Do you how many democratic nation there is in the UN ?

The U.N, that big joke.

190 nation.

For these 190 nation, how many are really democratic ?

The USA, Canada,The EU ( 15 nation ), eastern europe nation (8 ? ), Japan, South-Korea, New-Zealand, Australia, Israel, South-Africa ( ? ).

So, we have a maximum of 31 ( sorry if I forget 2 or 3 nation ).

What does it mean ?

-It mean that the UN have 31 democratic nation and 159 dictatorships !!!!

- It means that the dictatorships have a vast majority in the world and in the U.N.

- It means that democracy are in minority !

- It means that we have nation like Lybia who has the right to own the UN Human Rights Chair.

- It means that we have nation like Irak who has the right to own the UN disarmement Chair.

- It means that NOBODY never voted for the UN first secretary ( " first secretary ", it sound so communist..... ).

- It just mean that the UN are NOT democratic and they are ruled by tyrants !

And last but not least, so-called " democratic " leaders are backing nation like Zimbabwe, Irak, Iran, North-Korea.... and tyrant like Mugwabe or Hussein.

The U.N, what a joke !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The U.N fans, what a bunch of sad clowns !!!!!

GIVE US BACK OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND DOWN THE UN ONCE FOR ALL !!!!!

Besides, using the name "United Nations" is something of a misnomer...They make no attempt to actually *unite* anything, instead their Charter calls for trying to address the conflicts *between* nations. Perhaps a noble goal, but ultimately (as human nature will attest) impossible without extensive social engineering on a world-wide scale....Which is what the NWO is all about...

So in a way, the UN Charter is all about *opposing* an NWO by trying to keep national soveriegnty intact...
In this view, if the UN is functionally opposing an NWO & Bush is trying to take down soveriegn nations in order to put his own "democracy-sympathetic" people in place, what side of the NWO does that put Bush?...Hmmmmm?....



[Edited on 7-3-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

Although, if you think about it, when they're in the UN, they have to behave and debate and negotiate as if they were a democracy. So you could look at it as a sneaky way to get them to learn another system of government.

No, they're not really being forced into a "democratic" type of system at all...No matter how they behave in the UN has little-to-no consequence on how they decide to run their respective countries.

When in the UN, their only requirement is to at least be civil with one another...But I'm willing to bet that many of the delagates are more than willing to get into screaming matches anyway...

...When typing that last part of this post, why do the names Bush & Hussein keep popping into my head?...

If you look at the names you listed, some of your "democracies" aren't even that, they are half democracies.

Japan may be a constitutional monarchy, but only by their Honor alone. If there was some way to burn the unconditional surrender they agreed to, I have no doubt that there would be a mild possibility of the return of an Imperial government with Emperor worship.

Though maybe times there have changed slightly, I doubt it's changed considerably. But I don't think the Japanese are "evil" like real dictatorships.

Just a technicality.