North American Union

[burmafrd]

Maybe, vintage, I do not feel the need to expand on what is - or SHOULD be - common knowledge.
A- the UN is a mess and anyone denying that is blind.
B- letting the UN run a country would be a total disaster.
Why does that need any expansion?

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Maybe, vintage, I do not feel the need to expand on what is - or SHOULD be - common knowledge.
A- the UN is a mess and anyone denying that is blind.
B- letting the UN run a country would be a total disaster.
Why does that need any expansion?

Excellent contribution, again.

Why is the UN a mess? Care to elaborate? Or is just your random comments sufficient?

Letting the UN run a country would be a total disaster? Where is the proof? You asked superpunk for proof when you asked 'where's the proof they'd do a better job?' Where's your proof they'd do worse?

Or does this only work when you need proof. And your assertions don't require it.

I need to know, for future reference in case you should reply to one of my posts....that way I know how to respond (and with what).

Thanks.

[burmafrd]

Vintage, if you have not figured it out by now that the UN is a mess, then there is no point talking to you. I know you are not that DUMB. You just don't want to admit that one of your pets is a mess.

[burmafrd]

Just a quick search came up with this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle1089163.ece

That is by the London Times, in case you are asking.

[burmafrd]

here is another

http://haiti.quixote.org/node/84

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Vintage, if you have not figured it out by now that the UN is a mess, then there is no point talking to you. I know you are not that DUMB. You just don't want to admit that one of your pets is a mess.

I am not disagreeing that the UN is not a mess.

I actually agree with you.

But you asked for proof from superpunk that it would work. So why can't someone else hold you to those standards.

At least you finally provided a link below.

[burmafrd]

Here is a book for you
Also some of the comments on that page are interesting

http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babble-U.../dp/1400054753

[burmafrd]

some more

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/...isarmament.pdf

[burmafrd]

another one

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=9064

[burmafrd]

another one

http://www.unissues.org/success_failure.html

[burmafrd]

This took my all of 15 minutes on the Internet with a standard search.
So what is your excuse, Vintage?

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

This took my all of 15 minutes on the Internet with a standard search.
So what is your excuse, Vintage?

My excuse for what?

You asked for superpunk's proof, why can't someone ask you for proof?

[superpunk]

I'm still not sure what I was supposed to prove.

Or what Vintage is supposed to prove.

Am I supposed to prove that someday everyone's going to want to hand over their power to the UN for some mysterious reason? That someday everyone's going to look to a unified leading government to save themselves?

If so - I'd suggest checking that dictionary.com link out, and looking up hypothetical again. Just in case you didn't get it the first time.

[Vintage]

Originally Posted by superpunk

I'm still not sure what I was supposed to prove.

Or what Vintage is supposed to prove.

Am I supposed to prove that someday everyone's going to want to hand over their power to the UN for some mysterious reason? That someday everyone's going to look to a unified leading government to save themselves?

If so - I'd suggest checking that dictionary.com link out, and looking up hypothetical again. Just in case you didn't get it the first time.

My whole point was that he asked you for proof that the UN would work (even though, you made it clear it was a hypothetical).

I disagreed and gave my reasons why (namely: soverignty).

Burm disagreed saying the UN is garbage and demanded proof that it would work.

He then said it wouldnt work.

I then asked for proof it wouldnt work.

He then refers me to links where the UN is being criticises for some of their policies/behavior, none of which actually prove it doesn't work. It just proves that people criticise the UN.

I then told burm that I actually agree, I don't think the UN as an encompassing world government would work because of what I said before, soverignty issues.

He provides more random links and demands something from me.

Somewhere in there, I confused him.

Though admittedly, I do feel dirty for agreeing with him.

_________________

I know it was a hypothetical, but Ill explain further. The British monetary system is based on the pound. The European Union is based on the Euro. Members can join the EU but choose not to partake in their currency.

Its an issue of soverignty. The British didn't want to give it up and haven't.

But they wanted to be a part of the E.U. in some form.

The problem with a one world government is that there are too many different and diverse interests to protect. Countries would have to give up near absolute soverignty to such a government. That is not plausible IMO.

The other problem is that countries must agree to abide by the laws.

Many countries violate human rights every day. China does, but because China is so powerful, no one wants to hold them accountable. And nor is it really plausible. But smaller countries such as Sudan have been getting railed on it for years. The system would have to hold each country accountable (which is another problem the E.U. faces. No country is supposed to operate with a deficit in excess of a percentage of their total GNP, or something like this, I'd have to look it up but I am too lazy). But countries have ignored this (some of the bigger ones, like Germany, France, Italy) and wont be held accountable, because, they are a large part of the E.U.

That wont happen.

And lastly, they'd have to go along with the world governments policing.

Does anyone think Ajham(whatever) is going to go accept punishments handed down? Or even us, for that matter? Too many diverse and self-interest related issues to make this plausible, IMO.

[burmafrd]

Vintage- I gave you links to many articles showing clear failures of the UN.
You are trying to *****foot around the FACT that the UN is defined by mostly FAILURES.
Super wants the US ruled by someone other then ourselves. I ask- who should do this?