Originally Posted by bulldogg

My personal opinion is that as long as we have homeless people not one red cent should be funding ANYTHING outside our own borders but then I'm an isolationist.

I like that idea, Bulldogg.

It would really be great to see what they vetoed 68% of the time, it could have been anything. Maybe how to fund developing nations or the fair market price of dates, little things like that could add up into a lot of opposition but we don't know what exactly they're opposing.

It would be nice for comparison to see America's allies and industrialized nations percentages in the UN.

We really got to keep the UN, its not great but its the best we got. All it takes is for Countries to swallow their pride and act for the benefit of humanity. Of course with fanatics, patriots and greedy bastards then this is a long way off. It is a good idea in theory and it is an organization which tries to retain peace which is what everyone really wants. Its such a pity that we don't make it better. Or give it sufficent military clout to kick an offending country right up the arse, then perhaps people would listen to it.

If not the UN then, who else?

What we(I) are saying is that we should modify the UN a little bit. Bring it into the next century. Lets face it, we as a world are moving forward but the UN still has its same policies...Like you said, its a good idea in theory, but in reality, we need to,again as you said, make it better.

Originally Posted by C/1Lt Henderson

What we(I) are saying is that we should modify the UN a little bit. Bring it into the next century. Lets face it, we as a world are moving forward but the UN still has its same policies...Like you said, its a good idea in theory, but in reality, we need to,again as you said, make it better.

I totally agree with you Henderson. But imagine the row that will evolve about whom gets to say how the UN will be modified! I just reckon it should be de Dutch who redesign this molog into something beautiful. We are a non-pretentious, serious, introvert, conscientious people and would certainly be up for the job (Me excluded that is!)

BUT I WANNA DO IT!!! hahahaha..I could see WWIII starting over who could and would modify the UN...hahaha...maybe the Dutch should do it...lol

You know what would be a good improvement, not needing an unanimous decision to do anything with the security council. It should need a majority and whoever votes against it can abstain from the actions while the others go ahead. The only catch is that this would be for smaller operations and not important/big ones.

Most of us agree with you Warmachine. Most see that the veto right should go. But the re-designing is something that isn't easy, because the parties with veto-power will want something back in return. Exactly how you want to solve this..... I have no clue!

Well, we have established that it does need to be made over...The question now is how do we make it over...Any ideas?

Pfff, I am somewhat sceptical that the powers is the world will not hand it over all that easy. How can you ask 5 countries that have has special priviliges to relinquish these powers after 50 years. I think that there is no place for altruism in this debate. Too bad, just to bad!!