Total Posts:162|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

UN is a joke / World Justice Organization

Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 3:32:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The UN is a complete joke. They pick and choose what they want to get involved in. And even in the things they get involved in is a laughable.

I think there needs to be a new organization made up of all countries that want to promote and defend basic human rights and freedoms.

All injustices should be stamped out and dealt with.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 7:41:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 3:32:33 AM, Bachatero wrote:
The UN is a complete joke. They pick and choose what they want to get involved in. And even in the things they get involved in is a laughable.

I think there needs to be a new organization made up of all countries that want to promote and defend basic human rights and freedoms.

All injustices should be stamped out and dealt with.

The difference between that organization and UN would be?
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:08:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 7:41:01 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:32:33 AM, Bachatero wrote:
The UN is a complete joke. They pick and choose what they want to get involved in. And even in the things they get involved in is a laughable.

I think there needs to be a new organization made up of all countries that want to promote and defend basic human rights and freedoms.

All injustices should be stamped out and dealt with.

The difference between that organization and UN would be?

Did you miss the "All injustices should / would be stamped out and dealt with" part?

This proposed organization would protect and defend all basic human rights and freedoms and punish people / countries that violate the above.

The UN is politically motivated and is practically worthless.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:08:51 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 7:41:01 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/29/2013 3:32:33 AM, Bachatero wrote:
The UN is a complete joke. They pick and choose what they want to get involved in. And even in the things they get involved in is a laughable.

I think there needs to be a new organization made up of all countries that want to promote and defend basic human rights and freedoms.

All injustices should be stamped out and dealt with.

The difference between that organization and UN would be?

Did you miss the "All injustices should / would be stamped out and dealt with" part?

This proposed organization would protect and defend all basic human rights and freedoms and punish people / countries that violate the above.

The UN is politically motivated and is practically worthless.

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:49:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

Its the UN with +1 in humanitarianism and social justice. Can't be equipped by politicians.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:19:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 9:49:34 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

Its the UN with +1 in humanitarianism and social justice. Can't be equipped by politicians.

The UN will always be "equipped" by politicians. It will always be a political institution that needs to vie with its constituent states for legitimacy and relevancy. Sometimes, the constituents simply will not care what the UN thinks, and then UN will have to be able to enforce its will (success in Kuwait/Iraq, failure in Iraq War).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:38:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Would need a complete overhaul, but i suppose it would be possible...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:41:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Don't pus$y foot around this atrocious issue. We need to DO something. HARDCORE.

A complete revamp of the entire structure is the only option.

The difference is, this time, the structure would be backed by morals.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:42:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:41:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Don't pus$y foot around this atrocious issue. We need to DO something. HARDCORE.

A complete revamp of the entire structure is the only option.

The difference is, this time, the structure would be backed by morals.

If the World can come together to make a functioning UN, the World doesn't need a UN.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:43:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:41:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Don't pus$y foot around this atrocious issue. We need to DO something. HARDCORE.

A complete revamp of the entire structure is the only option.

The difference is, this time, the structure would be backed by morals.

This. Should be all about morals, right & wrong, and principle.

Would / Should have zero to do with anything political.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:45:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Guys lets be real, no organization where contribution and participation are completely voluntary will ever be able to have the power or authority to stamp out every last injustice in the world. For f*cks sake even organizations/governments who have direct control over everything within their borders cant even stamp out every last injustice within their own borders. How in the hell is some voluntary organization supposed to do any better?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:49:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:45:12 AM, imabench wrote:
Guys lets be real, no organization where contribution and participation are completely voluntary will ever be able to have the power or authority to stamp out every last injustice in the world. For f*cks sake even organizations/governments who have direct control over everything within their borders cant even stamp out every last injustice within their own borders. How in the hell is some voluntary organization supposed to do any better?

This.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:50:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:43:53 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:41:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Don't pus$y foot around this atrocious issue. We need to DO something. HARDCORE.

A complete revamp of the entire structure is the only option.

The difference is, this time, the structure would be backed by morals.

This. Should be all about morals, right & wrong, and principle.

Would / Should have zero to do with anything political.

I can already envision a scenario where this organization fails, and fails hard.

Imagine a humanitarian crisis, one generated by politics...say a genocide, or a famine due to lack of logistical support in a country because of the country's prioritization of the military.

This "moral UN" becomes obligated to act. It will involve force of arms, which would be deeply unpopular in any of this "moral UN's" constituents.

The free rider problem kicks in. No one wants to deal with this, so every constituent tries to pass the buck onto someone else. In the end, you will have this basket-case country's neighbors (who actually have stakes in this outcome that have much more to do with morality) sending in a totally inadequate force to deal with this problem. This "moral UN" fails at this moment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:50:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:45:12 AM, imabench wrote:
Guys lets be real, no organization where contribution and participation are completely voluntary will ever be able to have the power or authority to stamp out every last injustice in the world. For f*cks sake even organizations/governments who have direct control over everything within their borders cant even stamp out every last injustice within their own borders. How in the hell is some voluntary organization supposed to do any better?

BECAUSE IT IS BETTAR!
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 10:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:50:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:45:12 AM, imabench wrote:
Guys lets be real, no organization where contribution and participation are completely voluntary will ever be able to have the power or authority to stamp out every last injustice in the world. For f*cks sake even organizations/governments who have direct control over everything within their borders cant even stamp out every last injustice within their own borders. How in the hell is some voluntary organization supposed to do any better?

BECAUSE IT IS BETTAR!

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net...
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:07:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:50:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I can already envision a scenario where this organization fails, and fails hard.

Imagine a humanitarian crisis, one generated by politics...say a genocide, or a famine due to lack of logistical support in a country because of the country's prioritization of the military.

This "moral UN" becomes obligated to act. It will involve force of arms, which would be deeply unpopular in any of this "moral UN's" constituents.

The free rider problem kicks in. No one wants to deal with this, so every constituent tries to pass the buck onto someone else. In the end, you will have this basket-case country's neighbors (who actually have stakes in this outcome that have much more to do with morality) sending in a totally inadequate force to deal with this problem. This "moral UN" fails at this moment.

Um im not sure you understand what im talking about. There is no "picking and choosing" who deals with issues. All members have personnel in this organization. There is no, well I dont want to get involved or other political bs.

The force wouldnt be inadequate. Furthermore, once people and countries knew that this organization unlike the UN is no joke and will act they will not be so quick to do these "immoral" things. As it would be a death / life in jail sentence.
Misterscruffles
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:11:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:38:56 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Would need a complete overhaul, but i suppose it would be possible...

How? A polished turd is still a turd.
Niao! =^.^=
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:23:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 10:50:10 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:43:53 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:41:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:20:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 10:16:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:59:08 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:55:22 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:37:29 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/29/2013 9:03:39 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 8:20:56 AM, Cermank wrote:

Alright. So to overcome the evils of UN, you propose a independent organization with all the countries as its members who'd NOT forward their political ambitions and instead work for social justice. And equality. Gotcha.

This wouldnt be about any political gain. Simply be a hybrid international police force / humanitarian organization.

So, you propose to replace the UN with the UN. ONLY BETTAR.

UN fails at its job. So it wouldnt be the UN.

He means you would replace the UN with something that sounds exactly like the UN.

ONLY BETTAR!

Why not improve the existing UN? Lol.

Don't pus$y foot around this atrocious issue. We need to DO something. HARDCORE.

A complete revamp of the entire structure is the only option.

The difference is, this time, the structure would be backed by morals.

This. Should be all about morals, right & wrong, and principle.

Would / Should have zero to do with anything political.

I can already envision a scenario where this organization fails, and fails hard.

Imagine a humanitarian crisis, one generated by politics...say a genocide, or a famine due to lack of logistical support in a country because of the country's prioritization of the military.

This "moral UN" becomes obligated to act. It will involve force of arms, which would be deeply unpopular in any of this "moral UN's" constituents.

The free rider problem kicks in. No one wants to deal with this, so every constituent tries to pass the buck onto someone else. In the end, you will have this basket-case country's neighbors (who actually have stakes in this outcome that have much more to do with morality) sending in a totally inadequate force to deal with this problem. This "moral UN" fails at this moment.

Plus, the assumption here is, there is one solution to any crises that is 'obvious' but no one works on it because of the corrupt anti moral brigade. It doesn't work that way. Take the case of a famine, for example. There are a multitude of solutions, with their specific pros and cons. Transportingfree food can depress local markets, transporting food for money can be costly- both socially and economically. Then there are different cultural and domestic reactions to be taken care of. Even disregarding the political compulsions of the donor country, there are a myriad of actions that can be taken, and a myriad of potential results. There is no ONE solution that has to be taken but is not.

So morality doesn't enter the discussion because it is subjective. And the decisions in International aena are made on subjective value judgements of different players. Getting a moral UN is void of any practical consideration.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:29:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:23:59 AM, Cermank wrote:

Plus, the assumption here is, there is one solution to any crises that is 'obvious' but no one works on it because of the corrupt anti moral brigade. It doesn't work that way. Take the case of a famine, for example. There are a multitude of solutions, with their specific pros and cons. Transportingfree food can depress local markets, transporting food for money can be costly- both socially and economically. Then there are different cultural and domestic reactions to be taken care of. Even disregarding the political compulsions of the donor country, there are a myriad of actions that can be taken, and a myriad of potential results. There is no ONE solution that has to be taken but is not.

So morality doesn't enter the discussion because it is subjective. And the decisions in International aena are made on subjective value judgements of different players. Getting a moral UN is void of any practical consideration.

Obviously you pick out the best solution for the people / country your helping.

The main point is your solving the problem or acting on the problem.
Misterscruffles
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:34:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:29:09 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 11:23:59 AM, Cermank wrote:

Plus, the assumption here is, there is one solution to any crises that is 'obvious' but no one works on it because of the corrupt anti moral brigade. It doesn't work that way. Take the case of a famine, for example. There are a multitude of solutions, with their specific pros and cons. Transportingfree food can depress local markets, transporting food for money can be costly- both socially and economically. Then there are different cultural and domestic reactions to be taken care of. Even disregarding the political compulsions of the donor country, there are a myriad of actions that can be taken, and a myriad of potential results. There is no ONE solution that has to be taken but is not.

So morality doesn't enter the discussion because it is subjective. And the decisions in International aena are made on subjective value judgements of different players. Getting a moral UN is void of any practical consideration.

Obviously you pick out the best solution for the people / country your helping.

The main point is your solving the problem or acting on the problem.

There's almost never a "best solution".
Niao! =^.^=
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:34:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:29:09 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 11:23:59 AM, Cermank wrote:

Plus, the assumption here is, there is one solution to any crises that is 'obvious' but no one works on it because of the corrupt anti moral brigade. It doesn't work that way. Take the case of a famine, for example. There are a multitude of solutions, with their specific pros and cons. Transportingfree food can depress local markets, transporting food for money can be costly- both socially and economically. Then there are different cultural and domestic reactions to be taken care of. Even disregarding the political compulsions of the donor country, there are a myriad of actions that can be taken, and a myriad of potential results. There is no ONE solution that has to be taken but is not.

So morality doesn't enter the discussion because it is subjective. And the decisions in International aena are made on subjective value judgements of different players. Getting a moral UN is void of any practical consideration.

Obviously you pick out the best solution for the people / country your helping.

The main point is your solving the problem or acting on the problem.

There IS no best solution. There are *potential solutions that you chose from, based on the legal/ economic/ political constraints. Are you saying we need to do away with the political constraints of the donor country ?

UN acts on the problem.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:40:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:34:45 AM, Cermank wrote:


There IS no best solution. There are *potential solutions that you chose from, based on the legal/ economic/ political constraints. Are you saying we need to do away with the political constraints of the donor country ?

UN acts on the problem.

Your nit-picking and missing the big picture.

You pick a solution that will cost the least amount of money and lives. Its not rocket science.

The point is, the problem being fixed.

The UN acts on a very small number of issues and even when it acts it is still a joke.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 11:52:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 11:40:59 AM, Bachatero wrote:
At 3/29/2013 11:34:45 AM, Cermank wrote:


There IS no best solution. There are *potential solutions that you chose from, based on the legal/ economic/ political constraints. Are you saying we need to do away with the political constraints of the donor country ?

UN acts on the problem.

Your nit-picking and missing the big picture.

You pick a solution that will cost the least amount of money and lives. Its not rocket science.

It actually is. There's no saying that the solution picked would actually work in the way the members envisioned. They work on a dynamic space.

is, the problem being fixed.

This is not maths. 1 + 1 here isn't always equal to 2.

The UN acts on a very small number of issues and even when it acts it is still a joke.

Okay. Kashmir issue. Israel Palestine. Go. Tell me the solution you see fit, solution that UN should have imposed that would have worked. Was it not for the anti moral countries.

There is a mechanism for forwarding issues that are to be deliberates upon in the General Assembly ( usually, except when its an emergency, then its discussed in the Security Council). A due procedure. What do you suggest it be replaced with?