Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

I think those more informed and able to do something about it should handle such things. Those who wish to change things in the world should start with things in their able. Such as feeding the poor in their home town. Helping the old and disabled. Instead of efforts that will be of no effect.....be effective where you are and able....now.

This was not said with any hash tone at all.....just blunt.

Oh, blunt is fine. That is your opinion and thank you for your input.

Hell I agree with ya "rilly"

We agree!....now how in heck did that happen?

OK now to the OP. I can't stand the UN, and I don't like what it is leading up too.... which is a one world order with one currency

You see, miracles are still possible to occur

Spooky!

Agreed ; among those countries should be both Scotland and France due to their internal commitment to social issues such as having declared a human right to food and a home. , This step must (and morally, should be) made into law throughout the EU for its citizens. We have the combined wealth and recources to make it so. We have achieved free education, so let's finish this pressing item on our social calenders.
Yes a new UN Security Council should be formed to more fully reflect the rising global views toward the betterment of all humans not just a selected few by their allies in political and military self interests. In fact perhaps it may prove more beneficial for Mankind to expel certain countries due to the threats they pose to the Global environment, be it health wise or in the promotions of wars and conflict based on Race, colour, creed or profit margins that render the value of the masses as worthless. While there may be some who would argue that it is in their best interests to promote conflicts, it has long been overdue that the majority of States counter this rather enslaving, dictatorial altitude and attitude.
Perhaps a new feature of more member States rotating in and out of any new Security Council would 'free-up' the tendencies among certain states to direct, influence and cajole others into becoming their proxies in the promotions of conflict and of maintaining economic poverty among many other states whose natural resources are owned and shared by multinational groups to control a countries wealth and maintain ever growing numbers living in poverty...
Perhaps those States with nothing to gain from their leadership should be considered...what if Lichtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg perhaps were given the stewardship of our planet for a while...would it be worse than the current cabal of certain States seeking not only global enslavement of humanity, but also, at the same time the mass deaths of entire selected populations because of downward profit margins, along with the usual added features of Race, colour, creeds, etc. etc.

Hi Solitare, glad to see you join us here

Likewise dear lady
Excellent topic; hopefully some interesting responses...

Thank you. I hope that too.
I started another thread, check it out when you have a chance, called human.

I will be off for some time but I will see you guys later. Be well all of you

Solitare: I found it easier to respond to each idea by a comment and/or a question directly.

"Agreed ; among those countries should be both Scotland and France due to their internal commitment to social issues such as having declared a human right to food and a home. , This step must (and morally, should be) made into law throughout the EU for its citizens".

For once some good ideas come up. Even it would be good to become a law elsewhere. Take a "wealthy" country like the US for example, people can lose everything within months of losing their jobs and become homeless.


"We have the combined wealth and recources to make it so. We have achieved free education, so let's finish this pressing item on our social calenders.
Yes a new UN Security Council should be formed to more fully reflect the rising global views toward the betterment of all humans not just a selected few by their allies in political and military self interests".

I think that too. The current council kinda of look outdated to me




"In fact perhaps it may prove more beneficial for Mankind to expel certain countries due to the threats they pose to the Global environment, be it health wise or in the promotions of wars and conflict based on Race, colour, creed or profit margins that render the value of the masses as worthless".

Yeah, now we are talking :) Who do you think we should expel??


"While there may be some who would argue that it is in their best interests to promote conflicts, it has long been overdue that the majority of States counter this rather enslaving, dictatorial altitude and attitude".

Conflicts are fine, we are humans (and humans make governments) and they "agree" to go back to "disagree" and so on.. But if one or some countries are vote after vote for/against this country or that is so biased, do not you think it is about time that we work for a change?


"Perhaps a new feature of more member States rotating in and out of any new Security Council would 'free-up' the tendencies among certain states to direct, influence and cajole others into becoming their proxies in the promotions of conflict and of maintaining economic poverty among many other states whose natural resources are owned and shared by multinational groups to control a countries wealth and maintain ever growing numbers living in poverty..."

We are talking about the ten elected members for two-year with five replaced each year, correct? Good idea, I like that :) How many do you think they should be?

"Perhaps those States with nothing to gain from their leadership should be considered...what if Lichtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg perhaps were given the stewardship of our planet for a while...would it be worse than the current cabal of certain States seeking not only global enslavement of humanity, but also, at the same time the mass deaths of entire selected populations because of downward profit margins, along with the usual added features of Race, colour, creeds, etc. etc".

Yeah, like what is going on now in Gaza with the US support. That is another great idea Solitare. I like to see other states that have little or no gain from their leadership for once take over. I do not think Monaco would rule worse than what is going on right now in the UN council.

Folks, what do you think? What other rules should we have for a new more global UN council? Also as Arabs are many countries and it seems that they have a few more problems to solve , should we allow more than one arab country in? or one is enough? some may say (one is more than enough )!!!!!!! Please share your opinion

Ok, I will check it later with you all. Until later, Be well

To me the problem in the UN happens at the security council.
Here only one nation needs to veto a resolution and it is finished.
Change that to a majority vote....and the General Assembly
gains real power to impliment anything it wants.

Every country in the world is part of the general assembly. Maybe one or two minor countries are absent. So I don't see a 'need'
for a progressive council.

They already act together on regional issues and individual issues with UN charter agencies...like UNICEF, UN African Aid Program.

If all you doing is placing countries with similar world view together into a special council. Then this becomes its own clique of countries with special groups that will solict them. Leaving the other countries outside. Not sure that was the spirit of the UN's Charter post WWII.

Thread: Global
Category: Current Events & Politics
Thread Author: linarl
Post Author: ttom500

To me the problem in the UN happens at the security council.
Here only one nation needs to veto a resolution and it is finished.
Change that to a majority vote....and the General Assembly
gains real power to impliment anything it wants.

Excellent point regarding the need for a majority vote by members of the Security Council, but I would first deny any member States from permanent Security Council as that is mostly based upon a military aspect; who has the most of the most destructive weapons on the planet; that is not and should not be the main criteria for any State to be a member of any security council. The criteria needs to be drastically changed to reflect the majority view of all member States that basically the entire world is fed up with WMD's Perhaps then a new 'progressive' security council and the general assembly members can then pass a mandatory resolution outlawing, banning and destruction of all WMD's globaly. member states cannot remain stagnant; conditions change and adaptability is a must in all matters that affect all peoples. One simply can't remain stagnant and view the world or other member States as it was in the 1950's for instance; to be obstinate becomes regressive and regression is certainly counter productive and negative on the peoples of any State that stagnates and becomes regressive. Progressive being used in the sense that which advances all of Humanity not just some or most...hence for a progressive , as well, as an enlightened State(s)
"They already act together on regional issues and individual issues with UN charter agencies...like UNICEF, UN African Aid Program."
This is true and perhaps should be expanded a bit more with something like the regional High Commissioners overseeing more co-operation to also work together more in 'problem areas, be the issues environmental or economic etc.
"If all you doing is placing countries with similar world view together into a special council. Then this becomes its own clique of countries with special groups that will solict them. Leaving the other countries outside. Not sure that was the spirit of the UN's Charter post WWII."
This is absolutely true. Cliques are a hindrance if not potentially dangerous from many aspects. Isolation from the bulk of other states never produces anything positive , and only ends up breeding the old, tiresome "superiority" syndrome that always ends in creating divisions and conflicts which is the exact opposite purpose of the concept being united which does the most good for the most, not for the few. Being left out of cliques also breeds conflict where there are no needs for conflict; it is an old concept of open hearts, open minds, not like the old arguments of doing away with borders or National sovereignty. Those matters are and should be inviolate to protect the various cultures and peoples within borders. All peoples, all nations have an inalienable right to their identity; no 'one world' concept here from the viewpoint of the 50's and 60's. Each people need their uniqueness and culture to sustain their lives and to take it away by forcing a planetary amalgamation would truly constitute a real crime against Humanity.

Very well said, one of the main ideas of democracy is 'majority rule' and the UN lack this. Every country in the world should have a representative and each should have an equal vote.

"In fact perhaps it may prove more beneficial for Mankind to expel certain countries due to the threats they pose to the Global environment, be it health wise or in the promotions of wars and conflict based on Race, colour, creed or profit margins that render the value of the masses as worthless".

Yeah, now we are talking :) Who do you think we should expel??

I think that is rather self evident based on the reocords that have hindered, denied and blocked majority Assembly votes and/or resolutions because of dictatorial ideology, the amount of WMD's that they have and the constant 'blackmail' using military and/or economic means to pressure member states into 'towing the (their) line. Economic pressures and blackmail using economic means is perhaps the most pernicious, always playing on the natural 'greed' of individuals, as for instance, in some countries, every Ministry, in every dept. are paid informants/ agents/ 'assets'...owned by another States vast security/intelligence agencies...
"Conflicts are fine, we are humans (and humans make governments) and they "agree" to go back to "disagree" and so on.. But if one or some countries are vote after vote for/against this country or that is so biased, do not you think it is about time that we work for a change?"
Absolutely, hence the principle of majority vote to and/or sanctions to break this impediment to any progressive solutions.
"We are talking about the ten elected members for two-year with five replaced each year, correct? Good idea, I like that :) How many do you think they should be?"
Even numbers lead to deadlock another by pass to deadlocks is for the Secretary General to randomly call upon one from the General Assembly to vote or leave it to the majority vote on the issue by the entire General Assembly...what is in the best interests of all and not just a few...

We'll call that new Monstrosity,
THE UNTIED NATIONS

You are absolutely wrong. They will do nothing if something don't press them. I know this from my own experience. I know how those who have power acts and I know how international community acts in such situations. Don't you try to in plant to us that we don't have enough informations and that there are some who" knows better". That what you know ( me or us ) is enough to act, it is call to act, and it is our duty to act. For years and decades. Those who " know and are able to do something" have failed so many times that nobody who knows them don't believe them. Not a word.
- THEY WILL DO NOTHING EXCEPT IF THEY ARE FORCED - remember this. And the only one that can force them to act is public opinion. That is us, voters.
This is our responsibility for each dead child in Palestina,Chad, Chechenija and so on...

ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL AND CORRECT!!