page 4, Building the Peace: Department of State Publication 3929, August 1950Actually, the creation of a world government, in any shape or form, depends not primarily upon the structure of an international organization but upon the willingness of key countries to surrender certain sovereign rights.
The UN is a fantastic organization, a huge boon to the international community. It's a good idea on paper, and even better in actual implementation.
You idiots arguing otherwise are among the brainwashed.
(owned)
if by 300 you mean 197, and by 197 you mean basically the 5 on the security council with veto powers.
The UN unnazied the world and fought off the dinosaurs.
Asking them to do so is inviting failure.
The power of the United Nations is not in what they say or the resolutions passed.
The power of the U.N. is in the Treaties and Conventions that are produced there. The U.N. is the framework by which global law can be implemented at local and national levels piecemeal style.
The U.N. also provided the framework for establishing a plethora of international agencies.
While many people see the U.N. as inept, it has in fact been a very successful tool in directing the world further and further into a world government system. A one world economic, political, and religious system.
........................................................................
.............................. Dweasel says ......................
Ya know, we gots a BIG gun.
We gots a nice house.
We gots money.
We doan need dare monkey ass.
The rule of peeps is:
Ya want sumtin,
be smert, dinna werk fer eat yoselb
gits eat frum sumwan elves!
.............................................................................
page 4, Building the Peace: Department of State Publication 3929, August 1950
Agenda 21 in your County?
I once read a book by an economist who thought he was clever using economic models to solve problems that (he didn't realize) had been addressed by philosophy centuries ago. His argument went like this:
1. Every time you state a belief, you are implicitly stating the fact that you believe it to be true. This constitutes a "new" piece of information in an argument.
2. If an argument or discussion is aimed at reaching consensus, i.e., identifying truths, the parties involved would evaluate the merits of each fact presented.
3. Because each statement of opinion is an implicit fact (and as they are repeated back and forth between two people forever, each is a "new" fact. I believe this. I believe this knowing that you believe that. I believe this knowing that you believe that despite me believing this. I believe this knowing that you believe that despite knowing that I believe this despite knowing that you believe that. Etc.), two open-minded individuals interested in truth would eventual agree, even if the argument was nothing more than perpetually repeating one's own beliefs.
Therefore, unless you two agree, you're both closed-minded truth-haters.
That book sucked.
.if by 300 you mean 197, and by 197 you mean basically the 5 on the security council with veto powers.
The UN is a fantastic organization, a huge boon to the international community. It's a good idea on paper, and even better in actual implementation.
You idiots arguing otherwise are among the brainwashed.
(owned)
.
100% with Eggi's posts in this thread.