2
   

Can the United Nations Unite Nations?

 
 
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 01:26 pm
What would be necessary for the UN to actually become a unifying world government?

And what would be the consequences?

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Denis Diderot
 
saab
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 01:35 pm
@neologist,
UN will never ever become a unifying world government.
The Nordic countries had the idea of being united already back in the 1850ies
It never worked and never will
Russia, Yugoslavia and all the other united countries have fallen apart and EU does not work well as soon as there is a problem. The Roman Empire - just read your history and you will know
PS
What Denis Diderot said is completely idotic
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 01:39 pm
@saab,
I did not mean to imply it would be a good thing.
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jan, 2016 08:12 pm
@neologist,
The answer to the first part of the question as asked: a complete change of organizational structure and charter.

The General Assembly consists of all member states of the United Nations; each has an equal vote. However, all resolutions of the General Assembly are non-binding, meaning that compliance with them is completely voluntary and that there are no penalties for non-compliance and thus no method of enforcing a resolution.

The only part of the United Nations with the ability to enforce decisions is the Security Council. There are 15 members, but they are not equal in authority. Five of the members are an elite group known as Permanent Members. They are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia.

The five permanent members of the Security Council are elite because each possesses veto power. That is, any resolution of the Security Council can be vetoed by the action of a single one of the permanent members.

So, five nations determine whether enforceable resolutions can pass: but any one of them can veto any resolution. There is no ability for the General Assembly to impose its decisions. There is no way for the Security Council at large to impose its decisions. There is no way for a majority of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council to impose their decisions.

Finally, the Security Council only passes resolutions dealing with a breach of the peace between member states. It has no authority to pass economic, environmental, trade, or domestic criminal or civil laws. Its only judicial body is limited to adjudication of international war crimes; but its enforcement powers are weak.

The design of the United Nations thus suggests that the founding Permanent Members of the Security Council had no interest in creating a world government with jurisdictional and enforcement authority over member nations or with any ability to supercede the sovereign powers of individual members. It also suggests that the founders did not consider the United Nations to be a vehicle for enforcing coercive power over each other. Rather, it was a method of enforcing the peace over the rest of the member states, in those cases where all five permanent members agreed on a course of action.

0 Replies
 
saab
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2016 12:57 am
@neologist,
Back to Denis Diderot
I these days where people are thretened all the time with death and cruel punishment over internet you should have enough common sence not to use quotes which might have fitted over 200 years ago.
In modern language you suggest to kill all political leaders and religious leaders.
I usually try to be polite but if you really think it is a good quote I can only say you are nothing but scum.
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2016 12:53 pm
@saab,
When I entered the Diderot quote, it was to set it aside with a question. Somehow, the quote function and text I entered along with it disappeared. It was never my intention to suggest I supported Diderot's view, only that I understood it.

Hope that helps.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2016 01:08 pm
@neologist,
No it does not help me very much. You do not support his view, but you understand it.
Then you should not have put it in at all. The thought is sickening and very close to what is happening in areas today.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jan, 2016 01:14 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

What would be necessary for the UN to actually become a unifying world government?


why do you use actually ?


let's look at the purposes in the charter

http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

Quote:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.



it was not set up to be a world government
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2016 12:53 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
it was not set up to be a world government
Of course.
Yet they do maintain a military force
neologist
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2016 12:57 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:
No it does not help me very much. You do not support his view, but you understand it.
Then you should not have put it in at all. The thought is sickening and very close to what is happening in areas today.
Which is the reason I brought it up for scrutiny.

Silence the messenger if you wish.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2016 12:57 pm
@neologist,
let's take a look at that, shall we

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/military.shtml

Quote:
The UN has been deploying military personnel for service in peace operations since 1948 when the Security Council authorized the deployment of UN military observers to the Middle East to monitor the Armistice Agreement between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

UN military personnel can be called upon to:

Monitor a disputed border
Monitor and observe peace processes in post-conflict areas
Provide security across a conflict zone
Protect civilians
Assist in-country military personnel with training and support
Assist ex-combatants in implementing the peace agreements they may have signed


I have friends who've been members of that force, and whose children are currently members.

It is nothing like being part of an individual member nation's military.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2016 01:31 pm
@neologist,
I am not going to silence you.
The reason you brought it up for scrutiny is even less convincing than your other excuse.
Start to wonder what kind of ideas you really have.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:49 am
@saab,
saab wrote:
Start to wonder what kind of ideas you really have.
No need to wonder.

I posted this indictment of religion 2 months ago:
Quote:
. . . I can clearly see that, in honesty, men must either give up war, or else they must confess that the words of the Redeemer are too lofty for them, and that there is no longer any use in pretending that His teaching can be reduced to practice. I have seen a Christian minister blessing a cannon which had just been founded, and another blessing a war-ship as it glided from the slips. They, the so-called representatives of Christ, blessed these engines of destruction which cruel man has devised to destroy and tear his fellow-worms. What would we say if we read in Holy Writ of our Lord having blessed the battering-rams and the catapults of the legions? Would we think that it was in agreement with His teaching? But there! As long as the heads of the Church wander away so far from the spirit of its teaching as to live in palaces and drive in carriages, what wonder if, with such examples before them, the lower clergy overstep at times the lines laid down by their great Master? Micah Clark - Arthur Conan Doyle. Ch 32
I could not have said it better. The marriage between governments and their religions goes back over 5000 years.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 02:32 am
@neologist,
Taking something out of a book....
Where are facts about how government and religion has been handled over the last 5000 years in different countries.
Does your ideas also include countries where the people and the leaders of a country have the same religion even if politics and religion are seperated?
How about the countries where the leader of the country has more or less forbidden religion - is that a better place to live?
There are also countries where religion and not politics run the govenment.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 06:07 am
Newologist has been flogging dead horses about the UN for years and years and years. It must be a Jehovah's Witness thing.
saab
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 06:45 am
@Setanta,
Just one step into google shows you are right.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the League of Nations and the United Nations were set up as a counterfeit of God's Kingdom. Joseph F. Rutherford, second president of the Watch Tower Society, condemned politicians, business leaders and clergy in their support of the League of Nations. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the United Nations will soon destroy all other religions, and then turn against Jehovah's Witnesses.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 06:49 am
@saab,
Current teaching
The flag of the United Nations

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the United Nations is the "image of the wild beast" referred to in Revelation 13:1-18 and the fulfillment of the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" from Matthew 24:15.[6][7] Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah will use the United Nations to destroy "false religion" as an institution, wherein all institutionalized religions except Jehovah's Witnesses will be destroyed. It is expected that the United Nations will then turn against Jehovah's Witnesses to destroy them, but Jehovah will intervene and destroy all political elements. They believe this act of divine intervention will be Armageddon, the final part of the Great Tribulation.[8][9]

In practice, Jehovah's Witnesses "view the United Nations organization as they do other governmental bodies of the world," as "superior authorities" that "exist by God's permission," based on their interpretation of Romans 13:1, 2. They believe "this Scriptural position does not condone any form of disrespect toward governments or their officials," to which they are to "render due respect," and they "obey them as long as such obedience does not require that they sin against God."[7]
xingu
 
  4  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 08:22 am
No, but it can give them an opportunity to communicate with one another.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 09:45 am
@xingu,
Precisely on point.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 09:47 am
@saab,
oh

it was cult talk
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can the United Nations Unite Nations?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/18/2018 at 04:09:04