posted
But the only place where he's exporting his worldview currently is Caucasus. Which, morbidly enough, is the place the average Caucasian polled would feel the least concerned about.
posted
phht. Why bother- a better plan for the world would be to plant WMD evidence in the Sudan, then the international community can do what it knows is right and overthrow the genocidal regime that's been keeping the war going and going and going...
After the condemnation and quagmire the Iraq invasion has brought on the US, the UN is loathe to use force against a soverign nation- even to stop what amounts to genocide.
Besides, with a stable Africa, I'll finally be able to get my grill done with some cheap blood diamonds.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Unfortunately, that wouldn't help me. Opals are my girl's best friend.
On the other matter... *sigh* I know there's no absolute morality, but I can't conceive of any morality where stepping on your own people's lives is a good thing. I say we send the Delta Force on a "World Tour 2007", where they off all the assholes-in-charge of places from Africa to North Korea to Russia to Syria, et cetera. Then the first people to step in to fill the power vacuum. Then the second. Then the UN goes in and picks the people who least want to run those countries to run those countries.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Looking at our own political future, I think that idea needs to be tested here first.
Not that I trust the UN to appoint anyone to lead anything...hopefully with the new Secretary General (and with Bolton yanked out of his chair)...
OTOH, we could start by maing UN voting/speaking rights directly proportionate to how much money/rescources a country contributes. I'm getting pretty tired of every pay-nothing dictator talking shit at the UN podium while doing nothing to aid the orginization.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
So that, instead of the richest countries having the most power, the richest countries exclusively will have power?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So that the richest countries contrbute their share- consider Venezuella, which contributes less than 1% of the UN's budget but sooo wanted that rotating Security Council seat. Many countries fail to even pay the minimum dues (Sudan for example) yet share equal right to tell the other countries to bugger off.
I'm not saying that only wealthy countries should have a say, but wealthy countries that contribute nothing and countries that actively undermine the UN should have less say than they do now.
I'd rather see a rep from a poor country speak up (even if it's a position I dont agree with) and have the floor than a rep from a wealthy country that is against the UN in every way and pays dick to keep it running.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
And yet you would make it possible for a rich country that is against the UN to gather power through "contribution", without smaller but kinder countries being able to match. It's self-contradictory. Regardless, privileges according to contribution-wealth is undemocratic in the purest form.
Also, didn't Bush use that exact card, the "You wouldn't have these fancy UN-offices if it wasn't for our purse so now help us bomb Saddam, biatch"-card, back before the war? Trying to abuse the US' lauded standing in the UN for his agenda?
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, you're right, (no defending Bushco).
I'm more for "if a country can afford it, UN sponsorship should be mandatory"- at least on a sliding scale of a country's wealth.
Consider that the UN serves as both emergency aid and an insurance policy against invasion, natural disaster and famine (due to mismanagment or whatever)- yet a lot of wealthy countries contribute nothing while publicly condemning member states that contribute the most. It's annoying to see countries play "holier than thou" while actually never getting involved with world affairs.
Currently, there is a preference to hear the cases of countries that contribute more- mainly because when military force is mandated, it's troops from those countries that bear the brunt of it. It's probably also why Darfur/Sudan has gotten so out of hand, when it could have been curtailed years ago.
But then, I also dont think any dictatorship should be allowed a say- as they dont represent their people to the world, only themselves. I also dont think any country that is a gross human rights abuser should serve on the UN's Human Right's board.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
