentee of peace in Europe and the fact that the US is not likely to take kindly to another European war is definatly a factor in  squabbles remaining that, squabbles.
 
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:44
Originally posted by Sparten

Pekau,
SAC and SRF do not exist anymore, the cold war is over, that is why it is an anarchonism.
 
 
To be replaced by War on Terror. USSR died, but Chinese pressure is still there. And it just means US has more power now. I believe  Russia still is part of Security Council... so there's power shift, but I believe change is not that big.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:47
Originally posted by Sparten

Finally, you give the Yanks too little credit, the presence of US troops has been the greatest guarentee of peace in Europe and the fact that the US is not likely to take kindly to another European war is definatly a factor in  squabbles remaining that, squabbles.
 
 
 
Indeed. Marshall Plan itself should deserve huge credit.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 09:09
Originally posted by Adalwolf

Personally, I'm against the UN. I want it to be dismantled, or at least have the US pull out of it. Its a useless and corrupt organization.

Now, I've that the UN is kept weak intentionally by the US and others, and I believe it, but I would never want a strong UN, as that would erode sovereignty of nations, and be a step towards a one world government, which I am adamently against.
 
The UN is not a corrupt organization. It's just an organization prone to corruption but so are all other organizations, including the magnificent goverment of the USA.
It's not useless, unless you think of being useless in promoting only US interests.
A strong UN wouuld not erode the sovereignity of nations, on the contrary, it would protect the weak sovereign nations. Of course, it would affect those nations too, and the big ones also, like it does now, but you can't stop that from happening.
Remember that your idea of self sufficient isolation was tested in the past. After all, it seems that the USN guns were those that made the Japanese Empire wake up, weren't they?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 19:18
 
Originally posted by Sparten

Secondly, sir (though we have had a storm here and a few powersurges today), you seem to forget railroads, which revolutionised transport from the 1850's onwards,
Mostly they revolutionised transport inside the country, rather than internationally. Northman is quite right, international travel remained the preserve of the better off, though it would be true to say that post 1860 or so, the upper middle classes were able to join the aristocracy. Even as late as the 1920s and '30s travelling abroad was something few Britons did, which is why it was the heyday of the British seaside resorts.
 
Read any books of the period, novels or whatever and you will get the flavour of travel at the time. Read the Sherlock Holmes stories. Read the Diary of a Nobody.  Or even later, read the Diary of an English Country Lady, or check out the passenger list in Vile Bodies or Murder on the Orient Express.
 
For that matter, do you think any of the De Maupassant or Gottfried Keller or Chekhov characters regularly went to the Costa Brava on holiday?
 
indeed, the whole concept of passports was abolished since they could not keep up with the explosion in railtravel, they were not introduced until WWII.
You mean WW1. In 1920 the League of Nations had to issue 'Nansen passports' to stateless people, because it had become impossible to travel internationally without a passport.
 
And the Ottoman Empire and Russia, probably among others, never abolished them. However a major reason for not needing a passport was that in many countries people were required to carry identity cards.
Finally, you give the Yanks too little credit, the presence of US troops has been the greatest guarentee of peace in Europe and the fact that the US is not likely to take kindly to another European war is definatly a factor in  squabbles remaining that, squabbles.
 
At one time that might have been true. It isn't any more.
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
  Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 20:29
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Sparten

Finally, you give the Yanks too little credit, the presence of US troops has been the greatest guarentee of peace in Europe and the fact that the US is not likely to take kindly to another European war is definatly a factor in  squabbles remaining that, squabbles.
 
At one time that might have been true. It isn't any more.
 
LOL
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.