A democratic United Nations?

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

I was going to get a cello but I think I'll go with a saxophone instead..

the first minute or two is awesome. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz6cCVGURQE&feature=related

 

The history of Rome was a society like no other. We are all part of the Roman conflict. Some how during the fall of Rome, every one of us in the great world of our survived the fall of Rome, the 700 years of complete destruction of society, infrastructures, library's from 2000 years of history and we all were either part of the rise of Christianity, survived Paganism in some parts of the world or became part of the last religion that followed in fear of Christianity, Islam. Although many great people have been part of the Islamic history, the greatest portion of Islam that still survives today is the reason it was established, to counter the fear of Christianity during the fall of the Roman empire in the East. Islam took 2000 years of history and destroyed it and has yet to advance its own people out of the dark ages and uses this as a motivation for destruction of Christianity. As Christianity moved forward in the West, Islam slowly declined until all it had left was to fight for land and take over Christianity and its money, power and strong following of Christians world wide. The history of Rome ended at the beginning of the rise of Islam and Christianity. Both religions believe in God therefore every soul believing in God has the possibility of being saved. The error in judgement is not on the people but on the false prophet. I have read about how a false prophet will rise and millions will follow this great leader. They will truly believe he is the leader or prophet of his people. Because Islam use's Sex to gain young mens souls to die for God, Because Islam use's fighting to convert instead of love and because Islam has a leader without a face because of the fear of looking into the eye's of a false prophet or that the man was just a man who used the poor people of the day to motivate them to steal the riches of Christianity and the fall of Rome. The false prophet is Islam and the leader of Islam. The Billions that follow the war, the 72 women that will be at the end of young men's suicide deaths is so easy to see it is false. Everyone I have ever talked to has admitted it can not be. So if it can't be that millions will die for a lie then how can the religion that believes illiteracy and only knowledge of the Koran is a good thing. How can Women be bound to home and hide be a blessing of God. Because of his own inability to control him self, covering women helped him succeed to be a better person. I have met many good Muslims yet never have I met a Muslim that truly has seen the light of day or the blessings of God.

American Common Defence Review (my blog) http://americancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/ My lawsuit against the United States and the United Nations is for the right to "openly" keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I have added the United Nations as Lead Defendant in my lawsuit because the the U.N.'s global gun control agenda and the "right to life" provisions of several international human rights conventions and declarations. I also have a complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC. To read all about my case just go to my blog above and download court documents in PDF format.

The world is more democratic than ever before. I believe it's time for the United Nations to reflect this change. It makes no sense that certain nations (France, US, etc) have an inordinate degree of power via the Security Council, yet nations like India and Mexico have no such position. Here's my proposal for reform: http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org I would be interest in any feedback... gary Message was edited by: garydstark

I'm working with KDUN (www.uno-komitee.de) campaigner Shimri Zameret to find suitable contacts to support the campaign in the UK. So far NGO support has been difficult to find and I'm appealing to anyone involved in the movement, in the UK, to get in touch with me who might be able to help. I'm looking for: - who's involved (NGO and non-NGO) in the campaign for a democratic UN / formation of world parliamentary assembly, the UK - who's leading on what - possible future action Any info would be useful. With thanks, Hilary Thorndike

Since there will pass two years soon when very diplomatic announcement appeared on the website http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/comments.asp: "The discussion board and submitted papers will be available online shortly", as somewhat impatient I decided to post two my then entries from that website on your one. I hope as well that encourages its moderator to realize his public promise. Andrzej Gliwinski 10/14/2006 I/. 10/30/2004 THE TEMPLE OF PEACE Several remarks on the Charter of United Nations in connection with the provided reform 1. The Charter of United Nations (CUN) as the Constitution of UN is a main source of UN law - its conventions, declarations, resolutions and such like - consequently, the basic active source of the international law.

Yesterday, Koffi Annan presented a 34 page report to the UN General Assembly on the reform of the United Nations Organization administration. One of its most commented suggestions is to delocalize its services, such as documentation, translation, etc. to developing countries. While it will save a few dozen million dollars on UN budget (globally 10 billion), and create some employment opportunities in those countries, will it give them more power of decision within the UN structure ?

Tony Millett and OD readers might like to consider this British Government paper, produced for the United Nations Information Organisation (38 Russell Square) published in early 1945 and then give their evaluation of its importance. You will see from this document that officially and publicly the United Nations was first of all a wartime alliance that set about setting up a postwar organisation to preserve the peace while the war still raged. (Tony Millett's piece is

THE REFORM OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL A CITIZEN’S PROPOSAL After reading last year's Reports of the Secretary General's High-Level Panel, proposals of the Group 4 and "United for the Consensus" grouping, of the African Union and statements of representatives of the American diplomacy I find it is necessary a "golden mean", any compromising solution, especially that Outcome Document of the UN summit on September this year did not contain even the selection of any model of Security Council's reform. Maybe that lack resulted defects both proposals of the Panel with reference to the Security Council, eg. with the even number of members (what with drawn voting -- 12/12?) and the accepting only one rule of "the geographical justice" for the selection new members?

"Security Council reform - expanding the number of members (as called for in Kofi Annan’s high-level panel report), limiting and eventually ending the veto - is useful to a point; but as long as the 1945-era “permanent five” continue to have exclusive, unfettered veto rights, discussion of such reform is more public relations than democratisation. " I understand that when veto wielding states adopt positions contrary to the authors opinion then there is a temptation to demand that the veto be taken from them. The problem is that the veto is not some philosophical mistake made when the UN was founded but rather a tacit acknowledgement that certain states (i.e. the USA) can if baulked by the general assembly decide to unilaterally impose their will through national power.

With all due respect to Dan Plesch, did anyone find his article remotely convincing? Historic references to the "United Nations" are obvious propaganda labels to differentiate the Allies from what would be the "Oppressor" nations. The war was won by the armed forces of the US, UK, and USSR. Which sometimes co-operated. Not by any blue beret multinational force. The war was directed by Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill and their respective staffs. Not by any general assembly of nations, or by any secretary general. Only the US and UK really harmonised their war effort - and even that level of cooperation between two English speaking powers was a strain.

In the wake of the 60th General Assembly of the UN there has been a lot of discussion of UN reform and a central issue in this discourse is reform of the Security Council. I found this article from Global Policy Forum at http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/2005/0713theses.htm to be a good introduction. To surmise, James Paul and Céline Nahory make the case for reform and examine a number of proposals. They argue that expansion of the Security Councils members permanent or otherwise (a much touted reform) will not deliver the on the goals of reform, which they site as: 1) more representative

Quote: "The United Nations is not and should never aspire to be a system of world government." Why not? A democratic government is the only way we know of instituting fair and just law (or some close approximation of it). Isn't it hypocritical for people to support open democracy at the national level, but not at the international one?

David Mepham mentioned that one of the positive outcomes from the United Nations Summit in September 2005 was an agreement on Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which commits the UN to taking action to protect people from such crimes as ethnic cleansing and genocide. In order for this policy to work, it will be necessary to set up ways of identifying and influencing states who are at risk of committing such crimes. The Summit has established the principle that governments have a duty to protect their citizens’ lives and rights, and if they fail to do so, they lose their legitimacy and that the community of nations will take on that protection role even if it means infringing the sovereignty of the state.This is an important and historic step, a change to the doctrine of sovereignty that can be traced back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Ian Williams concludes, "It is up to the member-states and their electorates (those who have them) to decide that the organization is worth fighting for and to collectively resist any attempt by any state or group of states to weaken or subvert it." It is clear that America under the neo-cons has taken on the role of international sociopath, without any regard or feeling for international treaties, international order or international law - strictly excepting those which might work in America's favour. The nations cannot fight America - she would simply go nuclear. The only course left to us, it seems to me, is to use our purchasing power as consumers to hurt America's business, since the business leaders will order a change in US foreign policy as soon as they see their interests under threat.