Quote from: Free on February 18, 2013, 07:18 PM
What the f@#!! My one-liner was the ultimatum of politics and you f@#!ing delete it. Bitches.
To Free: re-read the first post of this thread. Not even you in your infinite wisdom are exempt. Breeze, you, and a few others have gotten posts deleted because they were either too short or just a partisan snipe. This thread isn't about one-liners about how shitty you think a party is or whatnot. Adhere to the rules and Peja will leave your posts be.
I'll finish off your questions since I have some time now Peja.
Quote from: Peja on December 11, 2012, 08:07 PMWhat do you think about the United Nations?
United Nations is a worthy foray into creating a unified ruling body that can police its child nations. Unfortunately, the UN can't get anything done, with the powerful nations bypassing and brushing off ineffective UN sanctions. I can't remember a case where UN sanctions caused a rogue nation to reverse it's foreign policy. The UN just doesn't wield enough influence to hold nations to it's collective ideals. It was a good idea, but I would compare it to the articles of confederation here in the United States. The AoC gave the federal government so little power, nothing could get done. The states held more power than it's collective government and so they had no incentive to cave to the federal government unless it suited them, exactly the scenario we see now. The UN is a net negative to large global powers such as the US, China, Russia, ect. The smaller countries of course are all in favor of the UN, because it affords them a collective voice and defense.
This isn't changing anytime soon. A drastic change in policy would require the US, Russia, and China to all submit; and they will not, there are too many points to hold out on individually, much less all at once. Read underlined part one more time for effect.
Quote from: Peja on December 11, 2012, 08:07 PMwhich role should they play on worldwide conflicts?
They should play a peacekeeper role, a collective action controlled by the members of the security council. Just like it is done now. Again, they are currently too weak collectively to have an effect on any conflict of reasonable size.
Quote from: Peja on December 11, 2012, 08:07 PMWhat can be done to avoid a debacle with peacekeeping forces like in Srebrenica or Rwanda?
Real power behind the deployed UN peacekeepers. They didn't have it.
Quote from: Peja on December 11, 2012, 08:07 PMWhat can the UN do to avoid creating a platform for authoritarian regimes to share their political ideas? (like in the Durban Review Conference from 2009)
I'm not currently aligned with the ideas around exclusion of nations. Ahmadinejad should have been, and was allowed to, elaborate on his doctrines, mostly of hate and repression. Once you start exclusion, it creates an imbalance of power. The only situation I agree with exclusion is if there are currently hostilities provoked by a member country or prospective member country. The DRC was held for this expressed purpose.
Quote from: Peja on December 11, 2012, 08:07 PMDo you think the state of palestine deserves a full membership in the united nations, even their government is unwilling/unable to controll their own people not to attack a legitimate country according to international law in their direct neigborship?
I don't think the UN can recognize Palestine at this point as a full member nation. Israel toes a very razor thin line between following or defying the UN. Lets be clear. Palestine is unwilling to control their people. State sponsored terrorism exists, and it isn't a well kept secret. I ultimately side with Israel, I don't hide my support for Netanyahu, although my support not unilaterally exclusive. This is also a sticky situation where it is one or the other. You can't accept both knowing full well there will be conflict. The holy land hasn't been continually without war for thousands of years. I have no solutions to this situation, religion trumps good politics every day of the week.
