It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by devilwasp
1. The UN would be based in a neutral country.
2. There would be no security council.
3. There would be no veto, it would be democratic.
4. A military force made up of all member nations, restrictions on amount of support from each nation but technology would be allowed freely and with out restrictions apart from WMD.
5. If one member state attacks another in any form then it would be ejected from the UN. It would be allowed back in after exsactly 1 year of no agressive combat.
6. If a member state is attacked by a "rogue" state then the UN will defend her member countries to the fullest with any military,dimplomatic and economical means.
7. Each member state will have its own laws and is a soverign country , but if they wish to be a part of the organisation then they must adhere to the rules.
8. Human rights and international laws will be put into effect ASAP. Any member state that does not comply will be ejected.
9. The UN will be open to investigation by member states and vice versa.
Originally posted by UK Wizard
How about Switzerland, it needs to be central...(spelling)
What about it being formed in times of need, such as a civil war within member country.
I agree with you there
Stops individual countries gaining too much power
An effective method of punishment.
Nice
Another good point
Could be a problem concerning Immigration and Asylum rules, certain countries might want small immigration number but UN law says medium....just a point.
This will win over right wing America
Originally posted by devilwasp
The nations would work together to solve this...why be restricted to a few countries when you can have them all?
Hmm yes, mabye a small alteration to the laws is needed.
Originally posted by UK Wizard
Another thing, why not intergrate trade organisations into the UN maybe dare i say it what about intergrating NATO
[edit on 27-12-2004 by UK Wizard]
Originally posted by devilwasp
Hmm well this whole reform idea would replace NATO anyhow.
Originally posted by UK Wizard
But what about the EU, i doubt the EU fat cats would see that the greater good is to have a global alliance rather than just a European one...
Originally posted by UK Wizard
[i doubt the EU fat cats would see that the greater good is to have a global alliance rather than just a European one...
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(the 'EU Commission' Commissioners)
Originally posted by Devilwasp
Ah our local EU exspert has arrived, would be nice to hear his view on this idea of mine...
This reform is a good idea, i have one of my own. Mind if i share it with you?
The UN as it stands seems to do more harm than good, more drastic measures must be taken to ensure peace.
So IMO this would be a better idea for the UN...
1. The UN would be based in a neutral country.
2. There would be no security council.
3. There would be no veto, it would be democratic.
4. A military force made up of all member nations, restrictions on amount of support from each nation but technology would be allowed freely and with out restrictions apart from WMD.
5. If one member state attacks another in any form then it would be ejected from the UN. It would be allowed back in after exsactly 1 year of no agressive combat.
6. If a member state is attacked by a "rogue" state then the UN will defend her member countries to the fullest with any military,dimplomatic and economical means.
7. Each member state will have its own laws and is a soverign country , but if they wish to be a part of the organisation then they must adhere to the rules.
8. Human rights and international laws will be put into effect ASAP. Any member state that does not comply will be ejected.
9. The UN will be open to investigation by member states and vice versa.
Thats about all... what you think
Originally posted by UK Wizard
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(the 'EU Commission' Commissioners)
theres your answer,
but lets not get drawn into EU arguements here, this thread is for UN talk
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- "Expert"!?
I suspect some pi*s taking here DW!
You're too kind.
- I know what you are saying DW but I am not entirely convinced that the 'flaws' in the UN are solely to do with the UN itself; certainly the USA's current problems with the UN seem far more to do with US politics.
- The US and Israel would never go along with this.
- I can see the US and Europe refusing to go along with this.....I just don't see either agreeing to allow the use of their high tech so freely.
- That seems usual and fair.
- at this point the anti-collectivists wil be bitching about their 'being run by.....etc' or their 'being taken over by.....' or some imagined loss of 'sovereignty'.
- Fine, any further penalties to loss of membership?
- I think it already is 'open'. Whether it is open enough when a particular political vendetta is being persued is another matter.
- There's a lot of reasonable points in there DW, but some I just can't see being accepted....especially when it comes to trying to break any log-jam regarding Israel and the US veto.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Na na seriosly you seem to be a big supporter of it.
You sure?
I mean the veto has stopped any move they have tried to make.
What i meant was that countries could sell thier weapons to other countries in the UN with out real restrictions.
Well the only rules would be international laws and such. So i dont see how its supposed to "take over" thier rights.
I dont know, any suggestions? Opinions?
What about the whole oil food thing?
I mean this would open everything to everyone.
Hmm any suggestions on there?