|
Post by KidCharlemagne on Jan 14, 2006 21:23:15 GMT -5
In regards to the United Nations, I think that, used properly, it could provide an excellant break on the cycle of one superpower being challenged violently by another and so on. For example, the Spanish Empire and the Catholic hemogeny in the meditteranean was challenged by the Protestant trading powers of England and Holland, and the centralised absolutism of France in the 1600s and 1700s, with the UK rising as the dominant power in the 1800s. Britain, however, found itself superceded by the industrial-military complexes of Germany, the US and later the Soviet Union. America, of course, is now the dominant power in the world. So now we can see challenges from elsewhere to American power. China is always mentioned, along with India, because of its population. The middle east could be a potential sticking point here, with wrangling over oil supplies already beginning. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4121830.stmnews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4191683.stmSo this is where the UN could be useful in arbitrating between global superpowers to ensure this cycle is broken. In regards to the apocalypse, I agree, Shypsychologyguy, that the world has only a few decades left, but for quite different reasons www.oilcrisis.com/
|
|
|
Post by audioalone on Oct 24, 2007 15:24:02 GMT -5
...it is a failure. I say that because when you put representatives of nations with differing beliefs/ideologies, etc., how can it work? It is to say the least "a joke", but more of a tragedy than a comedy. Some have been of the opinion that there must be world rule - one leader leading the whole world. One example of that is coming - in the short-term - the European Union. It will unite 10 nations or 10 groups of nations using the glue of Roman Catholicism. Some will think it is Paradise, the Kingdom of God. It is not, however, what everyone will think of it. It will only last for a short time though. Pope Benedict XVI is very active to see that Christianity - well, Catholicism - plays a very huge part in the European Union's Constitution, etc. I'm not sure who the next leader in the European Union is going to be, but some are thinking Edmund Stoiber, hailing from Bavaria, might be a distinct possibility. If anyone is interested in these things, I advise: Watch Europe. Watch Edmund Stoiber. How does old Audio feel about the above? I will be glad when it is all over. Because the European Union under the next leader (perhaps Edmund Stoiber) will not be pleasant, to say the least. For more information there are lots of online news sources, but one I would recommend for this here is: www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?search=edmund&stoiber(The above news source is non-profit)
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Oct 24, 2007 23:40:28 GMT -5
As long as the UN doesn't get any real political or civil power, i have no real problem with them. It's okay to have an avenue of international interaction between all the countries on Earth, getting together to bitch and moan about their problems they have no actual interest in solving. That being said, the day UN soldiers march down my road with their little cap pistols and megaphones is the day i rebel and stock up on gasoline and ammunition for the next ten years.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Dec 5, 2008 8:04:38 GMT -5
is it more or less a common opinion that UN doesn't really matter? Could you elaborate? I know there were a scandal with the 'food for oil' program because of it's corruption & bribing - supporting the former Iraq regime with food for oil programm..
|
|