+joc Posted September 20, 2004 #51 Share Posted September 20, 2004 I guess we have to agree to disagree Joc , there is little point going over the same points again and again . We are better off working toward something better than staying stagnant on one issue . I agree to disagree While the world would be much better off if everyone agreed with me, it would also be quite boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velikovsky Posted September 21, 2004 #52 Share Posted September 21, 2004 Exactly, China wouldn't be a member. Not unless they changed how they treat people. Until they did the members wouldn't give them a single fair treaty or trade fairly with them. Not until they changed to meet the requirements of the charter. 273552[/snapback] Yes, but for a UN to mean anything, it has to force countries to participate in it. The ideal UN couldnt just be an organisation where you could quit if you want to do things differently. If you dont do it the way the UN says it, you're punished, severely. The embargo idea on China might mean something to them... but the UN would have to be damn sure they'd be ready to take on China if China decides to invade a country for resources it needs, like Japan did to the US in WW2. China, while it may not go over seas, it might eventually attempt to take asia for resources. The ideal UN would have to be formed *with* the complete support of the *world* in the event that another huge war would occure against a country as threatening as China. Thats not that easy to come by. 273720[/snapback] that's just it the new "UN" would step in, if China were to invade another country for resources they would be ready to deploy within hours. there would also have to be an agreement that the UN could call up the militaries of all member nations, within limitations, to support the war. One of the things that makes China so dangerous is that the country is so huge with a population that's incredible. To combat a threat like that it would take a unified force of the member nations. Of course the ultimate goal would be to force countries like China to change their policies and become members but any sign of aggresion would have to be met with overwhelming force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted September 21, 2004 #53 Share Posted September 21, 2004 that's just it the new "UN" would step in, if China were to invade another country for resources they would be ready to deploy within hours. there would also have to be an agreement that the UN could call up the militaries of all member nations, within limitations, to support the war. One of the things that makes China so dangerous is that the country is so huge with a population that's incredible. To combat a threat like that it would take a unified force of the member nations. Of course the ultimate goal would be to force countries like China to change their policies and become members but any sign of aggresion would have to be met with overwhelming force. Yes, I know, but what I'm saying is, its very unlikely that any military pact like this would be signed. Smaller versions, yes, but big ones? Unlikely. The world would need to have some more unifying ala EU style before that can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted September 21, 2004 #54 Share Posted September 21, 2004 No i don't think the war was illegal... if we did'nt do it saddam hussein would still be in power there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted September 21, 2004 #55 Share Posted September 21, 2004 [sarcasm]Thank god we got rid of Saddam , Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is much better .[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted September 22, 2004 #56 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Thank god we got rid of Saddam , Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is much better Patience is a virtue. He will be gotten sooner or later. Hopefully sooner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunarmdscissor Posted September 22, 2004 #57 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Is the reason we haven't had anymore WWs because of the UN? Isn't it more likely to be the case that it came to be understood that WW certaintly meant nuclear destruction? It was the atomic age that rendered WWs useless. The New World Order began when we blasted Japan twice. That ended the last WW and effectively ended all other WWs after it. Don't you remember Wun that there use to be Two SuperPowers? What kept the US and the USSR from the brink of nuclear extinction was Detante. Thanks for the laugh though..I needed it! OH so thats why the korean war never happened then joc............? no wait..... it did involving china , the uSSR and the USA not to mention Britain who were all nuclear powers with thexecption of china (at the time). Nuclear proliferation had an element but it was down to the diplomacy of the UN that disaster has been averted. Thanks for giving me the laugh though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted September 23, 2004 #58 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Patience is a virtue. original.gif He will be gotten sooner or later. Hopefully sooner! Yes Joc the sooner the better and the one after him I hope we get pretty darn fast too and the one after that and in a few years we should be pretty good at it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now