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.

 

UN

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Hi, I thought up this idea when reading through the ANTI- UN threads and thinking, "if all these anti- UN people or people who just dont like it have a better idea than the UN then wouldnt they be happy shareing it?" So, I would like to know what everyone here thinks the UN should be replaced with OR what should be done about the existing UN...
Also this will be a one way thread, there will be another thread to discuss the articles here.

One arguement on this and I will ask the mods to shut it down send it to the firey doom o- oh sorry, heh got a bit carried away.
No argueing please.




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Hmm, the UN is such a huge beurocratic orginization that it may just be beneficial to scrap it and build it from the bottom-up instead of the usually lackluster approach of top-bottom engineering(in this case beurocratic engineering) Veto power really needs to be looked at as well, allthough it should not be taken away permanently it should have some restrictions in its use. Another thing that should be applied to the UN structure is maybe a merit based membership system, and have several tiers of it as well depending on how "free" and "developed" a nation is. It's a very complicated issue that no one on this board is qualified to answer realistically, but discussion is always preferable to argument.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Well the major thing that the UN needs is reform.
Without reform the UN will continue to recieve growing critisim, which will only stain its image and indentity.
The UN can be so much more, if only people give it chance and the UN itself drives through the reform whether it likes it or not.

* The UN would be based in a historically neutral country such as Switzerland.
* The security council would be disbanded, international security would be province of all the UN members.
* There would be no veto, the UN would be a fully democratic, although countries would not have to join an activity that they oppose. A majority vote is to show that the majority of the UN supports it.
* The military force of the UN would be made up of all the member nations, there would be restrictions on the amount of support from each nation due to size and military strength, but all legal technology would be allowed freely and without restrictions apart from WMD (weapons of mass destruction).
* If one member state attacks another in any form then it would be automatically ejected from the UN .The aggressor country would be allowed back in after exactly 1 year non aggression..
* If a member state is attacked by a "rogue" state then the UN will defend her member countries to the fullest with any military, diplomatic and economical means.
* Each member state will have its own laws and is a sovereign country , but if they wish to be a part of the organisation then they must adhere to international law set by the UN.
* Any member state that does not comply with human rights laws will be ejected.
* The UN will be open to investigation by member states and vice versa.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
UK Wizard, your plan seems sensible, but don't you think it would be easier to implement if the current system is scrapped alltogether and built back up from the ground up? Reforms can be messy business and some loopholes might get through the cracks, in the chaos that ensues. If there IS no UN while these changes are taking place then we might be able to avoid some of the problems I forsee.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
UK Wizard, your plan seems sensible, but don't you think it would be easier to implement if the current system is scrapped alltogether and built back up from the ground up? Reforms can be messy business and some loopholes might get through the cracks, in the chaos that ensues. If there IS no UN while these changes are taking place then we might be able to avoid some of the problems I forsee.


Please discuss it here....politics.abovetopsecret.com...
Oh and Wizard, damm how did you know this was going to happen?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Oh and Wizard, damm how did you know this was going to happen?


Its a gift




UK Wizard, your plan seems sensible, but don't you think it would be easier to implement if the current system is scrapped alltogether and built back up from the ground up? Reforms can be messy business and some loopholes might get through the cracks, in the chaos that ensues. If there IS no UN while these changes are taking place then we might be able to avoid some of the problems I forsee.


Nope, could you imagine the costs of scrapping the UN and beginning again from the base up, it would costs billions if not trillians to create a new updated UN.
I see that you want reform but starting again is not the best way of doing it, gutting and cleaning the current UN is the best option in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Right SOD IT!
Discuss it here, any major arguements and well same rules apply ok?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Well the major thing that the UN needs is reform.


Good points all by the majority rule there would bring chaos and that is why the veto in in place....

Yeah I am biased when an organization votes against my country more than 75% of the time, yet we pay 40% of the budget, supply 40-60% of the military power...

Sorry man that is all a good plan but entireley unworkable.......imho,



But to move the UN away from the USA, I am all for it......matter of fact I would like the US to drop out of it period......



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Good points all by the majority rule there would bring chaos and that is why the veto in in place....

Well then you are saying that democracy fails and the whole idea of every democratic country is ,well ,wrong.


Yeah I am biased when an organization votes against my country more than 75% of the time, yet we pay 40% of the budget, supply 40-60% of the military power...

They didnt last time i checked, hell most of the time its only when america wants to invade somewhere.
Actually the US supplies about 3% , in one year they sent ONE soldier on peacekeeping.


Sorry man that is all a good plan but entireley unworkable.......imho,
[/qutoe]
How?

[qoute]
But to move the UN away from the USA, I am all for it......matter of fact I would like the US to drop out of it period......

Why should they drop out?
I thought of one place and suggested it to wizard but he pointed out the cons of it and they outweight the pros, what do you guys think of using acension island?



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Well when one says that the US does not fund the UN , you are incorrect. It goes by economical size.

As for troops, you have to be kidding, yeah countries like Pakistan provide troops but in the last 20 years, its been the US.

I want us out of it, it sucks, its corrupt, and there is nothing democratic about it as Anon well knows. There are no checks and balances.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well when one says that the US does not fund the UN , you are incorrect. It goes by economical size.

I have searched for but cant find the figures of how much each country pays, only that america pays ***amoutn*** whcih is diffrent all the time.


As for troops, you have to be kidding, yeah countries like Pakistan provide troops but in the last 20 years, its been the US.

Not really , its been up to pakistan.
2005- april www.un.org...
2005- March- www.un.org...
Here are the rest.....www.un.org...



I want us out of it, it sucks, its corrupt, and there is nothing democratic about it as Anon well knows. There are no checks and balances.

The big 5 control it, the US is IN the big 5.
It doesnt suck, look at africa, there saveing lives with anti mine campaigns.
Look at the links I gave.
The UK has had more men and women die under UN command than the US.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I like the UN and global institutions pretty much as is.

Tho I think the Security Council needs to be radically revamped. And the General Assembly, it reprents nations, with people appointed by national governments. I think it'd be interesting if countries, or even blocks of countries, could vote on a representative, so that there'd be a Candian-American representative, and a Central American One, a Balkans rep, etc etc.

The General Assembly is what peopel really 'hate' in the UN, when they say that they hate the UN. THe programs, like the WHO and whatnot, are the things that work pretty well.

Globalisation seems to be going nicely on track, so I see no reason to disrupt it by radically changing something like the UN. Perhaps something like the Leadership-20 Group would be a good idea, and things like the Bilderberger Conference and the like are working out nicely.

Keep in mind that international trade levels are only now reaching the levels that they were at before the Great Wars, and that, with the Free Market system, there's not much that can be done to plan that sort of thing centrally.

I would like to see an armed group that oversees things like what the IAEA does now tho.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join