How Muslim Nations Vote in UN...

I know, let's go back to the League of Nations... or was that the League of Superheros? Which one has the Halls of Justice? Wait, aren't the Halls of Justice in the Hague? And why is it called The Hague? We don't call our cities The Chicago or The Atlanta... wtf mate?

Alas, one world government is the only answer under a communist right wing authoritarian who eats spaghetti with chopsticks and drinks Perrier from a bottle with a straw.

Face it, humans aren't programmed to get along.
 
bulldogg said:
I know, let's go back to the League of Nations... or was that the League of Superheros? Which one has the Halls of Justice? Wait, aren't the Halls of Justice in the Hague? And why is it called The Hague? We don't call our cities The Chicago or The Atlanta... wtf mate?

Alas, one world government is the only answer under a communist right wing authoritarian who eats spaghetti with chopsticks and drinks Perrier from a bottle with a straw.

Face it, humans aren't programmed to get along.

I think that is what I'll die fighting for! :rock:

Now on to more interesting subject of toponymes, the genesis of names in geography. The Hague is the somewhat translation of Den Haag... This translated badly from Germanic into Anglo-Saxon. In short; it means not a whole lot!
 
5.56X45mm said:
Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

It's that simple.

Ditto!

However, who cares what UN says? It is just a useless international organization that appeases despots, sucks people's money, is known for sex and financial scandals, its General secretary's son drive dady's Mercedes Benz which was bought with Iraqi oil money and this story goes on and on and on.

But lets not forget that it is due to US pressure that countries like Egypt, Iran, Saudi, Kuwait or Turkey open their societies up more and more every day.

Thank you USA
 
Last edited:
However, who cares what UN says? It is just a useless international organization that appeases despots, sucks people's money, is known for sex and financial scandals, its General secretary's son drive dady's Mercedes Benz which was bought with Iraqi oil money and this story goes on and on and on.

Then the US must like the UN... only the US had a history of instating despots in countries and those appeased the US in return. Sucking money, sometimes but sex scandal..... :) Financial scandals aren't new either and DUI combined with drugs while driving daddy's car isn't entirerly new either!
Re-reading this, I am glad that that is the way it goes, 'cause what boriing place this would be otherwise.
 
5.56X45mm said:
I'm not saying that the USA closes the doors. I'm just simply saying that the UN doesn't work anymore.

The monster has grown to powerful.

Something should replace it and take it's place. But this time, the rules and power of the new organization should be written so it doesn't become the piece of crap that it is now.

On the contrary the monster is totally inept, it has no power whatsoever.
Do you have any ideas how many countries wilfully ignore demands from the UN. Iran, isn't the first you know. The UN can't even decide to make necessary repairs and renovations to the building (which is in terrible condition) let alone forcing members to to obey its decrees?

How many times has the UN sat helplessly, refusing to act while Genocide was going on Rwanda, Sudan, Kosovo, Cambodia, etc. Its all wind and smoke but no fire.
 
mmarsh said:
On the contrary the monster is totally inept, it has no power whatsoever.
Do you have any ideas how many countries wilfully ignore demands from the UN. Iran, isn't the first you know. The UN can't even decide to make necessary repairs and renovations to the building (which is in terrible condition) let alone forcing members to to obey its decrees?

How many times has the UN sat helplessly, refusing to act while Genocide was going on Rwanda, Sudan, Kosovo, Cambodia, etc. Its all wind and smoke but no fire.

I think you hit the nail on the head MMarsh. The UN's worst problem beyond corruption is it's position as the worlds largest provider of Witnesses to mass genocide and horrible famine. It's a great figure head and it's a wonderful idea, but in the end it's just one more powerless beuracracy that refuses to reinforce any of it's statutes and proclamations.
Bottom line: It can certainly talk the talk but it will never walk the walk.
 
So as I say, can we shut down the UN and turn that area in NY City into low rent high rise buildings for the lower class. It's right on the water, and it will better the public than being a center for despts and criminals to hang around. That's what LA is for.
 
5.56X45mm said:
So as I say, can we shut down the UN and turn that area in NY City into low rent high rise buildings for the lower class. It's right on the water, and it will better the public than being a center for despts and criminals to hang around. That's what LA is for.
I SECOND THAT MOTION!
btw the Justice League had the Hall of Justice.lol
 
Hey lets not forget the UN was created to make this earth a better place.. but.. I hope they are doing that..

Its weird though, I dont know about the other nations.. But Kuwait against the United States? 68%? that 68% of the government?? interesting :-?
 
bulldogg said:
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.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
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!
 
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!!
 
Back
Top