bodypilot90 0 #1 December 23, 2004 http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/coon_25_1.htm some scary shit QuoteNot too long ago, I had a brief exchange with a high-ranking United Nations official in New York. I noted the similarity between humanist worldviews and those held within the UN, as expressed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and others. “Of course,” he replied. “We are all humanists here.” And why not? There is a certain symmetry between humanism and the whole idea of global governance, just as there is symmetry between patriotism and national government. Nation-states evolved out of smaller groups when the advantages of aggregation became so compelling that people became willing to subordinate the interests of their own tribe, region, or ethnic group to those of a larger and more inclusive community. Patriotism evolved as the social glue that held the nation’s individual parts together. People didn’t give up the old loyalties entirely; they just superimposed a new set on top of them. At least they did in some nation-states—the ones that are success stories today. In others, internal divisions continually tear the states apart and prevent effective governance. The current era is one in which a host of trends and developments are forcing countries to cooperate on a global basis to cope with problems that are threatening all humanity. The threat of nuclear war and other conflicts in an era when weapons of mass destruction are becoming readily available is one of the more obvious such developments; the nuclear threat is increasingly linked to the parallel migraine of international terrorism. Growing migration and refugee problems are another cluster of threats to the stability of nations all over the world. And then, of course, there are the problems of overpopulation and the increasingly adverse impact of human activity on the environment, threatening the very water we drink and the air we breathe, not to mention the survival of most other life-forms. Economic globalization, meanwhile, holds out the prospect of an enormous increase in material welfare, but for whom? All these issues require international cooperation, and many of them can be approached effectively only if the cooperation is global. The time has come for permanent global institutions and mechanisms that can address these problems systemically, rather than by piecemeal and in fits and starts. Old-fashioned treaties don’t meet the need. We are headed, whether we like it of not, for a stronger UN. But a newly empowered international authority can work efficiently and democratically only if people are persuaded that significant elements of national authority have to be given over to the new body. We have to give up the “them” part of the “us versus them” attitude that underlies national patriotism. We can keep the “us” and continue to root for the traditional home team, but we have to be ready to acknowledge a higher, supranational authority, and this can only come when we get rid of our atavistic hostility toward “foreigners.” more in the article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #2 December 23, 2004 I don't see that as scary at all, but rather inevitable if we are to ever have a peaceful world community. What I think is scary is the extent to which some people/ nations resist the prospect of a peaceful world.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #3 December 23, 2004 QuoteI don't see that as scary at all, but rather inevitable if we are to ever have a peaceful world community. What I think is scary is the extent to which some people/ nations resist the prospect of a peaceful world. you want the same group the ran the oil for kickback scam to run the world........that IS scary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #4 December 23, 2004 Quote you want the same group the ran the oil for kickback scam to run the world........that IS scary Who do you want to run the world? The group that broke into the Watergate? Or... the group that got sucked off in the Oval Office? Maybe the group that tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib , or the group that's accused of doing the same in Guantanamo? Every group, no matter how noble its intentions, will have dark spots. It's best not to judge the whole by the actions of a few. Personally, I find the idea of humanism far more appealing than the alternative. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #5 December 23, 2004 the Un is at best ineffective and at worse it is ectreemly corrupt and antiamerican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 December 23, 2004 QuoteI don't see that as scary at all, but rather inevitable if we are to ever have a peaceful world community. What I think is scary is the extent to which some people/ nations resist the prospect of a peaceful world. Something the UN has been wholly ineffectual at. Peace at any cost is not peace, nor is it worth it. Only 60 years ago was that tried, only to have the entire world plunged into war, taking millions of lives. It was also tried on a smaller scale over the past 12 years or so, only to cost the US thousands of lives, an emboldened, elusive enemy and ultimately 9/11. Continuing on a more regional scale, we've seen the UN fail in the Balkans, Rwanda and right now, Sudan...combined totalling at lease 2,000,000 lives. The only thing which will really bring this world closer to a "world governing body" with real power would be something like an invasion by aliens or something. Even then, there won't be unity.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #7 December 23, 2004 Quoteyou want the same group the ran the oil for kickback scam to run the world........that IS scary. No, I want a just international organization that operates for the benefit of Earth and Mankind, and not for the benefit of America's, or any other single country's, national interest. If we can't promote a responsible foreign policy that does not unfairly exploit poor nations, then, yes, there needs to be an international authority to keep us in check. If we were really for the promotion of Democracy (used here in the most positive sense of the word) and human rights around the globe, then it should be a non-issue. Quote"That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned: That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; That until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will; Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil." --H.I.M. Haile Selassie I, Speech to the U.N; NYC, NY, October 4, 1963 Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #8 December 23, 2004 Quote, I want a just international organization that operates for the benefit of Earth and Mankind, and not for the benefit of America's, or any other single country's, national interest. If we can't promote a responsible foreign policy that does not unfairly exploit poor nations, then, yes, there needs to be an international authority to keep us in check. then move to your own island and hum we are the world. The US is trying to spread Democracy. Others are getting in the way, such as the UN QuoteIf we were really for the promotion of Democracy (used here in the most positive sense of the word) and human rights around the globe, then it should be a non-issue. I believe what you really want is world socialism. NO thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #9 December 23, 2004 QuoteThe US is trying to spread Democracy. How is that? By invading Iraq instead of listening to the majority of U.S. citizens, who were against the invasion? Or by invading Iraq against the wishes of the majority of the World's population? Or invading Iraq against the wishes of the U.N.? Or- I could go on, but if you don't understand yet, you likely never will, so any attempt to explain it will be futile, like trying to explain to a whuffo why one would jump from an in flight aircraft for fun.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #10 December 23, 2004 looks like Kofi Annan's team is jumping ship http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,142420,00.html QuoteUNITED NATIONS — U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's top advisor is leaving his job at the world body just before the release of a report into the troubled Oil-for-Food program. ....... Riza is considered a forceful defender of the United Nations and has been Annan’s closest high-level aide. He reportedly has urged Annan not to share with Congress documents about Oil-for-Food that lawmakers have asking for. wonder how many other "rats" will jump ship before it sinks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #11 December 23, 2004 This UN? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.htmlI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #12 December 23, 2004 well, maybe some of this is inevitable...In Star Trek, don't they all belong to the United Federation of Planets?? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #13 December 23, 2004 na the klingons or is it the clintonites, belong to something else? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #14 December 23, 2004 where is their outrage? hmmmm? really this deserves it's own thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #15 December 24, 2004 Quote where is their outrage? hmmmm? It is wrong, absolutely. It is not representative of the motives of the UN, any more than Shrub's actions are representative of all America.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #16 December 25, 2004 Quote Personally, I find the idea of humanism far more appealing than the alternative. _Am What exactly are the alternatives?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #17 December 26, 2004 QuoteIt is wrong, absolutely. It is not representative of the motives of the UN, any more than Shrub's actions are representative of all America. but where is the outrage the call for a investigation? Demand to see the photo's???????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #18 December 27, 2004 QuoteI don't see that as scary at all, but rather inevitable if we are to ever have a peaceful world community. What I think is scary is the extent to which some people/ nations resist the prospect of a peaceful world. Yes, we have seen how much good the UN does... Israel was a great idea that worked out great. Oil for food was a wonderful thing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #19 December 30, 2004 QuoteIsrael was a great idea that worked out great. hmmm, considering the neighborhood, i think its doing ok... not that the UN and israel are exactly "best friends"... O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #20 December 30, 2004 Quotehmmm, considering the neighborhood, i think its doing ok... not that the UN and israel are exactly "best friends"... The creation of an Israeli state by forcing it on the local population given the religious conflict was not a good idea."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #21 December 30, 2004 QuoteThe creation of an Israeli state by forcing it on the local population given the religious conflict was not a good idea. the "local population" was both arabs and jewish. both saw the same small piece of land as their home land. the UN plan was to divide this small piece of land between them based on regional majority at the time. i'm sure you know who accepted it and who started a war (and lost). was it a perfect plan? no. but i dont see a better alternative. and i dont see it as a religious conflict at all. its a conflict of culture but mostly of land. some people try to make it a religious conflict because you have more strength when you have 1 billion muslims on your side. and that is exactly why israrl is getting all the heat from the UN, you can't win when so many are against you by definition. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
