With all the controversy that surrounded the appointment of John Bolton (haha I accidentally wrote Michael Bolton at first) as the US ambassador to the UN, the man had a point. The UN is messed up. The easiest example is in Sudan, where over a million people have now been killed, clearly a genocide, and the UN, who was partially set up to keep things like this from happening, has done virtually nothing. China has been selling Sudan arms, and Russia is now allied with Iran, who is essentially trying to hold the world hostage with their nuclear program. These are two permanent members of the Security Council, who are helping to thwart world security. The human rights record in these countries gives more evidence of why they should not be on the most important body in the entire world, with over 60 years of CCP oppression and imperialism, and a man who has single-handedly stomped all over Russia's hope for freedom after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, when one looks at how much of the world is not represented in the council, even though there are perfect countries to take on that role, it is not hard to see the problem. There are over 500 million people in Latin America, a region spanning a continent and a half, and no representative. Mexico, a free country with over a hundred million people and a G20 economy, would be perfect. South Africa could represent Africa, and Turkey could represent the Muslim world, where most of the world's problems are rooted. Both of those countries have the same economic and democratic qualifications as Mexico. And India, which has as many people as China, an enormous economy, and is relatively free, is not there, but China is. Perhaps another body should be formed, with the qualification that a country will be suspended if they are responsible for any major human rights violations. It would be like the UN that actually has the ability to accomplish something.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Facts.
There is no evidence that Iran has a program to create an atomic bomb any time the NNPA is still in effect.
Evidence of China's arms dealing in the Sudan? Please?
So what if Russia's allied with Iran? So are we, technically. Unless the UN was a declaration of war....
India has half of China's population, last I checked.
China has ~1% of its population in prison. The US has ~2%. Which one's more strict?
Yeah.... pretty much everyone knows that Iran is making weapons grade nuclear material. Everyone also knows that Russia has agreed to help them secure it.
There is a report held up by the "You're just mean!" crowd saying that Iran is NOT looking for nuclear weapons.
Problem is, that report focused on the time before Iran's current leader took power. He openly says that he is working on nuclear weapons and wants to use them to destroy Isreal.
Russia's alliegiance with Iran goes much deeper than the UN. If the UN was the basis for allies, then Iran is buddy buddy with Israel, as both are members of the UN.
China has MANY more people in prison than their government-controlled media talks about.
China has openly admitted to assisting the current government (what it is) with arms, and they are using chinese made weapons. (Smells like a duck, looks like a duck, it isn't an elephant.)... unless you're thinking that there is a deep 'cloak and dagger' plot to make counterfit chinese weapons, then plant them with the ones in Sudan doing the killing, your point is kind of deflated.
I imagine that you also didn't believe that Russia and China were making illegal deals to exchange money and weapons for oil from Saddam.
Ah. You refer to the phrase "wipe Israel off the map," a mistranslation of "Israel will fade from the pages of history." Farsi can be like that, or so I've heard.
Even if Iran has stated the destruction of Israel as a short-term goal, it need not bother the US.
I was under the impression that the report was focused on some period ending in 2003.
.
China's deals with Iran are irrelevant, though. If the US minds its own business it will make no enemies.
That comment is absolutely ridiculous. No, you're right, no one has evidence that Iran is making bombs. But they are enriching Uranium at a high rate, and the uranium enrichment necessary for nuclear weapons is much more than is necessary for nuclear energy. This is a nation in which the government cries "Death to America" and "Death to Israel", and you can justify their hatred all you want, but the fact is that when those in power are calling for the "death" of any country, there is something seriously wrong. I am not willing to bet on Iran not making nuclear weapons, especially since that bet may very well be a bet on the safety of the world. The BBC, which is of course, not American, and the Human Rights Watch, a worldwide campaign, both say that China is supplying these weapons. I have the link right here
www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5086416.stm
Russia has a separate alliance with Iran, which is completely different than calling the UN an alliance. Furthermore, China bullies countries into not recognizing Taiwan, which is in every way an independent country, and wishes to remain so because they are a free democracy and do not want to be ruled by the CCP's armed watchmen. India's population is still second in the world, and India has managed to progress to a free country when to its west are oppressive theocracies, and to its east are one party dictatorships. Latin America and the Muslim world are unrepresented, despite the fact that there are countries that work with the rest of the world well enough that could represent them. Yet there are three European countries, and one country that makes the United States' unfair policies toward the rest of the world look like nothing. I admit we do have some bad policies, though after the Cold War we have managed to weed out many of them. However, no one can say that the U.S. forces any independent countries to be a part of it. Yes, we screwed the American Indians, but I don't know what we can do about that now except grant them certain special rights of autonomy. In 1998 Puerto Rico voted, and only two percent wanted independence, and while keeping their current status was the will of the majority, more than 18 times as many people wanted statehood (i.e. strengthening their ties with the US) as wanted independence. The Confederacy isn't still around, and we don't still have the Philippines, which America got a hold of somewhat by accident. As for prisoners, I agree that we have way too many people in prison, and based on our user names and your profile, it seems that we both want the government to stop interfering where it doesn't belong, but the fact is that on this internet here, I can post whatever criticism of our government I want, and, so long as I am not making threats or organizing violence against it, nobody is going to come and take me. We all know that the same cannot be said about China
Try to stay on topic. The majority of your response is tangential, and as such you have not answered the majority of my questions. Thank you, however, for dealing with the China question.
Iran is not nearly powerful enough to threaten the world. Perhaps Israel, but since they have nuclear weapons I don't lose sleep over apostate Israel's existance.
So what if Russia has a separate alliance with Iran? Considering where things were 30 years ago, that should be called progress. Still, you need to provide evidence to back up your allegation.
As an aside: I know something about Puerto Rico (it happens to be my father's isle of origin) and the Philippines. The Philippines were not acquired by accident. It was a deliberate invasion ordered by (Aide to an Assistant of the Secretary of State, if I remember correctly) Theodore Roosevelt during the Spanish-American War. The island chain wasn't in dispute until Roosevelt decided he wanted it.
Puerto Rico is a sad story. If they separate from the United States their already-depressed economy will collapse into ruin. As it stands, though, they are an occupied nation, though only a small number of people recognise the fact. The Navy has no reason to use it as a base, especially with Fidel either dead or senile. Either way, he's out of power and Cuba is moving towards representative republicanism, though they do have a lot of work ahead.
May I also suggest that you break your massive block of text into more bite-sized pieces?
Like its predecessor the League of Nations, The UN is a joke. The Security Council is awful and the General Assembly is even worse. People think that the UN is some sort of "world democracy" because the "representatives" from the various countries there vote and therefore it looks democratic. They forget that most of those "representatives" were appointed by DICTATORS and are in fact no way "representative" of their people.
I can't see as that the UN serves any useful purpose and I doubt that the world would be significantly worse off without it. In many cases it does more harm than good by failing to act when action is clearly called for.
The best government is local government. Local government is the only government that is responsive to people. I'm not very enthusiastic about having a world government that has any significant power and I particularly don't want to give them any ability to raise money. The only hope we have of keeping them from totally imposing their elitist will on us is to keep control over the purse strings.
I'm not sure if the question should be if we want an effective world government so much as whether we want ANY world government.
To clarify, by world government I don't mean some sort of monopoly. I just mean some sort of council. As much as anything the purpose is just dialog. But there are certain things that we can't have happen in the world. The fact is is that in things like genocide, the government responsible is almost always an autocratic one, and even if it weren't, the persecuted group is going to be a minority who cannot influence their government. I think that the UN may try to have too much influence in certain issues, but lacks the resolve to do anything that really needs to be done, the kind of thing that only it can do.