Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/10/2004 9:32:34 AM PST by Area Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Area Freeper
replace the Security Council with a new Democratic Alliance

No, no, a thousand times No. Don't give into these neocon proposals. We are a sovereign nation, and all we need to do is simply reclaim our sovereignty. A "Democratic Alliance" would be even more powerful than the current UN, and would sap our sovereignty that much further. Don't go there.

2 posted on 12/10/2004 9:36:51 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: cgk

Ollie ping


3 posted on 12/10/2004 9:37:31 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" HRC 6/28/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper

They should shuttle the UN over to France where it belongs. I deliver goods in NYC right near there and I`m sick of these freggin` Diplomats parking anywhere they please, in front of loading docks, or having their freggin` missions block off entire streets so Abdul from Arabia can park his 20 limos. The city must spend a fortune on these idiots, not to mention the police who have to stand guard in front of these jackass diplomats multi-million dollar condo buildings. I was in one last year and it`s unreal, private chefs, maids, butlers for one freggin` guy who probably votes against the US 99% of the time.


4 posted on 12/10/2004 9:39:23 AM PST by Imaverygooddriver (I`m a very good driver and I approve this message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper
"The "Oil-for-Food" scandal, a story that first broke on Fox News, now has "legs" of its own...."

Just a small nit pick, but it was Claudia Rosett of the WSJ who has done great work on this story, and has been for some time. Fox has done great work as well.

5 posted on 12/10/2004 9:39:29 AM PST by Bahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper
Semper Fi Col. North!
6 posted on 12/10/2004 9:44:04 AM PST by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper

There is no perfect solution.

1)These world bodies are un-elected.

2)High sums of money are funneled into these organizations.

These two facts help produce a culture that is ripe for corruption.

If we disband the U.N. and create a new body, it will eventually resemble the body we disbanded.

Yet, there are times when a world body is useful to serve as a forum for heads of government to assemble and be heard. In matters of world wide threats like Communism, Nazism, and Terrorism.

In current practical terms we cannot withdraw from the U.N. unless nations vulnerable to the prejudices of the U.N. join us (Israel).

Also, there is the consideration that the U.N. currently acts as a buffer to prevent the rapid strengthening of the E.U., as well as prevents a void that a country like China would fast move to fill. The U.N. has been shown to be a weak corrupt body. It still remains the premier challenge to U.S. authority. In absence of this weakened body we would face challenges from half a dozen nations (and a few dozen third worlds) in a race to determine which nation will earn the right to be our premier opposition.

I do think this has been behind the administration's decision to strengthen NATO and the U.N.

The fall of the U.N. is now inevitable given the scandel that expands at every moment, the only question is timing. IMO, I don't think Bush wants it to implode in the midst of the WOT. Barring that option, he would like to have an operating world body ready to fill the void of power before challenges of other nations mount.


9 posted on 12/10/2004 9:57:54 AM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper
What's the use of scrapping it and starting over when eventually, you're just gonna have more of these third world nation dictators given a vote in the new organization and we're back to what the U.N. is now, a cesspool of third world nation dictators trying to act morally superior to the United States and control our nation with global laws and take away our sovereignty.

Best thing to do is just get the hell out of the U.N. and let the rest of the world go to hell in a hand basket.
11 posted on 12/10/2004 10:30:45 AM PST by Stringfellow Hawke (#6: Be seeing you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper
The reason the United Nations does not work is because any nation is eligible to join regardless of that nation's form of government or policies toward its own and other peoples; regardless of the size of the nation, each nation gets one vote in the General Assembly; the richer nations subsidize the poorer nations which prevents each nation from having an equal stake in the organization.

The United Nations should be replaced by a United Democratic Nations. If a nation does is not a democratic republic or a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected legislature, that nation should be ineligible for membership. Nations which are dictatorship, oligarchies or which have other forms of governments which are not truly democratic should be barred from membership and any nation which reverts to a nondemocratic form of government (a government such as Iraq which claims to be democratic because it has elections even though there is only a single name for each post on each ballot) should be expelled.

Each nation should receive as many votes in the General Assembly should receive the integral number of votes equal to its number of citizens of voting age divided by 10 million. Countries that most people have never heard of except in a UN news release which have 50 to 100 thousand people will get zero votes but will be heard in the General Assembly.

The dues should be paid by those nations with at least one vote in the General Assembly. The budget will be prorated by the number of votes. Any nation which would be entitled to a huge number of votes (say China with about 1 billion people which would entitle China to 100 votes -- assuming China ever became eligible to join the United Democracies) in the General Assembly will have its number of votes reduced if it does not pay its dues on a basis pro-rated to what it pays in dues. If the US pays its dues, it will receive its 28 votes. If China only pays 10% of dues, it will receive 10 votes.

The only nations which will be represented on the General Assembly will be those nations which pledge to enforce United Democracies Security Council rulings with military force. No nation without a military of at least 50,000 will be eligible for a seat on the Security Council. No nation which does not pay its full dues will be allowed to hold a seat on the Security Council. The number of votes each member of the Security Council will have will be determined by the cost of supporting the number of troops that nation has committed to operations supported by the United Democracies Security Council in the past 10 years. For example, if the United Kingdom is bearing 25% of the cost of existing United Democracies peace establishing and peacekeeping missions in the past 10 years (or since the inception of the organization when each nation would have one vote), the United Kingdom would receive 25% of the votes. That is, we should not allow some piss-ant nation like Mozambique to determine on an equal footing with the US and UK where US and UK troops should or should not be used. The initial membership of the United Democracies Security Council should be the US, the UK, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Japan as those nations have shouldered much of the burden of enforcing the UN Security Council's resolutions and have demonstrated a desire to export democratic ideals and to oppose totalitarianism in recent times.

12 posted on 12/10/2004 11:00:43 AM PST by Lunkhead_01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper

Bush and his Father are both "new world order" zealots. Who would they get to dictate to the world if the UN was scrapped?


17 posted on 12/10/2004 11:28:58 AM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper

Yes the Un is broken. BUT, most US citizens will think the UN is broken if it rules against our wishes. Sometimes when they take a position against ours, it may be that it's the correct position and ours in incorrect, or it's somewhere inbetween. What we really want is a global rubber stamp.


25 posted on 12/10/2004 11:45:13 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Area Freeper; TMSuchman; NonValueAdded; Watery Tart; WhistlingPastTheGraveyard; bluefish; ...
Thanks for the head's up... NonValueAdded! :)

Breaking out Ollie's ping list for a hearty

OLLIE PING!


28 posted on 12/10/2004 3:03:05 PM PST by cgk (The Left was beaten by Pres Bush twice & will never have another shot at him... who's dumb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson