the UN

[psycho chicken]

what does the UN really do? during this whole war on "terrorism" they haven't done a thing. and on UN "peacekeepong" missions the troops deployed can only fire on some one if they attack troops, they can kill all the civis they want. what is the point of that?

and i've heard that the ultimate goal for the UN is to disarm all civi's (along with other things) is that true? if so it's time to get rid of them

[Nickademus]

the UN can do a lot but quite frankly it is also extremely limited. this is largely do to the legal atmosphere of international law general. all international law is on a consent basis. there are also very few enforcement mechanisms. i mean really does the UN have the power to tell the US to stop this war on terrorism (which btw by UN standards is a completely illegal war -- yeah i know the concept of legal and illegal war seems odd) . the US has veto power within the UN. Therefore when it is brought up in the General assembly that what the states is doing is wrong, the US simply vetoes the discussion and there is no more talk of that. This is also why the UN has done nothing about the situation in Tibet, because China simply vetoes any discussion about it.

ulitamtely i believe the UN has potential but there are currently a lot of problems with it. but hey it sure as hell is working a lot better than the league of nations did

[Freiheit]

the un is controlled by the usa, also the usa doesnt pay its un-bills.
there are some countries (usa, russia, china, france, uk, maybe more, im not sure) which have a veto.
one of this countries always disagree, so the un doesnt work.

there are two countries in the world which arent members: switzerland, and the vatican (pope-state, 1 square mile).
the swiss people will, in the spring 2002, it will vote about an un-membership, i support a un-membership of switzerland.

[DaNatural]

UN is a front for New World Order, and the USA pretty does run shit in the UN. They've vetoed numerous bills, ,even when it was only like them and Israel voting against all other countries. UN wants to have one currency one language etc. Then it opens up things all over the world for the imperialist's to go in and suck everyhing out. peace

[ComradeFubar]

U.N dont you mean U.S :)

[Freiheit]

usa sucks.
un doenst do what it is suposed to do, but it is better than nothing.

[Anonymous]

i agree with nickadamos, it has potencial but right now its not wroth much. I think the frist thing that should be done is provinding equality among member nations and making ever nation a member. No more vetos no more crap, a just forum for nations to resolve there problems and most of all and independant imparcial forum, this is the only way to give it the credibility it is lacking. But i think we are present with a problem here... The UN depends on nations and it depends almost exclusivly on the more powerfull nations, if it is dependant in reality how can we expect it to be independant in its judgements and actions?

[Freiheit]

equality is a good idea, but you must also see:
in china live 1'300'000'000 humans, but in Austria only 8'000'000 and in Liechtenstein 50'000. that is not compareable.

[Anonymous]

i dont think population is the defining factor here. Brazil has 20 more population than uk and it does not have veto power. the factores that plays in the inequality game is the contrys economic/military power and that is what is wrong because the UN should exist (IMO) to conter the rule of force. To stop the strong from opressing the weak. And until all contrys are on equal ground to start with you can not even begin to adress this objective of independant credible negociation and moderation between nations. We all know it doesnt happen that way.

(Edited by El_Che at 8:32 am on Nov. 23, 2001)

[Freiheit]

yes, but the represantative of germany speaks for over 80'000'000 humans and the represantative of canada for almost 30'000'000. there are huge differences which should be considered as well.

[ComradeFubar]

If your a rich or powerful nation like the U.S, Australia, Russia, China etc.. then the U.N serves in your interests and does not mess with the countries internal affairs as can be seen with the U.N not doing mcuh about China's atrocious Human Rights record or tell Russia off for its actions in Chechnya. A civil war in Bosnia gets the U.N attention while continuing confilcit in Isreal gets no suggestion of a peackeaping opertaion. Why is that?
The U.N is just a tool for the rich capitilist nations to give them selves a moral face.

[Son of Scargill]

I agree with Nickademus,in that the UN could/should be used as a force for good.But in the present state of things,I'd have to agree with DaNatural and Fubar in that it now just legitimizes the actions of the dominant members.A tool of the New World Order to be dismissed.
But just as trade unions are as much a tool of the capitalists as the workforce,the UN is a better tool to hold, than no tool at all.

[Freiheit]

son of scargill, you said tarde union are a tool of the capitalistics. thats really not true. i never heard from a capitalist who liked unions. unions are one of the, at least a little bit, radical parts of our society, they organize demonstration and strikes etc. and look for the rights of the labors. without trade unions the labors would have very much less rights.

[CommieBastard]

I don't know what it's like in your country, but here in the UK the Trade Union's are nothing more than an organisation of capitalist interests. They almost fully consort with the corporations, have been stripped of their powers, barely ever strike. All they do is negotiate to make the labour's wage cheques fatter, which to me is a capitalist endeavor.

[Reuben]

The U.N. in some contexts, is a great embarrasment for the U.S.A. such as the annual motions condemning the blockade of Cuba ussually passed by a majority of abvout 157 to 2. I also think that there are situations when military action against a ultra right government by a truly international force would be legitimate

[Viva Zapata]

157 to 2 or 3 whatever, pure democracy at work.
get rid of the veto power and then we at least have something!!!

[Son of Scargill]

Quote: from Freiheit on 4:45 pm on Nov. 23, 2001
son of scargill, you said tarde union are a tool of the capitalistics. thats really not true. i never heard from a capitalist who liked unions. unions are one of the, at least a little bit, radical parts of our society, they organize demonstration and strikes etc. and look for the rights of the labors. without trade unions the labors would have very much less rights.



Yes what you say is correct,but as I said they are"as much a tool of the capitalist,as the worker" Unions are a movement within the capitalist system,diverting the workforce from true revolutionary aspirations by gaining smaller concessions from the bosses.The fact that capitalists don't like them is probably because they don't understand this concept,and any way if they do,they will resist any attempt to part them with their power .I myself am a union member,so don't think I am anti-union.But the power in a union is limited to within the capitalist system.Anything above that is revolutionary

(Edited by Son of Scargill at 9:38 pm on Nov. 23, 2001)

[Freiheit]

Quote: from CommieBastard on 11:02 am on Nov. 23, 2001
I don't know what it's like in your country, but here in the UK the Trade Union's are nothing more than an organisation of capitalist interests. They almost fully consort with the corporations, have been stripped of their powers, barely ever strike. All they do is negotiate to make the labour's wage cheques fatter, which to me is a capitalist endeavor.


trade unions also look for better working conditions, organize demonstrations and strikes. and after all, they are organized and do something. they are always in struggle with capitalists and support the employee.

[Freiheit]

Quote: from CommieBastard on 11:02 am on Nov. 23, 2001
I don't know what it's like in your country, but here in the UK the Trade Union's are nothing more than an organisation of capitalist interests. They almost fully consort with the corporations, have been stripped of their powers, barely ever strike. All they do is negotiate to make the labour's wage cheques fatter, which to me is a capitalist endeavor.


trade unions also look for better working conditions, organize demonstrations and strikes. and after all, they are organized and do something. they are always in struggle with capitalists and support the employee.

[CommieBastard]

They haven't done any of that shit here in the UK for some years now.
The reason the 'capitalists' by which i assume you guys mean management hate them is because whereas the trade unions want nothing more than more money for them, the management want nothing more than more money from the workers. They are both selfish and capitalistic.
It is the prevailing trend here in the UK that unions are 'teaming up' with management. There is no union activism here any more. Long dead is the english labour movement, long dead....

[Freiheit]

i understand, but the uk is not the whole world.

[Freiheit]

"They are both selfish and capitalistic. "

yes, unions figth the capitalists with their own weapons. and the make reform which are against capitalism.

unions are needed, without unions the world would be much worse

[ComradeFubar]

Unions in Australia are preaty much the same as like in the UK, with there only objectives is to get higher wages. The union leadership in Australia is also greatly controlled by the Labour Party( unlike what most people think that the unions controll labour...bullshit) who when ever are in goverment use this pull of some shit that is against the intrestes of wrokers. Also the current Leader of the ALP was ounce the presedint of the ACTU and many other high level labour officals use to be hight level Union leaders.

Back to the topic, the UN suck are not representive and do little.

[Son of Scargill]

Hello Guys,I think we've gone off on a tangent here..........This was supposed to be about the UN.
My point,if you hadn't noticed,was that it is better to have an organization in place,even if the leadership isn't willing to stand up for it's members rights.Without the UN,again,things would be worse.But Kofi Annan and his entourage must go.They have done virtually nothing for the Palestinians or attempted to stop the war in Chechnya,ect,ect... ineffective and too concilliatory to the big five......

[psycho chicken]

it proves that to advace in this world all you need is money, military power and population

[Freiheit]

i cant understand why america which always talks about democracy supports vetos which are as undemocratic as dictatorship.

[El Commandante]

I read earlier in the topic that America caused a lot of problems with the UN, and they do. They don't even other troops for the peace keeping missions. BUT, if the UN was without them then it would merely be a shell, at least with the US it wields some influence and because so many countries rely on US trade they have to take notice.

Just look at the League of Nations, after WW1 it was set up to avoid another war, US didn't join and look what happened, WW2. The UN doesn't do much but it is better than nothing.

[Freiheit]

yes, and any country which breaks the human rights must be punished and reformed. if there is torture or other bad stuff happening, the un must do something, doesnt matter which country it is.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Freiheit on 11:15 pm on Nov. 24, 2001
yes, and any country which breaks the human rights must be punished and reformed. if there is torture or other bad stuff happening, the un must do something, doesnt matter which country it is.

actually in order for the UN to do stuff about human rights violations all the nationalsourcces have to be exhaustible. human rights law is actually very complex. if you are referring more specificly to war crimes and genocide then the Rome Statute, which will created an International Criminal court, is what you should be looking at. unfortunately the rome statute has not yet come into effect because it has not been ratified by enough states. not surprisingly the United States has not yet ratified it. they are a signatory party to the statute but are doing everything within their powers nationally and internationally to see that the ICC fails, all because they don't want their US soldiers to be acountable to anyone outside the US

[Son of Scargill]

Talking of international courts and legalities Nickademus,what are your views on Bushs roving military courts,because from what I've heard,it sounds like an international"Spanish Inquisition".Only with less openness.Also,they claim a precedent for it,but I believe they were referring to the trial of PKK leader Ocalan.But I thought that courts decision was overuled by the European court,so I wouldn't have thought it was a precedent........but then I'm not a lawyer.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from Son of Scargill on 12:48 pm on Nov. 25, 2001
Talking of international courts and legalities Nickademus,what are your views on Bushs roving military courts,because from what I've heard,it sounds like an international"Spanish Inquisition".Only with less openness.Also,they claim a precedent for it,but I believe they were referring to the trial of PKK leader Ocalan.But I thought that courts decision was overuled by the European court,so I wouldn't have thought it was a precedent........but then I'm not a lawyer.
'
to be honest i don't know a lot about them. if you gave me a link or some more information i could attempt to make a decision

[Freiheit]

bush is an asshole.
he is so right-wing, he tries to be a dictator.
gore wouldnt be much better, but gores at least not a racist.

[Son of Scargill]

Nickademus,give you a link?I'm 35,owned a PC for 6 weeks,and have just about got the hang of using E-mail.I'll get there,but while you're waiting,RedCeltic did a link to a news-site in his post"Bush Order:Terror trial by Military" http:/news.excite.ca/ap/011113/20/news-attacks-bush.
I'm sure the article has been added to because when I first checked it out,it ended "Fidell said there was a precedent for these courts."
You can't teach an old dog new tricks!Ha!Ha!Ha!..Of course you can............................................... .................................................. .......Just takes a f**k of a lot longer!

[Nickademus]

okay i'll check it out for ya
and don't get discouraged if i don't get back to you until dec 6. i'm really swamped with school work right now, the only reason i'm on right now is to surf the WTO website.

[Son of Scargill]

No probs,Nickademus.

[Son of Scargill]

Here's that link.
http://news.excite.ca/news/ap/011113/20/ne...ws-attacks-bush (http://news.excite.ca/news/ap/011113/20/news-attacks-bush)

[Freiheit]

on february 12th 2002, switzerland will vote to become a member of the uno.

what do you think?
please say your opinion?

[ComradeFubar]

The swiss in the UN...

Just more beuracracy for the swiss, probaly the referendum was introduced to gain popularity for the goverment...the usual political motives (power,money,influence etc..)

[Son of Scargill]

From what you have told us,what I have read and the experience of some biker friends of mine(5 hours interrogation under armed guard at the border,just because they were bikers),it sounds as though Switzerland is just the easy going,forward thinking nation the UN is in need of.Then again,I could just be being sarcastic.
Really,the UN may be better off without Switzerland,unless the Swiss give them bags of money so they aren't as reliant on the US to help fund them.In which case....who knows?

[psycho chicken]

yay the swiss. we can stay neutral through out every thing with UN aproval. yay