Int'l politics: Enjoy the U.N. speeches yesterday?

Didn’t want the speeches yesterday, but yes. I believe that the UN is still relevant. Of course, from what I know of it, it probably needs a major overhaul..

@Saturated_Brain How?

How? How is it still relevant? Or how it needs a major overhaul?

If it’s to the first question, then it’s because we do need an international governing organisation. Someone needs to be there to govern the world. Furthermore, the UN does make efforts in helping children the world over and is also doing what it can to help in conflicts in so many different countries. I think that’s extremely commendable.

If it’s to the second question.. Well… Haha… You’ve got me there. The UN is plagued by selfish nations who want to act in their own interests (abuse of veto power cough cough). If there’s a way we can make the UN behave as the ideal of the UN should, then yay to that. Of course, that’s probably just impossible.

So I really love the idea of the UN. Pity it’s flawed. As to whether we can make it really really work… I suppose we’ll always have to strive for improvement.

Would have been laughable were it not so scary. WHY do we tolerate those nutcases?

Well, don’t you think we need a global forum where we meet and discuss issues and make agreements? Even though the US controls much of what goes on in the UN it is very much needed.

There are many forms of multilateral meetings. G8 and G20 are others. Bilateral meetings and agreements are not good in the long run. We need a global meeting place. What the speakers say on the podium is not something that should be controlled or dismissed. It’s a place where all countries can speak up and an important part of democracy and freedom of speech.

Pax Americana doesn’t solve any problems. It’s keeps them muffled or creates new ones. The UN has it’s pro’s and con’s, but we can’t be without a global forum. I do agree that the way UN is constituted is archaic. IMO the Security counsel should be abolished. I see no validity in that some few countries have the right to veto.

Both Netanyahu, Khadaffi, Chavez and Achmedinejad need to be heard, not muffled. To spread democracy is to share democracy. Freedom of speech and global multilateral discussion is fundamental. I don’t see how we can do it otherwise. Do you?

@Noel_S_Leitmotiv: Because if we do not listen to them and give them in a say in what we, collectively, as the world, do, then they find other ways to have a say.

When people feel like they are being oppressed and governments are unresponsive to them, they turn into rebels, freedom fighters, and terrorists. Would you rather listen to Ahmadinejad and Netanyahu on the floor of the UN, or deal with improvised explosives on the streets of New York?

Good point there, improvised explosives on NY streets is unacceptable as it might complicate my commute.

Is it my imagination or are the likes of Khadaffi, Chavez and Achmedinejad loonier and less emotionally mature than dictators past?

@Noel_S_Leitmotiv Chavez and Achmedinejad are not dictators per se. They both represent democracies, although neither Venezuela or Iran really lives up to it.

Yes, per se : /