Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124341)	2/4/2004 1:29:28 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>>True. Many times, on many issues, they talk and talk, and can't come to agreement. In the Bad Old Days, the next step would likely be war, if it was an issue of crucial interest to some nation. Now, the next step is, they keep talking. Endless talking is better than endless killing.>>>> I believe M. Winn has the best idea here for a world government structure called the NUN. I would rename that NWG or new world government , since it would seem to need a broader authority than general peacemaking. Lots more people dying of other causes than wars. For example, the starving Ethiopians, the Street kids of Brazil and those living on the Mexico city dump, polio, Sars, Aids, and possibly bird flu. The last 4 can grow into worldwide problems and the NWG could perhaps work out what each Nation could contribute to fix it. In some cases a national quarantine or travel ban may be required and no present organization I know of could demand that everyone would enforce it. The NWG could perhaps enforce such a ban. Now with the Web available the members dont have to meet in a single place. But what is needed is access to all the best studies ,students, professors, and organizations willing to contribute, which would most probably be in the US, A vast Web network that includes any other participating countries. Defining the tasks faced by the NWG will help decide the political structure needed. Do we care that Brazil's forests are disappearing, or that their gold dredges in the rivers are spilling mercury? Would such a NWG usurp the authority assumed by various organizations such as the RC or the CDC to the extent that they would not give up power or refuse to cooperate? I think that could be a problem area, as it not "natural" to give up hard won power to others. The NWG would basically be an organization directing other organizations. Perhaps with the assistance of NATO if war is involved. But enough for now, just some ideas floating around Sig

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124341)	2/5/2004 6:00:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

It might be easier to set up a new organization, than to try and make the above changes in the UN. At least some of your comments here I can agree with.. Now, the next step is, they keep talking. Endless talking is better than endless killing. Would agree on a moral basis, except when they are endlessly talking about a regime that is endlessly killing, and planning on endlessly killing people OUTSIDE of its borders. (Israel is an obvious prime example of such a target). 3. have a dedicated military force, that answers to the Security Council (a few of our mothballed Tridents?) And undermine the soveriegnty of, or to even possibly use against, its very members? That's going to be a tough sell.. 4. have administrative control in the hands of those who pay the bills That would effectively leave the UN as an extension of the US, since we pay most of the bills of the UN. Hawk

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (124341)	2/5/2004 7:07:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

Re: UN - In order to function as a World Government, it would have to: 1. expel all nations that are violating the UN Charter. If they are expelled then are they independent of the "world government"? Or are they just vassal states of the UN, subject to its control but not able to take part in the decision making. 3. have a dedicated military force, that answers to the Security Council (a few of our mothballed Tridents?) Would it require the active cooperation of all of the Security Council members to launch the missiles? Also nuclear missiles are mainly useful as a deterent, they can't impose order they can only be used to threaten or destroy. 4. have administrative control in the hands of those who pay the bills What if the ones who pay the bills violate the charter? Tim