# Un



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

What, or how do you feel about the US belonging to the UN?

I do not take offense easily, and I am very curious to find what the MA's opinions are.

Thanks


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2006)

I think the US should have a more active role in supporting the UN.  I think that we should have an equal amount of troops wearing blue helmets when compared to other countries.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

Do you know what the most current active UN mission is?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 4, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Do you know what the most current active UN mission is?


 
Using a superlative can be decieving. 

How's this for a current mission. 

http://www.un.org/works/water/index.html

http://www.un.org/works/water/pathak.html


----------



## airdawg (Nov 4, 2006)

Thank you for the links. I meant military mission. I think it would be great to provide toilets for every home in the world. This would save untold numbers of lives.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 5, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Thank you for the links. I meant military mission. I think it would be great to provide toilets for every home in the world. This would save untold numbers of lives.


I think it would be much more useful to provide homes for the people... worry about toilets during that.

Then again, I don't really see that as a militarized mission.  Last thing I want is some commando with an M16 staring me down while I'm doing a number two.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 5, 2006)

I wish the US, and other nations, were more sincere in their support of the UN.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 8, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:


> I wish the US, and other nations, were more sincere in their support of the UN.



Well, financially, America contributes more than the rest of the security council combined. Japan contributes more than anyone on the council other than the US.

I think that we should phase out the UN little by little. We will always need a debate society of all nations no matter what politics they have to coordinate things like radio frequency use. But anything with teeth should be left out.

The big problem with the UN is that decisions are reached by a vote. But many of the nations there are not run by people who are in power by vote. Two of the five permanent members of the security council would not pass as a free, liberal democracy.

So anything that can be taken  from the UN and given to other alliances or groups should. A case would be to take apart a good prortion of UNICEF and have each nation contribute directly to the red cross and crescent. The UN is filled with corruption and politics. And no one can really tell us how to vote the rascalls out like we would a local or national goverment.

So the answer would be to rip power away from the UN for anything that someone else can do and be more accountable for. And we should not even consider giving any sort of power over our country to any orginization that does not require members to meet stringent standards that include free elections, independent judicial process and a press that can bad mouth the government.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 8, 2006)

While I think that the world _does _need an international body to air grievances and consider problems, the current state of the U.N., IMO, drops everything to the lowest common denominator (Libya being on the antiterrorist committee, IIRC, and nations with HORRID human rights abuses railing against the U.S. for Capital Punishment).

Either a world organization has teeth, unlike the current U.N., or it does not. If it does, IMO, it will be tyrannical, and if it _doesn't_ - what use is it?


----------



## deadhand31 (Nov 8, 2006)

Personally, I think we should withdraw from the U.N. entirely. We provide more capital to that organization than any other country, and they constantly badmouth us. We let countries that harvest organs from political prisoners be on the Human Rights council. Corruption runs rampant. Ambassadors get to go from their impoverished nations to a nice apartment in New York, with full diplomatic immunity. Resolutions get passed, but are never enforced. When someone decides to stand up and start enforcing their resolutions, that someone becomes a "war-monger".  When food aid is given, the U.N. isn't allowed to make sure it's given to the right people, instead of it being snatched up by a corrupt government and sold to finance their military.

I say, they want to criticize us, yell at us, and hate us, let them move to some other country and do it at a distance. Let's see how well they handle things without our financial and military support.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 8, 2006)

"It is interesting that the anti-gun monument outside the United Nations building in New York is of a civilian revolver and not a military AK-47"
http://www.christianaction.org.za/firearmnews/2005-01_CriminalsPreferUnarmedVictims.htm


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 8, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> "It is interesting that the anti-gun monument outside the United Nations building in New York is of a civilian revolver and not a military AK-47"


And that is just Wrong!!!  Talk about an oxymoron!


----------



## airdawg (Nov 8, 2006)

Has anyone here read the UN charter? I have several times and recomend it if you have not.


----------



## Arizona Angel (Nov 8, 2006)

This one?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/


----------



## airdawg (Nov 8, 2006)

Yep. Thats the one. Thank you for posting the link. It's long, but a detailed reading is the only way to see the true intentions.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 8, 2006)

deadhand31 said:


> Personally, I think we should withdraw from the U.N. entirely.


I agree. There's no real benefit to remaining in a "world" organization that's as indecisive as Michael Jackson at a slumber party.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 8, 2006)

If you had the opportunity to participate in the creation of a World organization, what requirements of membership would you want?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 9, 2006)

airdawg said:


> If you had the opportunity to participate in the creation of a World organization, what requirements of membership would you want?




Why have just one orginization? There is still use for things like the UN, I just say that there should be other orginizations that we give more support to as appropriate.

At one end of the scale, let us let any nation into an orginization that has to coordinate between nations on sharing information about the latest news on diseases and epidemics. 

At the other end, let us limit those that monitor elections to those countries that actually have elections. I mean isn't it a little weird having guys from Syria and China checking on voting? 

How about we get some groups that have a history of democracy and a culture of freedom and create a group that would monitor each others elections, as well as any new democracy that asks. We can expand the membership and duties little by little.

But every nation in this proto club should have free elections, a judiciary independent of the ruling power, a press free enough to talk bad about thier government, due process under the law that applies to everyone and the basic right to do something as long as it does not have some sort of an impact on anyone else i.e. religion, atheism, sexual preferences, etc.

This would be a group open to invitations only with a power to toss people out if they change and do not meet standards in the future. Later, we can increase the cooperation if things go well, tinker and change rules if needed, or walk away and start over if we find out there are problems we did not expect and too deep in the orginization to change.

If we seriously tried to break with the UN and start over we should take it very, very slow and very, very carefully. Better to build small and work for a few generations of peaceful expansion than slap something in less than a decade and regret it in our grandchildren's time.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 9, 2006)

airdawg said:


> Yep. Thats the one. Thank you for posting the link. It's long, but a detailed reading is the only way to see the true intentions.


 
I had to stop after a few pages. 1, because it's all a crock and 2, I can't STAND reading web pages with repeating backgrounds behind the words. :barf:


----------



## bydand (Nov 9, 2006)

Personally, I would like the US to boot the UN the hell out of our country.  I agree that there should be a body that international disputes and other housekeeping duties (like radio freq. distress calls, etc...) should cover, but as for having the UN "headquarted" in the US, let them find a country that is a bunch of candy-arses that wouldn't mind having them (France maybe.)


----------



## airdawg (Nov 9, 2006)

I had an educator tell me the Us no longer owns the Statue of Liberty, The Grand Canyon and a large portion of Utah. He told me the US gave them to the UN as a gift of loyalty.

Does anyone have any information in support, or against this tragedy?


----------



## airdawg (Nov 9, 2006)

By educator, I mean a PhD University Professor.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 9, 2006)

airdawg said:


> I had an educator tell me the Us no longer owns the Statue of Liberty, The Grand Canyon and a large portion of Utah. He told me the US gave them to the UN as a gift of loyalty.


Maybe he was referring to this?


> In 1984, the Statue of Liberty was added to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's list of World Heritage Sites.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 9, 2006)

bydand said:


> Personally, I would like the US to boot the UN the hell out of our country.  I agree that there should be a body that international disputes and other housekeeping duties (like radio freq. distress calls, etc...) should cover, but as for having the UN "headquarted" in the US, let them find a country that is a bunch of candy-arses that wouldn't mind having them (France maybe.)



I actually think that Switzerland would be a good place. They are well known for their neutrality.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 9, 2006)

The UN headquarters in NYC needs to be Torn Down, and we ought not continue to be members at all, because as has been pointed out, for all the $$ we give we get nothing but grief, and the UN has outright stated they have no respect for our 2nd amendment which is an extremely serious No-No where I am concerned. If we help them, but they badmouth us, AND work toward eroding our rights, that we should dispose of them is a foregone conclusion to any American who cares.


----------



## airdawg (Nov 9, 2006)

Recently, the UN threatened to kick the US out if they did not yield to signing and enforcing a gun ban treaty. A treaty enforceable by the UN. 

The US did not sign. It would appear the UN did not kick the US out. 

Are hollow threats good leadership?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 9, 2006)

All right then, to put a better perspective on exactly why everyone here should be looking at the UN with a SERIOUS hairy eyeball:


We are all martial artists.

We most of us , I think it's safe to assume, are concerned with/believe strongly in self defense.

Speaking for myself, i believe self defense to be a fundamental  human right.

Do YOU guys think so?






The UN doesn't think so:

http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf 


*Quote:20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a &#8220;right&#8221;. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.*





Think Carefully......


----------



## Kacey (Nov 9, 2006)

That sounds like the CPI (Crisis Prevention Intervention) program in place in my school district, which is 80-90% talking the student down, with the 10-20% remaining being restraint training - the key facet is not injuring the student, who, by definition, is out of control; otherwise, the student would not need to be restrained... concern about njury to staff comes after potential injury to the student who is out of control or other students in the area.

I find this line "*the universal duty to respect the right to life of others*" particularly interesting... what about my respect for my own life, and the lives of those I may be defending?


----------



## airdawg (Nov 10, 2006)

it is a innate human right to defend him/herself, property, beliefs and the lives of others.

At what point does a government, or organization become tyrannical?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 10, 2006)

If the UN had any actual teeth, it'd be past that point as we speak. Right now.


----------



## lenatoi (Nov 10, 2006)

You'r right... for now the UN is more slimey... they're slippin in... 
They try to guil people into beleiving what they preach. 
.
It will come though. the world wil fall to the evil we invited in under the guise of doing what is right.


----------



## lenatoi (Nov 10, 2006)

WOW..... I did not mean to sound like a fanatic... sorry


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 10, 2006)

So are you gonna let your negative feelings stop you, or are you ( and everyone else) gonna take that link I gave you and post it on every MA/SD related forum you frequent( I'm gonna!)

Gets tougher to beguile folks if they've already been shown the truth, it does.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Nov 10, 2006)

_ Roman matrons used to say to their sons: 'Come back with your shield, or on it.'_

That was the Spartans


----------



## Kacey (Nov 10, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> _ Roman matrons used to say to their sons: 'Come back with your shield, or on it.'_
> 
> That was the Spartans


Actually, if you read the entire quote, it was Lazarus Long, a character who appears in several novels by Robert Heinlein; I was quoting the author for the concept, not historical accuracy.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 11, 2006)

So, am I to conclude that the majority of MT members, imyself included, do not respect the United Nations? :ultracool


----------



## Carol (Nov 11, 2006)

Nations uniting to work together is a something that I respect and appreciate.


But what I am seeing in this thread bothers me a lot.


----------



## exile (Nov 11, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> So, am I to conclude that the majority of MT members, imyself included, do not respect the United Nations? :ultracool



Sounds like it to me, Jonathan!


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 11, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> Nations uniting to work together is a something that I respect and appreciate.
> 
> 
> But what I am seeing in this thread bothers me a lot.


 
As do I. However; I cannot get the images of worse than useless U.N. forces during the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 out of my mind. It was only after individual powers such as the U.S. and U.K. acted unilaterally that the war was ended. We need _some _sort of international body to air grievances and plan multi-national relief efforts - but the U.N. is not it, IMO.


----------



## exile (Nov 11, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> As do I. However; I cannot get the images of worse than useless U.N. forces during the Bosnian War of 1992-1995 out of my mind. It was only after individual powers such as the U.S. and U.K. acted unilaterally that the war was ended. We need _some _sort of international body to air grievances and plan multi-national relief efforts - but the U.N. is not it, IMO.



Or the hideous washing-of-hands in the Rwandan genocidal horror. Or the systematic refusal to protect the Kurds from both Turkish and Iranian military action.  Or Darfur.  Or....


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 11, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> Nations uniting to work together is a something that I respect and appreciate.
> 
> 
> But what I am seeing in this thread bothers me a lot.



You may note that one of the first things  the American goverment did after ratifying the constitution was add on ten ammendments telling the goverment what _it can't do._ So when people talk about giving more power to the UN, unless there is a similar move you will see those in power try to interfere as much as they can.

That is why we do not want it to have any teeth. Better an orginization that can only talk about problems and gets out of the way of those that can help than a power with no limits on what it can do.

But yeah, it would be nice if  there was a world  goverment that could step in and stop what is going on in Dafur as well as all the other things that Jonathan and Exile talked about. It is just that I fear that if you give the UN the power to step in and push aside a goverment, then countries like China would use that power for things even  worse.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> So, am I to conclude that the majority of MT members, imyself included, do not respect the United Nations?


 

Were you to conclude that, strictly on the basis of what you are seeing in this thread, you would be making a conclusion based on incomplete and quite probably inaccurate data.

You are witnessing a 'self-selecting sample', which by every means is competely non-scientific. It is unclear if the majority of members of Martialtalk are even aware that this thread - titled in the form a linguistic utterance - is related to the United Nations - which more properly would have used two uppercase letters, and perhaps some puncuation (U.N.).

So far, there have been forty posts on this thread, that have been viewed a total 288 times. This hardly represents a 'majority' of anything in a group of 5,309 members.

But, you go right ahead and 'conclude'.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 11, 2006)

Now that the error of or ways is cleared up, Mr. Edward, could you share with us your opinion on the UN given the new info brought to light in relation to your status as a MAist?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Now that the error of or ways is cleared up, Mr. Edward, could you share with us your opinion on the UN given the new info brought to light in relation to your status as a MAist?


 
Thank you for asking. 

I am not certain that my status as a martial artists, or student thereof, has any bearing at all upon my opinion of the United Nations. Of course, limiting a self-description to that of a martial artist, would be similarly erroneous; for that is only one aspect of that which makes me who I am.

However, were we to look at the whole of who I am, I would suggest that the United Nations does far more good in the world than harm. 

It seems it is easy to rail against what the rules of engagement are for the blue helmets, than it is to recognize the importance and impact of something like the Trans Asian Railway (U.N Agreement moving the TAR forward was announced yesterday). 

But there are so many items that take place every week that are quietly improving the world. Spend a few moments browsing the United Nations Web Site, and see the some of the great things humans can do collaboratively. 

Of course, it was Spock of Vulcan who said, "As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create."


----------



## exile (Nov 11, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> It is just that I fear that if you give the UN the power to step in and push aside a goverment, then countries like China would use that power for things even  worse.



China is a perfect example of the contradictions built into the UN. A nation-state with an enormous occupying army that has spent more than half a century annexing a separate country, Tibet---unapologetically moving its own population into the area as part of systematic campaign to submerge the indigenous culture and eventually eliminate the Tibetans as a recognizable ethnic entity---has for years sat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, by far the most important executive suborganization within the UN. That contradiction seems to throw the UN's problems into particularly sharp relief---surely this is the sort of behavior that the UN was explicitly identified by its founders as the world's best hope for _preventing?_ How can one _not_ react with extremel skepticism when this worst sort of behavior is---if not actually rewarded, then at least implicitly allowed, by being given an extremely priviledged place at the table?


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> However, were we to look at the whole of who I am, I would suggest that the United Nations does far more good in the world than harm.



I think because of fact that we don't give it much power it does not do much harm. 

And I think if you look at what it does and compare it with other orginizations that it is clear that it does not do anything as well. The international red cross does a lot more to help with disaster relief and such than the UN IMO. And when it came to the Balkans, Rawanda, Kosovo and such, the blue helmets were just incomptent compared with forces like NATO.

In fact, a lot of the credit that the UN takes is not really deserved. The Asian tsunami that hit a couple of years ago is a good example. If you listen to the UN, they were the ones to save the day. But if anyone was to do an in-depth study they will find that the real heros were the Australian Navy followed closely by the US military. The military forces were used to harsh conditions, transporting the type of gear needed and operating with each other. The UN guys mainly seemed to book all the five star hotels in the capital of Indonesia and held press conferences. They made attempts to get the militaries to stop what they were doing and follow their orders, but were ignored and the Aussies and Americans just went on doing the job they knew best with little fanfare.

So, if we can find other orginization like the international red cross to take over the duties of a lot of the UN I think we will be better off. If the Red Cross were to be riddled with the same type of corruption we see at the UN the donations would soon dry up until they cleaned up their act. With the UN, there is not such power to force them to reform.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 12, 2006)

Personally, I'm a little miffed that they'd try to compete with my plans for World Domination. UNcool!!!

First, you have this:

http://sacfla.org/undocs.htm

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a _Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World._
This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should he taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

[SIZE=+1]First, there must be immediate disarmament action:[/SIZE]

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.


*1*


[SIZE=+1]Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]to effective international controls:[/SIZE]

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

[SIZE=+1]Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:[/SIZE]

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.




Read on..... It gets even MORE interesting than THAT!!!! 

And that's only the TIP of the iceburg........

You should see what's written in the UN Charter, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNESCO, and the UN International Court of Justice. Immediately after reading through all that stuff, read the US Declaration of Independence.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 29 may be of interest

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
Articles 13, 14, 15, 17, and 29 may be of interest

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicotherdocuments.html
UN International Court of Justice:
Articles 104 and 105 may be of interest

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicunchart.htm
UN Charter:
Article 2, section 5
Articles 39, 42, 43 and 74 may be of interest

*http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html*
*US Declaration of Independence *


Then, of course, you have the UN World Heritage Sites. The UN has teeth because many people are unaware of the types of things in this post. Once people become more aware of what the UN truly stands for, it can be viewed by an educated international community and dealt with in whatever way is deemed most appropriate. Ignorance is a very dangerous thing.... 


Please remember to vote for Darth Fu Bag - "The Friendly World Dominator"!!!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2006)

Fu Bag, 

As I read your post, it is unclear what you wish for me to take away from the links you post. ... 

I will refer to one specifically ... Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children. 



> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 14[/FONT]*
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.[/FONT]
> ...


 
Now, it seems that you are railing against this provision. Certainly, you can hold that as an opinion. But, if you are arguing against this Article, help me understand why we should not respect anyones (not just children) ability to think and participate in religion? The Article expressly grants the legal parent or gaurdian the ability to direct their charges. And states may impose laws that govern how religion and belief are implemented in a society. 

Help me understand what you really think about this article. And why you pointed it out specifically?


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Fu Bag,
> 
> As I read your post, it is unclear what you wish for me to take away from the links you post. ...
> 
> ...


 
Because EVERY article I pointed out points to this:

*Article 29 *
*1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:*

*(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; *


...."for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations" indicates that children are to be taught to revere and respect the UN more than their own constitutions, upbringings, and personal beliefs. That's why it's at the end of the articles. It's the essence of the entire document as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not interested in having children brainwashed or mis-educated in this way. It smacks of breeding "World Citizens" in place of free, independently minded human beings. You can find almost verbatim "articles" in the constitutions of current, and former, Communist countries. Notice that "democratic society" is used to emphasize a mob ruled over by a single entity.

The US is a Republic, not a Democracy. Establishing a World Democracy would be to create chaos which, of course, could only be dealt with by a single organization with enough teeth to restore order. I'm not interested in seeing that come to be. If the people of the world want a neutral forum for debate, that's one thing. Having one power that's above all powers is a little too Lord of the Rings for me. There would/could be nothing to regulate such a power. Sorry, but that seems like a VERY bad idea to me....

That's why I nominate myself, Darth Fu Bag - "The Friendly World Dominator" for the task. I wouldn't hurt a flea.....promise... 

(queue Darth Fu Bag music.....)


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 12, 2006)

Fu_Bag said:


> *Article 29 *
> *1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:*
> 
> *(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; *
> ...


 
Well, that's one hell of a non sequitur.

But, I got it. And your premise explains much more about you than it does about the United Nations.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 12, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Well, that's one hell of a non sequitur.
> 
> But, I got it. And your premise explains much more about you than it does about the United Nations.


 
That's probably true. I'm a parent and, as such, it's my responsibility to know what's going on with my child's education. While this is a political issue, it's one that I'm thankful that we have the opportunity to either agree, or to disagree, on. I'm not interested in seeing future generations' free will, free choice, and personal development being managed by one unmanageable power or authority. Nothing good could possibly come from that.

It's not just Article 29 that does it for me. All of the articles I brought attention to harmonize to say the exact same thing; you cannot live or exist in any manner that is inconsistent with the principles and purposes of the UN. It's not just a single individual, family, or group that this applies to. That line of reasoning applies to the entire world and is very clearly enshrined in all of the articles I brought attention to.

One unmanageable world power means no more voting. There would be no opposing parties to vote for. There would be no opposing issues, only the issues that the UN would decide are important. There would be no way to resist, or restrain, such a power with the entire world disarmed. That, to me, says a hell of a lot about the UN and the purposes of the UN.

There are a lot of people in the world that embrace that idea. I respect their right to do so and am glad they are still able to choose for themselves, and their children, what they feel is right. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your beliefs, however, there are many who see the dangers of such an implementation of power. Even more unfortunate is that the ones who disagree are being bred and educated out of existence one generation at a time. If that doesn't work............are there any doubts of what comes next?

This issue is more about being a good parent than it is about being on either side of the political spectrum. No matter how people want to believe, they should at least be well informed and well aware of WHY it is that they believe that way. If the intention of educating children is to discourage this type of thinking, then, as a parent, I have a problem with that.

Remember to vote for Darth Fu Bag - "The Friendly World Dominator" at the polls!!!


----------



## Fu_Bag (Nov 12, 2006)

Anyone have any thoughts about U.N. control of internet routing and open information?

Not sure if anyone heard about that little movement. Anyone have any doubts about your ability to find any material inconsistent to the principles, purposes, and interests of the U.N. online should the U.N. gain that level of control? They've already enshrined these noble ideas into their various declarations, charters, and such. All they need now is the support to implement.

Just a thought (while thoughts are free, that is).........


(queue Darth Fu Bag music)


----------

