Dubstepforum.com

DJoe wrote:yeah you've missed my point completely multi-lateral governance is fine for something like the ozone layer when there is comparatively a much smaller conflict of interests but when its the governance of something like this, there are too many conflicts of interests so cohesion isn't possible. no agreement will be made and if one is made it will be to late or not legally binding, strong enought to have an affect etc.
which is the reason to some extent the UN doesn't work

an outcome that works for one group of countries or country is likely to not work for a large number of others

again who is 'we'?

nah i get your point, i'm just thinking much larger. fuck the UN, we need a new UN. Or an improved one. With power. That can actually get shit done. With representatives. And that has more power than individual countries.

We = you, me, and Soiree.

dfaultuzr wrote:you might not be aware of this in the US, but if such a worldwide representative body existed, and was truly democratic the first thing most people outside the US (who, surprisingly enough, would have a large majority) would vote for would be for US to peace out and stop to organize coup d'etats, topple legitimately elected govts, spy on fucking everyone, outsource CIA torture resorts all over the world, drag other countries in useless wars and drone strike whoever they feel like, etc i can keep on for days, but you get the idea

not saying Putin is blameless, but seriously, compared to US presidents, he's a small time crook

ah...wishful thinking

I would vote for all those things too.

dfaultuzr wrote:seriously tho, the fact US wants to keep its hegemony i understand, why european governments are participating in this farce is beyond me

Because you are thinking in countries. Countries are more of an organizing principle for the people, not so much for the owners of the world.

dfaultuzr wrote:seriously tho, the fact US wants to keep its hegemony i understand, why european governments are participating in this farce is beyond me

cause of russian gas

also what nowaysj said was pretty astute too

level of expertism in this thread is very high

Go back to thinking about football. Who is going to draft whom????

Big things going on!

Shit got escalated fast. And the UN and the EU stood by and watched.

The Ukraine remembers what it is like to have 10 million people dead at Russian hands. That kind of memory persists through the generations.

Phigure wrote:

dfaultuzr wrote:seriously tho, the fact US wants to keep its hegemony i understand, why european governments are participating in this farce is beyond me

cause of russian gas

also what nowaysj said was pretty astute too

nowaysj does make a good point, the gas thing i disagree, whats the benefit of depending of USA's fracked gas as opposed to depending on Russia's gas

also my comment was accompanied by an article that nowaysj didn't include: http://www.leap2020.net/euro-brics/2014 ... d/?lang=en

my point was about the missed opportunity for Europe to ditch the USA and assert itself as an "independent" power in a multipolar world instead of giving US a blank check to drag us all in yet another century of Cold War, but yeah, moot point if you consider nowaysj's super depressing comment (but yet probably valid to an extent)

dubunked wrote:

DJoe wrote:yeah you've missed my point completely multi-lateral governance is fine for something like the ozone layer when there is comparatively a much smaller conflict of interests but when its the governance of something like this, there are too many conflicts of interests so cohesion isn't possible. no agreement will be made and if one is made it will be to late or not legally binding, strong enought to have an affect etc.
which is the reason to some extent the UN doesn't work

an outcome that works for one group of countries or country is likely to not work for a large number of others

again who is 'we'?

nah i get your point, i'm just thinking much larger. fuck the UN, we need a new UN. Or an improved one. With power. That can actually get shit done. With representatives. And that has more power than individual countries.

We = you, me, and Soiree.

By new UN do just mean one without Russia and China?

yeah pretty much.



lol absolutely not. one with every country on Earth, that is designed to actually have more power and authority over that of each individual country. a legit governing body for the entire world. representative of all countries. with a military. that can get shit done. i'm not exactly sure how to design that, like should some countries are given more power than others (ie the UN security counsil)? can one country veto anything? i dunno, in theory that sounds like a bad idea to me. all countries should probably be given equal power, and you probably should not need unanimity in order to take any aggressive action. but i'll leave that to the experts (jesslem) to decide.



but re all the america-hating in this thread. europe never wants to step up to the plate. they want the US to do all the dirty work around the world and be the "bad cop". but if the US didn't exist, make no mistake, europe, or the UK, or someone, would take that role, and everyone would hate england instead. they wouldn't let northern africa and the middle east go unchecked. like i don't want america to get involved in every little thing either, but there are some things that require a global power to take action, and over the past half a century or so, europe basically ceded that power to the US.

sure, during the Bush era, the US did a lot of shitty things and handled their power improperly, but when you ask "why does america have to get involved in syria, in libya, in ukraine, etc etc" it's because there's no other global power that's willing do it, which is why i would like to see a more legitimate global power (the UN) that has actual power and could get things done. america has no true authority over other countries because it itself is just a country. the only thing that seperates america from other countries is our military strength. so it's actions will always be doubted and called into question and seen as illegitimate. which is why i think we should have a more legitimate, supra-national entity who's authority could not be illegitimized so easily.

In order for something to happen it usually needs the approval of all 5 of the US, England, France, Russia, and China

yeah so any one of those countries has the power to veto anything. that's probably not a good idea imo and is why the UN has no power, among other reasons.

dubunked wrote:yeah so any one of those countries has the power to veto anything. that's probably not a good idea imo and is why the UN has no power, among other reasons.

So you think it would be better if the opinions of global super powers didn't matter?

Yes. They are mainstream.

lol are france a global superpower?

ehbrums1 wrote:

dubunked wrote:yeah so any one of those countries has the power to veto anything. that's probably not a good idea imo and is why the UN has no power, among other reasons.

So you think it would be better if the opinions of global super powers didn't matter?

no, i think it would be better if you didn't need 100% unanimity in order to take any aggressive action.

but what do you think ehbrums?

dubunked wrote:but re all the america-hating in this thread. europe never wants to step up to the plate. they want the US to do all the dirty work around the world and be the "bad cop". but if the US didn't exist, make no mistake, europe, or the UK, or someone, would take that role, and everyone would hate england instead. they wouldn't let northern africa and the middle east go unchecked. like i don't want america to get involved in every little thing either, but there are some things that require a global power to take action, and over the past half a century or so, europe basically ceded that power to the US.

sure, during the Bush era, the US did a lot of shitty things and handled their power improperly, but when you ask "why does america have to get involved in syria, in libya, in ukraine, etc etc" it's because there's no other global power that's willing do it, which is why i would like to see a more legitimate global power (the UN) that has actual power and could get things done. america has no true authority over other countries because it itself is just a country. the only thing that seperates america from other countries is our military strength. so it's actions will always be doubted and called into question and seen as illegitimate. which is why i think we should have a more legitimate, supra-national entity who's authority could not be illegitimized so easily.

The Bush era has nothing to do with this. America has a long running tradition of doing shitty things to people under the false guise of "instituting democracy". The only dirty work going on is by the US government invading countries and overthrowing democratically elected officials. From what I'm reading it seems as if you want the US to be the new UN....

dubunked wrote:yeah pretty much.



lol absolutely not. one with every country on Earth, that is designed to actually have more power and authority over that of each individual country. a legit governing body for the entire world. representative of all countries. with a military. that can get shit done. i'm not exactly sure how to design that, like should some countries are given more power than others (ie the UN security counsil)? can one country veto anything? i dunno, in theory that sounds like a bad idea to me. all countries should probably be given equal power, and you probably should not need unanimity in order to take any aggressive action. but i'll leave that to the experts (jesslem) to decide.



but re all the america-hating in this thread. europe never wants to step up to the plate. they want the US to do all the dirty work around the world and be the "bad cop". but if the US didn't exist, make no mistake, europe, or the UK, or someone, would take that role, and everyone would hate england instead. they wouldn't let northern africa and the middle east go unchecked. like i don't want america to get involved in every little thing either, but there are some things that require a global power to take action, and over the past half a century or so, europe basically ceded that power to the US.

sure, during the Bush era, the US did a lot of shitty things and handled their power improperly, but when you ask "why does america have to get involved in syria, in libya, in ukraine, etc etc" it's because there's no other global power that's willing do it, which is why i would like to see a more legitimate global power (the UN) that has actual power and could get things done. america has no true authority over other countries because it itself is just a country. the only thing that seperates america from other countries is our military strength. so it's actions will always be doubted and called into question and seen as illegitimate. which is why i think we should have a more legitimate, supra-national entity who's authority could not be illegitimized so easily.

You have a long way to go.

ehbrums1 wrote:The Bush era has nothing to do with this. America has a long running tradition of doing shitty things to people under the false guise of "instituting democracy". The only dirty work going on is by the US government invading countries and overthrowing democratically elected officials. From what I'm reading it seems as if you want the US to be the new UN....

LOL so either you're a commie or you're a neocon according to dsf???? There's no inbetween? Want the US to be the new UN? I want a new UN to be the new US. In other words, a supra-national organization like the LoN or the UN that takes the US's role in global affairs.

I mentioned the Bush era because of what dfaultzer was saying earlier about torture et al.

Also, just cause a leader was democratically elected doesn't mean he lead democratically. If Hitler was democratically elected, does that mean we should never intervene and just let him commit whatever crimes he wants? Not to mention many alleged "democratic elections" are farces.