What Good Is The Un

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by JPaul+2 October 2003 - 20:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 2 October 2003 - 20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@2 October 2003 - 20:03
I believe the veto is a hangover from the cold war and serves no useful purpose.

This cuts both ways.

Would the US and the Uk have managed to obtain UN backing without the veto? - perhaps.

Would the Palestinians feel less isolated and more prepared to engage in real dialogue without the veto? perhaps.

Something which served a purpose when two massive nuclear power blocks faced each other off in the 1950s should not be set in concrete. Let debate and negotiation in the broad forum of the UN take its place.

I appreciate there are vested interests, some poltical and some economic, but if humanity is to move on there needs to be a realignment in the way we deal with each other and, yes, with rogue states.

I also agree with the suggestion that there should (as in the EU) be minimum requirements regarding personal liberty and human rights. People don&#39;t try and avoid joining the EU they are falling over themselves to prove they meet these criteria. Turkey, for instance, is trying to turn around years of human rights abuse and has, significantly, not implemented the death penalty for some time now in order to prepare its way for membership.

I didn&#39;t really understand the comment regarding the UN&#39;s desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.

Remember, the UN is not some alien body - it is simply the sum of its member states. What we need is for that sum to be greater than its component parts not less. It does a power of work in peace-keeping in numerous unsung places around the world and is involved in large numbers of development and teaching projects. Many of the soldiers who don the blue beret have spoken of the pride they felt at being involved in worthwhile projects and wished that their remit and support could have been stronger rather than that they had not been sent in the first place.

In summary , I think that the UN is a useful body and could, with a little goodwill, be even more useful.

Are you a mind reader, that is exactly, word for word, what I was going to say.

This post has been brought to you by the punctuation mark - comma [/b][/quote]
JPaul, you will soon be able to retire&#33;

[Calvarian2003]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 16:24
Oh, shit, don&#39;t tell me he&#092;she&#39;s Australian&#33;

Well, well.... you are observant aren&#39;t you BD. Want to criticise my nationality now, do you? I&#39;d expect as much from a bigot such as yourself. Now we can add racist to your list of incredulous attributes.

[Calvarian2003]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 October 2003 - 17:29
The U.N. is fine, in theory.

If someone could only tell me why:

Taiwan is not a member of the U.N.?

The U.N. Chair of the Sub-Committee on the "Promotion and Protection of Human Rights" is a Cuban, Miguel Alfonso Martinez?

The Human-Rights Council is dominated by documented abusers of human rights?

The U.N. shouldn&#39;t be considered the exemplar of global cronyism and politicization?

Either dissolve it and replace it or pave it over and rebuild it from scratch.

Re-charter it-

Keep the idea; toss the rest.

Bravo j2k4&#33; And here I thought that everyone was a UN apologetic. They&#39;re very good questions. I&#39;d like to know the answers myself. The only problem is that these questions will never reach the people involved for fear of &#39;offending&#39; someone.

I think I might know why Taiwan isn&#39;t a member of the UN though; perhaps everyone is expecting that Taiwan won&#39;t be around long enough in it&#39;s present form to be worthy of considering for UN membership. At least not if China has any say in the matter&#33;

Edit: Typo

[Calvarian2003]

Originally posted by Biggles@2 October 2003 - 19:03
I didn&#39;t really understand the comment regarding the UN&#39;s desire to see a reduction in the number of guns out there. I would have thought that was a self evident positive for the world. In the US the annual death toll of children killing themselves accidently with their parents weapons exceeds Europes murder toll of shootings (by quite a margin if I recall correctly). However, I appreciate there is a macho thing about guns in the US and many other countries like Colombia, Afghanistan and Liberia and these toys will not be given up easily.

The fact is that it&#39;s my God given right to own a firearm if I want to. Think of it this way; if the UN was to disarm a nation, the only people in that nation with guns would be the government and criminals. This would make the people impotent to protecting themselves from governmental oppression and leave them unable to defend themselves, including in their own homes, from burglars, thugs, etc.

Studies in the US at least, have shown that rates of civilian gun ownership correlate with LOWER criminal activity, not higher. If everyone owned a gun, sure there would be more accidental deaths, but criminals would think twice before mugging or robbing someone in case they lost their own life.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by Calvarian2003+4 October 2003 - 17:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Calvarian2003 @ 4 October 2003 - 17:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 16:24
Oh, shit, don&#39;t tell me he&#092;she&#39;s Australian&#33;

Well, well.... you are observant aren&#39;t you BD. Want to criticise my nationality now, do you? I&#39;d expect as much from a bigot such as yourself. Now we can add racist to your list of incredulous attributes. [/b][/quote]
You get worse and worse don&#39;t you?? Why don&#39;t you put your brain in gear BEFORE you open your hate-filled mouth??

If you&#39;d read my posts, as you&#39;ve claimed, you&#39;d know that I too am Ausralian.

Your posts are full of lies, hatred and ignorance, if this is an example of your so-called religion, you are a good reason to avoid it.

Studies in the US at least, have shown that rates of civilian gun ownership correlate with LOWER criminal activity, not higher.

Where are these "reports"?

I think I might know why Taiwan isn&#39;t a member of the UN though; perhaps everyone is expecting that Taiwan won&#39;t be around long enough in it&#39;s present form to be worthy of considering for UN membership. At least not if China has any say in the matter&#33;

More ignorance&#33;

[Calvarian2003]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@4 October 2003 - 08:59
You get worse and worse don&#39;t you?? Why don&#39;t you put your brain in gear BEFORE you open your hate-filled mouth??

If you&#39;d read my posts, as you&#39;ve claimed, you&#39;d know that I too am Ausralian.

Your posts are full of lies, hatred and ignorance, if this is an example of your so-called religion, you are a good reason to avoid it.

Studies in the US at least, have shown that rates of civilian gun ownership correlate with LOWER criminal activity, not higher.

Where are these "reports"?

I think I might know why Taiwan isn&#39;t a member of the UN though; perhaps everyone is expecting that Taiwan won&#39;t be around long enough in it&#39;s present form to be worthy of considering for UN membership. At least not if China has any say in the matter&#33;

More ignorance&#33;

1) I only joined this board one day ago. I have only read your postings in a handful of streams. I never said I read all of your postings. But you never mentioned you were Australian in any of your postings that I&#39;ve read.

2) It&#39;s spelt &#39;Australian&#39;. So much for literacy in Australia supposedly being 100%.

3) Lies, hatred and ignorance?&#33; You think you know so much because you read articles on the internet that claim to deliver the &#39;truth&#39;? Tell me what lies I&#39;ve told. Go ahead.

4) I&#39;ve read, I&#39;d say, a dozen or so of your postings. And the ignorance and intolerance I&#39;ve found inherent in them was enough to drive me to join this board. I think you called me intolerant at one point. Hilarious that you should say that, considering how intolerant you are of my opinion.

I can&#39;t find the website for the report I was referring to. I read it a while ago now. Here are some websites which make the same case however:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html

This one is very well researched:
http://catholicsamurai.netfirms.com/legalgunprevent.htm

http://www.mail-archive.com/firearmsregpro...u/msg00218.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=21722

I couldn&#39;t be bothered finding any more websites for you. I wasn&#39;t lying though. If I ever come across that report you can bet I&#39;ll post it.

This topic is widely debated and there are good points on either side. Whether or not you can see through you blinding bigotry and accept my point of view is another matter.

You&#39;ve judged me on the basis of my opinions on a few postings on an online bulletin board. I never claimed to be perfect. And I admit, I&#39;m probably not a good example of a Christian, because Christ preached pacifism and humility, and I am hardly passive.

I just can&#39;t stand by and listen to such stupidity without responding. It would be an insult to my inherent sense of justice.

Don&#39;t judge me; you have no idea.

[ilw]

I always think its stunning when i hear comments like

criminals would think twice before mugging or robbing someone in case they lost their own life.

IMO thats as much as advocating not only vigilantism, but up to the extent of allowing the death penalty for theft and or assault. You are essentially threatening the death penalty without any sort of trial or due process and over a mere robbery. Thats f*cked up.
There was a gun control thread (you&#39;d have to dig it up) maybe if you think theres something new you could add to it....

[Billy_Dean]

You should read your own links ..

Generally, there is more gun control in Europe, and less violent crime, than in America. Comparing gun ownership with crime or violent crime across countries at a single point in time disproves the high-ownership, high-crimes claim of the left, though it doesn’t prove the inverse relationship between guns and crime.

Catholic Samurai
This is a quote from their home page ..
Don&#39;t believe shit you read here unless it is something you already agree with or you take the time to verify it for yourself.


Read this again&#33;
You really should read BEFORE you post, this one REFUTES your claims, read it again&#33;

I&#39;m glad you joined our little band of protagonists, your bullshit is nicely superficial.

[Calvarian2003]

Originally posted by ilw@4 October 2003 - 09:33
I always think its stunning when i hear comments like

criminals would think twice before mugging or robbing someone in case they lost their own life.

IMO thats as much as advocating not only vigilantism, but up to the extent of allowing the death penalty for theft and or assault. You are essentially threatening the death penalty without any sort of trial or due process and over a mere robbery. Thats f*cked up.
There was a gun control thread (you&#39;d have to dig it up) maybe if you think theres something new you could add to it....

Okay, ilw, I shall amend that for you. "Criminals would think twice about committing armed assault in case they were injured themselves in the process."

Do you think it&#39;s wrong for people to defend themselves? Granted, killing someone for mugging you is extreme. But put yourself in the shoes of someone who is being threatened at gunpoint by a single man. You&#39;re about to be robbed or raped or God knows what. Are you going to care at that moment whether or not the person lives if your life is in such serious danger?

It&#39;s similar to the situation of wives killing their abusive husbands. I certainly don&#39;t agree with such wives killing their husbands while they&#39;re sleeping; that&#39;s murder. But if during an incident, the wife feared for her life, I&#39;d say good on her for slaying the scumbag.

[Biggles]

Calvarian

There is a strange mixture brewing in your argument that I don&#39;t understand.

On one hand you say that it is your God given right to own a gun.

On the other hand you concede that Jesus taught humility and peace. I believe he said that those that try "to save their lives by the sword will die by the sword". You do also point out that you don&#39;t feel you live up to this ideal. That is understandable and few can, but it does not sit easily with your first statement.

My view is that your argument would be stronger if you said it was your constitutional right to bear arms rather than involve God. Constitutions can be amended by general agreement - it tends to be a trickier if people start confusing the issue with divine rights.

I believe the US is in the process of disarming ordinary Iraqis with the aim of only leaving weapons in the hands of soldiers and the police. This is a perfectly logical step and would suggest that the US administration has no difficilty with the ethics of gun control. A strong domestic lobby is probably the only thing between this policy being implemented in Iraq and not in the US.

As to whether the US is a less violent society than Europe I cannot say. There are violent parts of every city in the world. Cities like New York and Washington can have more shootings in a holiday weekend than the UK does in a year - whether this means anything I am not sure. I believe I read somewhere that there is more chance of an old fashioned pub brawl happening in Europe than the US because everyone is reasonably confident that no one will pull a gun and spoil it - but as I can&#39;t recall the last time I saw a pub brawl I can&#39;t confirm or deny that.

I am content to be called an apologist for the UN, I take that as a positive position within a framework of constructive dialogue. I believe, on balance, that the UN does more good than harm. It could be more efficient and I have suggested ways that I would improve it. I appreciate that the US has encountered some criticism recently but temporary hiccups should not dictate long term policy. Kofi Anan has to represent the whole of the world (ex. Taiwan) the US only makes up 4% of the world population. It is inevitable he will from time to time express consensus views that might not be agreeable to one US administration - but then again may cause no difficulties for the next. Whilst a world body has to take heed of current political imperatives in any one country it will tend to look over the horizon and say "is this a long term problem?"

What format would you use as a focal point for dialogue for all the countries of the world?