Un

[Don Roley]

Nations uniting to work together is a something that I respect and appreciate.


But what I am seeing in this thread bothers me a lot.

You may note that one of the first things the American goverment did after ratifying the constitution was add on ten ammendments telling the goverment what it can't do. So when people talk about giving more power to the UN, unless there is a similar move you will see those in power try to interfere as much as they can.

That is why we do not want it to have any teeth. Better an orginization that can only talk about problems and gets out of the way of those that can help than a power with no limits on what it can do.

But yeah, it would be nice if there was a world goverment that could step in and stop what is going on in Dafur as well as all the other things that Jonathan and Exile talked about. It is just that I fear that if you give the UN the power to step in and push aside a goverment, then countries like China would use that power for things even worse.

 

[michaeledward]

So, am I to conclude that the majority of MT members, imyself included, do not respect the United Nations?

Were you to conclude that, strictly on the basis of what you are seeing in this thread, you would be making a conclusion based on incomplete and quite probably inaccurate data.

You are witnessing a 'self-selecting sample', which by every means is competely non-scientific. It is unclear if the majority of members of Martialtalk are even aware that this thread - titled in the form a linguistic utterance - is related to the United Nations - which more properly would have used two uppercase letters, and perhaps some puncuation (U.N.).

So far, there have been forty posts on this thread, that have been viewed a total 288 times. This hardly represents a 'majority' of anything in a group of 5,309 members.

But, you go right ahead and 'conclude'.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Now that the error of or ways is cleared up, Mr. Edward, could you share with us your opinion on the UN given the new info brought to light in relation to your status as a MAist?

 

[michaeledward]

Now that the error of or ways is cleared up, Mr. Edward, could you share with us your opinion on the UN given the new info brought to light in relation to your status as a MAist?

Thank you for asking.

I am not certain that my status as a martial artists, or student thereof, has any bearing at all upon my opinion of the United Nations. Of course, limiting a self-description to that of a martial artist, would be similarly erroneous; for that is only one aspect of that which makes me who I am.

However, were we to look at the whole of who I am, I would suggest that the United Nations does far more good in the world than harm.

It seems it is easy to rail against what the rules of engagement are for the blue helmets, than it is to recognize the importance and impact of something like the Trans Asian Railway (U.N Agreement moving the TAR forward was announced yesterday).

But there are so many items that take place every week that are quietly improving the world. Spend a few moments browsing the United Nations Web Site, and see the some of the great things humans can do collaboratively.

Of course, it was Spock of Vulcan who said, "As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create."

 

[exile]

It is just that I fear that if you give the UN the power to step in and push aside a goverment, then countries like China would use that power for things even worse.

China is a perfect example of the contradictions built into the UN. A nation-state with an enormous occupying army that has spent more than half a century annexing a separate country, Tibet---unapologetically moving its own population into the area as part of systematic campaign to submerge the indigenous culture and eventually eliminate the Tibetans as a recognizable ethnic entity---has for years sat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, by far the most important executive suborganization within the UN. That contradiction seems to throw the UN's problems into particularly sharp relief---surely this is the sort of behavior that the UN was explicitly identified by its founders as the world's best hope for preventing? How can one not react with extremel skepticism when this worst sort of behavior is---if not actually rewarded, then at least implicitly allowed, by being given an extremely priviledged place at the table?

 

[Don Roley]

However, were we to look at the whole of who I am, I would suggest that the United Nations does far more good in the world than harm.

I think because of fact that we don't give it much power it does not do much harm.

And I think if you look at what it does and compare it with other orginizations that it is clear that it does not do anything as well. The international red cross does a lot more to help with disaster relief and such than the UN IMO. And when it came to the Balkans, Rawanda, Kosovo and such, the blue helmets were just incomptent compared with forces like NATO.

In fact, a lot of the credit that the UN takes is not really deserved. The Asian tsunami that hit a couple of years ago is a good example. If you listen to the UN, they were the ones to save the day. But if anyone was to do an in-depth study they will find that the real heros were the Australian Navy followed closely by the US military. The military forces were used to harsh conditions, transporting the type of gear needed and operating with each other. The UN guys mainly seemed to book all the five star hotels in the capital of Indonesia and held press conferences. They made attempts to get the militaries to stop what they were doing and follow their orders, but were ignored and the Aussies and Americans just went on doing the job they knew best with little fanfare.

So, if we can find other orginization like the international red cross to take over the duties of a lot of the UN I think we will be better off. If the Red Cross were to be riddled with the same type of corruption we see at the UN the donations would soon dry up until they cleaned up their act. With the UN, there is not such power to force them to reform.

 

[Fu_Bag]

Personally, I'm a little miffed that they'd try to compete with my plans for World Domination. UNcool!!!

First, you have this:

http://sacfla.org/undocs.htm

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should he taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

[SIZE=+1]First, there must be immediate disarmament action:[/SIZE]

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.


1


[SIZE=+1]Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]to effective international controls:[/SIZE]

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

[SIZE=+1]Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:[/SIZE]

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.




Read on..... It gets even MORE interesting than THAT!!!!

And that's only the TIP of the iceburg........

You should see what's written in the UN Charter, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNESCO, and the UN International Court of Justice. Immediately after reading through all that stuff, read the US Declaration of Independence.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 29 may be of interest

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
Articles 13, 14, 15, 17, and 29 may be of interest

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicotherdocuments.html
UN International Court of Justice:
Articles 104 and 105 may be of interest

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicunchart.htm
UN Charter:
Article 2, section 5
Articles 39, 42, 43 and 74 may be of interest

http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html
US Declaration of Independence


Then, of course, you have the UN World Heritage Sites. The UN has teeth because many people are unaware of the types of things in this post. Once people become more aware of what the UN truly stands for, it can be viewed by an educated international community and dealt with in whatever way is deemed most appropriate. Ignorance is a very dangerous thing....


Please remember to vote for Darth Fu Bag - "The Friendly World Dominator"!!!

 

[michaeledward]

Fu Bag,

As I read your post, it is unclear what you wish for me to take away from the links you post. ...

I will refer to one specifically ... Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 14[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.[/FONT]

Now, it seems that you are railing against this provision. Certainly, you can hold that as an opinion. But, if you are arguing against this Article, help me understand why we should not respect anyones (not just children) ability to think and participate in religion? The Article expressly grants the legal parent or gaurdian the ability to direct their charges. And states may impose laws that govern how religion and belief are implemented in a society.

Help me understand what you really think about this article. And why you pointed it out specifically?

 

[Fu_Bag]

Fu Bag,

As I read your post, it is unclear what you wish for me to take away from the links you post. ...

I will refer to one specifically ... Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children.



Now, it seems that you are railing against this provision. Certainly, you can hold that as an opinion. But, if you are arguing against this Article, help me understand why we should not respect anyones (not just children) ability to think and participate in religion? The Article expressly grants the legal parent or gaurdian the ability to direct their charges. And states may impose laws that govern how religion and belief are implemented in a society.

Help me understand what you really think about this article. And why you pointed it out specifically?

Because EVERY article I pointed out points to this:

Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;


...."for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations" indicates that children are to be taught to revere and respect the UN more than their own constitutions, upbringings, and personal beliefs. That's why it's at the end of the articles. It's the essence of the entire document as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not interested in having children brainwashed or mis-educated in this way. It smacks of breeding "World Citizens" in place of free, independently minded human beings. You can find almost verbatim "articles" in the constitutions of current, and former, Communist countries. Notice that "democratic society" is used to emphasize a mob ruled over by a single entity.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Establishing a World Democracy would be to create chaos which, of course, could only be dealt with by a single organization with enough teeth to restore order. I'm not interested in seeing that come to be. If the people of the world want a neutral forum for debate, that's one thing. Having one power that's above all powers is a little too Lord of the Rings for me. There would/could be nothing to regulate such a power. Sorry, but that seems like a VERY bad idea to me....

That's why I nominate myself, Darth Fu Bag - "The Friendly World Dominator" for the task. I wouldn't hurt a flea.....promise...

(queue Darth Fu Bag music.....)

 

[michaeledward]

Article 29
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;


...."for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations" indicates that children are to be taught to revere and respect the UN more than their own constitutions, upbringings, and personal beliefs. That's why it's at the end of the articles. It's the essence of the entire document as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not interested in having children brainwashed or mis-educated in this way. It smacks of breeding "World Citizens" in place of free, independently minded human beings. You can find almost verbatim "articles" in the constitutions of current, and former, Communist countries. Notice that "democratic society" is used to emphasize a mob ruled over by a single entity.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Establishing a World Democracy would be to create chaos which, of course, could only be dealt with by a single organization with enough teeth to restore order. I'm not interested in seeing that come to be. If the people of the world want a neutral forum for debate, that's one thing. Having one power that's above all powers is a little too Lord of the Rings for me. There would/could be nothing to regulate such a power. Sorry, but that seems like a VERY bad idea to me....

Well, that's one hell of a non sequitur.

But, I got it. And your premise explains much more about you than it does about the United Nations.

 

[Fu_Bag]

Well, that's one hell of a non sequitur.

But, I got it. And your premise explains much more about you than it does about the United Nations.

That's probably true. I'm a parent and, as such, it's my responsibility to know what's going on with my child's education. While this is a political issue, it's one that I'm thankful that we have the opportunity to either agree, or to disagree, on. I'm not interested in seeing future generations' free will, free choice, and personal development being managed by one unmanageable power or authority. Nothing good could possibly come from that.

It's not just Article 29 that does it for me. All of the articles I brought attention to harmonize to say the exact same thing; you cannot live or exist in any manner that is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the UN. It's not just a single individual, family, or group that this applies to. That line of reasoning applies to the entire world and is very clearly enshrined in all of the articles I brought attention to.

One unmanageable world power means no more voting. There would be no opposing parties to vote for. There would be no opposing issues, only the issues that the UN would decide are important. There would be no way to resist, or restrain, such a power with the entire world disarmed. That, to me, says a hell of a lot about the UN and the purposes of the UN.

There are a lot of people in the world that embrace that idea. I respect their right to do so and am glad they are still able to choose for themselves, and their children, what they feel is right. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your beliefs, however, there are many who see the dangers of such an implementation of power. Even more unfortunate is that the ones who disagree are being bred and educated out of existence one generation at a time. If that doesn't work............are there any doubts of what comes next?

This issue is more about being a good parent than it is about being on either side of the political spectrum. No matter how people want to believe, they should at least be well informed and well aware of WHY it is that they believe that way. If the intention of educating children is to discourage this type of thinking, then, as a parent, I have a problem with that.

Remember to vote for Darth Fu Bag - "The Friendly World Dominator" at the polls!!!

 

[Fu_Bag]

Anyone have any thoughts about U.N. control of internet routing and open information?

Not sure if anyone heard about that little movement. Anyone have any doubts about your ability to find any material inconsistent to the principles, purposes, and interests of the U.N. online should the U.N. gain that level of control? They've already enshrined these noble ideas into their various declarations, charters, and such. All they need now is the support to implement.

Just a thought (while thoughts are free, that is).........


(queue Darth Fu Bag music)