Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Thinking Globally › Defund the UN
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Defund the UN (Read 1573 times)
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 46342
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #45 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 12:10pm  
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:48am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:46am:
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:16am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:14am:
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:07am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:39am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:14am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 9:39am:
Frank wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 12:44pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:11am:
Frank wrote on Mar 30th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) unanimously appointed Saudi Arabia to chair its 69th session in 2025, according to the Saudi Arabia Mission to the UN. Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdulaziz Alwasil, was elected as chair Wednesday.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/28/middleeast/saudi-arabia-chair-un-gender-equal...

The UN is a scam and a sham.


All previously explained to you (and graps), lizard brain.

Anyone for effective  international law which can defend the principles of the UNUDHR?

No? Lizard brain says no?


How would the UN achieve consensus if the member states -  are there allowed to be member states? - cannot express by a vote, their preferences for this or that political direction?


The necessity is for the UNSC (noting policies presented  by the UNGA) to achieve consensus in the same way a High Court achieves 'consensus' in a nationl polity, ie by a majority vote of the justices.   

Quote:
Are member states sovereign - the national equivalent of individuality -


No - and for the same reason that individuals cannot be sovereign under rule of law, if we wish to avoid chaos. 

"Absolute national sovereignty" belongs to the Dark Ages and 'might is right'.


Quote:
or are they all coming with the obligation to toe the Chinese Communist Party line collectively,


No, they are coming with the obligation to submit to rule of law promoting the  UNUDHR,  as determined by an ICJ backed by an UNSC without veto. 

As opposed to lizard brains  demanding personal sovereignty.


Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You love abstract humanity - it's actual individuals you hate.
Love humanity - hate people.


Certainly I detest some people, as you do....

And humanity is the total of individuals...

Anyone for rule of law, to avoid standing-by when Palestinians en masse starve to death, among other 'human' lizard- brain-caused catastrophes? 





What did the CCP do while 50 million of it's own citizens were starving to death?

Oh, that was just an administrative error. The paperwork got a bit muddled. Couldn't be helped in a country of illiterate peasants. 
But now it's glorious Xi Pingpong Thought all the way to common prosperity and consensus (if you know what's good for you) through printing money by the glorious government everybody loves (or else...).

Oh - and refuted above. Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



Thanks Frank.

What did the CCP do while a deadly and highly contagious new virus was emerging China in the lead-up to Chinese new year, when the citizens traditionally travel a lot?

Welded them into their flats for common prosperity, of course. Everybody agreed.  They were begging for it, 'comrade Xi, weld us in, weld us in',  they demanded. What else could a meritocratic common prosperity government do but act on the common will? What would YOU have done, lizzard brain? Not weld them in, just to spite the collective and to satisfy your individual rights delusion? Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


I would have covered it up until after Chinese new year, so I could weld even more Chinese people into common meritocratic prosperity.



Well, you made an administrative error, didn't you? Foxed by the paperwork, eh? Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12952
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #46 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:05pm  
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:05am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:39am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:14am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 9:39am:
Frank wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 12:44pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:11am:
Frank wrote on Mar 30th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) unanimously appointed Saudi Arabia to chair its 69th session in 2025, according to the Saudi Arabia Mission to the UN. Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdulaziz Alwasil, was elected as chair Wednesday.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/28/middleeast/saudi-arabia-chair-un-gender-equal...

The UN is a scam and a sham.


All previously explained to you (and graps), lizard brain.

Anyone for effective  international law which can defend the principles of the UNUDHR?

No? Lizard brain says no?


How would the UN achieve consensus if the member states -  are there allowed to be member states? - cannot express by a vote, their preferences for this or that political direction?


The necessity is for the UNSC (noting policies presented  by the UNGA) to achieve consensus in the same way a High Court achieves 'consensus' in a nationl polity, ie by a majority vote of the justices.   

Quote:
Are member states sovereign - the national equivalent of individuality -


No - and for the same reason that individuals cannot be sovereign under rule of law, if we wish to avoid chaos. 

"Absolute national sovereignty" belongs to the Dark Ages and 'might is right'.


Quote:
or are they all coming with the obligation to toe the Chinese Communist Party line collectively,


No, they are coming with the obligation to submit to rule of law promoting the  UNUDHR,  as determined by an ICJ backed by an UNSC without veto. 

As opposed to lizard brains  demanding personal sovereignty.


Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You love abstract humanity - it's actual individuals you hate.
Love humanity - hate people.


Certainly I detest some people, as you do....

And humanity is the total of individuals...

Anyone for rule of law, to avoid standing-by when Palestinians en masse starve to death, among other 'human' lizard- brain-caused catastrophes? 

Hamas leaders in Qatar are not starving. Far from it.


So? Neither are you; your classic fallacy of composition, again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12952
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #47 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:08pm  
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:07am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:39am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:14am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 9:39am:
Frank wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 12:44pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:11am:
Frank wrote on Mar 30th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) unanimously appointed Saudi Arabia to chair its 69th session in 2025, according to the Saudi Arabia Mission to the UN. Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdulaziz Alwasil, was elected as chair Wednesday.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/28/middleeast/saudi-arabia-chair-un-gender-equal...

The UN is a scam and a sham.


All previously explained to you (and graps), lizard brain.

Anyone for effective  international law which can defend the principles of the UNUDHR?

No? Lizard brain says no?


How would the UN achieve consensus if the member states -  are there allowed to be member states? - cannot express by a vote, their preferences for this or that political direction?


The necessity is for the UNSC (noting policies presented  by the UNGA) to achieve consensus in the same way a High Court achieves 'consensus' in a nationl polity, ie by a majority vote of the justices.   

Quote:
Are member states sovereign - the national equivalent of individuality -


No - and for the same reason that individuals cannot be sovereign under rule of law, if we wish to avoid chaos. 

"Absolute national sovereignty" belongs to the Dark Ages and 'might is right'.


Quote:
or are they all coming with the obligation to toe the Chinese Communist Party line collectively,


No, they are coming with the obligation to submit to rule of law promoting the  UNUDHR,  as determined by an ICJ backed by an UNSC without veto. 

As opposed to lizard brains  demanding personal sovereignty.


Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You love abstract humanity - it's actual individuals you hate.
Love humanity - hate people.


Certainly I detest some people, as you do....

And humanity is the total of individuals...

Anyone for rule of law, to avoid standing-by when Palestinians en masse starve to death, among other 'human' lizard- brain-caused catastrophes? 


What did the CCP do while 50 million of it's own citizens were starving to death?


They changed course, to eradicate poverty at the fastest rate of any nation in history. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12952
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #48 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:14pm  
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:14am:
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:07am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:39am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:14am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 9:39am:
Frank wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 12:44pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:11am:
Frank wrote on Mar 30th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) unanimously appointed Saudi Arabia to chair its 69th session in 2025, according to the Saudi Arabia Mission to the UN. Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdulaziz Alwasil, was elected as chair Wednesday.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/28/middleeast/saudi-arabia-chair-un-gender-equal...

The UN is a scam and a sham.


All previously explained to you (and graps), lizard brain.

Anyone for effective  international law which can defend the principles of the UNUDHR?

No? Lizard brain says no?


How would the UN achieve consensus if the member states -  are there allowed to be member states? - cannot express by a vote, their preferences for this or that political direction?


The necessity is for the UNSC (noting policies presented  by the UNGA) to achieve consensus in the same way a High Court achieves 'consensus' in a nationl polity, ie by a majority vote of the justices.   

Quote:
Are member states sovereign - the national equivalent of individuality -


No - and for the same reason that individuals cannot be sovereign under rule of law, if we wish to avoid chaos. 

"Absolute national sovereignty" belongs to the Dark Ages and 'might is right'.


Quote:
or are they all coming with the obligation to toe the Chinese Communist Party line collectively,


No, they are coming with the obligation to submit to rule of law promoting the  UNUDHR,  as determined by an ICJ backed by an UNSC without veto. 

As opposed to lizard brains  demanding personal sovereignty.


Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You love abstract humanity - it's actual individuals you hate.
Love humanity - hate people.


Certainly I detest some people, as you do....

And humanity is the total of individuals...

Anyone for rule of law, to avoid standing-by when Palestinians en masse starve to death, among other 'human' lizard- brain-caused catastrophes? 





What did the CCP do while 50 million of it's own citizens were starving to death?


Oh, that was just an administrative error. The paperwork got a bit muddled. Couldn't be helped in a country of illiterate peasants. 
But now it's glorious Xi Pingpong Thought all the way to common prosperity and consensus (if you know what's good for you) through printing money by the glorious government everybody loves (or else...).

Oh - and refuted above. Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Thanks Frank,  you appear to be learning (but why am I doubtful...)

Of course common prosperity is good for everyone, as opposed to the prosperity of the most competitive individuals. 

Don't get confused by your classic fallacy of composition again, each is not everyone.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12952
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #49 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:19pm  
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:16am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:14am:
freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:07am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:39am:
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 10:14am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 9:39am:
Frank wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 12:44pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:11am:
Frank wrote on Mar 30th, 2024 at 4:43pm:
The UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) unanimously appointed Saudi Arabia to chair its 69th session in 2025, according to the Saudi Arabia Mission to the UN. Saudi ambassador to the UN, Abdulaziz Alwasil, was elected as chair Wednesday.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/28/middleeast/saudi-arabia-chair-un-gender-equal...

The UN is a scam and a sham.


All previously explained to you (and graps), lizard brain.

Anyone for effective  international law which can defend the principles of the UNUDHR?

No? Lizard brain says no?


How would the UN achieve consensus if the member states -  are there allowed to be member states? - cannot express by a vote, their preferences for this or that political direction?


The necessity is for the UNSC (noting policies presented  by the UNGA) to achieve consensus in the same way a High Court achieves 'consensus' in a nationl polity, ie by a majority vote of the justices.   

Quote:
Are member states sovereign - the national equivalent of individuality -


No - and for the same reason that individuals cannot be sovereign under rule of law, if we wish to avoid chaos. 

"Absolute national sovereignty" belongs to the Dark Ages and 'might is right'.


Quote:
or are they all coming with the obligation to toe the Chinese Communist Party line collectively,


No, they are coming with the obligation to submit to rule of law promoting the  UNUDHR,  as determined by an ICJ backed by an UNSC without veto. 

As opposed to lizard brains  demanding personal sovereignty.


Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You love abstract humanity - it's actual individuals you hate.
Love humanity - hate people.


Certainly I detest some people, as you do....

And humanity is the total of individuals...

Anyone for rule of law, to avoid standing-by when Palestinians en masse starve to death, among other 'human' lizard- brain-caused catastrophes? 





What did the CCP do while 50 million of it's own citizens were starving to death?

Oh, that was just an administrative error. The paperwork got a bit muddled. Couldn't be helped in a country of illiterate peasants. 
But now it's glorious Xi Pingpong Thought all the way to common prosperity and consensus (if you know what's good for you) through printing money by the glorious government everybody loves (or else...).

Oh - and refuted above. Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes



Thanks Frank.

What did the CCP do while a deadly and highly contagious new virus was emerging China in the lead-up to Chinese new year, when the citizens traditionally travel a lot?


Gosh, Frank is copping a lot of praise.....Smiley

Answer: they tried to hide it until it couldn't be hidden, just like the CIA wants to hide US war crimes, even after the crimes were exposed.....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12952
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #50 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:32pm  
Jasin wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:41am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:45am:
Jasin wrote on Mar 31st, 2024 at 11:33am:
Better a faulty UN than no UN at all.


Yes; but can we create a 'new, improved' UN, so we can avoid being forced to watch a million Palestinians starve to death, among other catastrophes? 


The 'rot' began when the UN allowed the BIG BULLIES like Russia, China & USA to start throwing their weight around with more bias towards their own agenda.
In other words - the UN has become a 'power-play' entity and a strict equality regardless, was thrown out the window.


Yes, former Oz High Court judge 'Doc' Evatt fought like hell to withhold the veto from Russia and the US ( China was a politically powerless minnow at the time, presumably only a member of the new UNSC because it fought Japan in WW2; India was still ruled by Britain in 1946). 

Quote:
Once again, just like the League of Nations - the more Powerful Nations deemed it should be exploited towards them just because they were sitting at the top of the ladder.


Yes.

Quote:
A 'reward' system of capitalism in that the ones at the top get even more than those at the bottom.
Equality is dismantled.


Yes.

Quote:
The current U.N. is too far gone possibly to come back from having been corrupted in this very same way as the LON's.


It's up to us to get rid of the UNSC veto, to reform the UN.

Quote:
The BIG BULLIES now have too much of an exploitive hold to their advantage to give it up under the current representation.
Of course, if the UN did come back from this and put the big players back in their boxes like everyone else - then it might come out better than before.


Yes.

Quote:
Personally, I think the Commonwealth Nations do better than the United Nations as a 'entity' and as France soon fails  with Italy after and even Russia for the East. I see the prevailing Commonwealth getting better and stronger each time... so much so, even the USA finally wakes up to itself and joins as well.  Wink The 'real' New World Order. Wink Grin


But only applying to Commonwealth Nations?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 12952
Gender: male
Re: Defund the UN
Reply #51 - Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:47pm  
Frank wrote on Apr 1st, 2024 at 11:46am:
Welded them into their flats for common prosperity, of course.


Faced with maintaining the health of  1.5 billion people, many living in big cites...

Quote:
  Everybody agreed. 


No they didn't; and even in Oz, there were plenty of 'sovereign individual' goons who fought the police in their silly protests. 

Quote:
What else could a meritocratic common prosperity government do but act on the common will?
 
In a pandemic, all MUST submit to rule of law, to avoid decimation of the population.  

Quote:
What would YOU have done, lizzard brain? Not weld them in, just to spite the collective and to satisfy your individual rights delusion? Tsk, tsk  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


I would have required all non-essential workers to stay home during the pandemic, with essential living expenses paid for by the currency-issuing government.

And enforcing vaccine mandates when vaxccines became available.

Sounds similar to Oz, actually. 

[I'm not sure if the CCP paid adequate living expenses of locked-down workers].

So back to it, how will you reform the UN to outlaw war, as part of manifesting a "right to life"?




Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 1st, 2024 at 1:52pm by thegreatdivide »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge