If you were president, or prime minister, or warlord, or whatever Options

[Rane]

If I were president, my country would be completely and utterly screwed.

The end.

[Channler]

Channler: Your policies seem extremely right wing and I can't help noticing that you are concerned about high unemployment. Right wing governments increase unemployment and left wing governments decrease unemployment, even in your policies I can see some which will increase unemployment.

I would also pull out of the UN. What it was created for is great, what it actually does isn't so great. First, nobody respects the UN because it's a joke.

Bush went against the UN, nothing happened.

Hussein violated tons of UN resolutions; Bush happened.

Did the UN do anything? Nope. I think that the UN should have some sort of power so that people like Bush don't go rogue and ruin a country.

The UN does extremely good work inspite of the US. If the UN hadn't been there then Hussein wouldn't have been held accountable for anything and invading Iraq would have resulted in a nuclear bomb being dropped on the invading forces. You want power taken away from voters and given to a cooperative of governments? Its not the UN's fault that the US voters don't hold their government accountable for breaches of common sense and good grace.

I know my policies seem far right, however I do believe in restricting big business, and I for major national works projects.. Something that Roosevelt did. (he was a democrat, but a 1940 liberal = a modern day conservative) I believe in personal responsibility and the value of hard work above all.

The only thing I will say about the UN is that it has been proven to be corrupt (all governments are corrupt) and weak on the enforcement policies. How comes the UN isn't stepping in Darfur? Wait.. Because China has business there so they'll veto anything! Sounds like its pointless to be apart of an organization that cannot do anything.

[Pisces]

There are more things happening in the world than Dafur. Is the US willing to go against China? Does the US even want to go against China? Everything civil in modern civilisation has stemed out of the UN. If members don't want to do what you want there is not a structure in the world which could make them.

I don't see the US (or any other country) stepping up to the plate and putting forth significant resources into Dafur, its not that the UN hasn't asked (because it has), its that the world hasn't responded.

Also, the US wouldn't dare leave the UN as it would cripple their economy.

This post has been edited by Pisces: Jun 3 2007, 04:30 AM

[Dantrag]

The UN does extremely good work inspite of the US. If the UN hadn't been there then Hussein wouldn't have been held accountable for anything and invading Iraq would have resulted in a nuclear bomb being dropped on the invading forces. You want power taken away from voters and given to a cooperative of governments? Its not the UN's fault that the US voters don't hold their government accountable for breaches of common sense and good grace.

1. Hussein was captured by the US; I'm willing to bet the US would've held him accountable had the UN not. And think about it; had the US not captured him, the UN would have never charged him. The UN doesn't take action when it counts, which is my main complaint.

2. Who would've dropped a nuke? Most certainly not Iraq, which is devoid of all wmds.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Jun 3 2007, 05:48 AM

[Channler]

2. Who would've dropped a nuke? Most certainly not Iraq, which is devoid of all wmds.

Yea really.. lol

The UN is just an organization.. Its power comes from those that make up the body. When the body falls apart, the power wanes. Picture the UN as the Holy Roman Empire.. It was a loosely organized organization that was "united" for similar purposes.

The HRE fell apart, and guess what? Germany is stronger because of it.

[Pisces]

2. Who would've dropped a nuke? Most certainly not Iraq, which is devoid of all wmds.

Ever asked why? Thats my point.

[Priest of Sithis]

I think it is too easy to rag on the UN, from them not having an army to their levies and trade blockades.

Politics aren't my speciality, but i believe that the UN deserves credit for standing up to Super Powers.... Go Djibouti!!!

[Channler]

I think it is too easy to rag on the UN, from them not having an army to their levies and trade blockades.

Politics aren't my speciality, but i believe that the UN deserves credit for standing up to Super Powers.... Go Djibouti!!!

You all seem to think that the UN is a super power of its own. Consider it like a less centralized United States.. or maybe United Kingdom.

The power it has comes from its "super powers". The UN doesn't have an army, it has the United States, United Kingdoms, Germany's etc etc. army. It doesn't make money, it get money from its member states. The fact of the matter is the amount of effort, money, and lives, that is being put into this wonderful little endeavor is being waisted by its inability to do anything useful.

Now I realize that there are a few things that the UN was and is good for, but in the whole picture those seem few and far between. Don't you think we would of acted on a UN mandate if we actually appreciated what the organization meant? I'm going to say many people want reform, but thats going to be impossible unless its broken down and started again.

[Dantrag]

What the UN was designed to do, and what it does are totally different. Creating a unified global anything is nearly impossible when every element of the union has different and completely separate interests.

To me, it's like communism; good idea, but unrealistic.

[Pisces]

Better than bad idea and worse in reality *cough*neo-liberalism*cough*

I think it is too easy to rag on the UN, from them not having an army to their levies and trade blockades.

Politics aren't my speciality, but i believe that the UN deserves credit for standing up to Super Powers.... Go Djibouti!!!

You all seem to think that the UN is a super power of its own. Consider it like a less centralized United States.. or maybe United Kingdom.

The power it has comes from its "super powers". The UN doesn't have an army, it has the United States, United Kingdoms, Germany's etc etc. army. It doesn't make money, it get money from its member states. The fact of the matter is the amount of effort, money, and lives, that is being put into this wonderful little endeavor is being waisted by its inability to do anything useful.

Now I realize that there are a few things that the UN was and is good for, but in the whole picture those seem few and far between. Don't you think we would of acted on a UN mandate if we actually appreciated what the organization meant? I'm going to say many people want reform, but thats going to be impossible unless its broken down and started again.

Free trade? Health care? Arms treaties? Electoral transparency? Conflict resolution? Unbiased observation? None of this means anything to you? Do you know anything that the UN does? Do you know how many operations the UN does? Quite frankly, if you think the UN is useless because it can't clean up after generalized 'your' mess then perhaps you should look at your country or get a view beyond your window.

[Priest of Sithis]

Pisces is right... But do I sense a little anit-American feeling coming from him...

The UN has always been and always will be a bluff to hide behind. Why do you think there is the Five Permanent Members of the Security Council? China, France, United States, Russia, UK,? All the countries with surplus of warheads? And how about the five seats that rotate every some odd years... That is a tool to control the other countries into believing they have power. When you have countries springing into their nuclear programs, what does everyone else do? They panic and start a fuss becuase some country now (probably) has nuclear capability. Did anyone check their own back yard? I think the dog fell down the silo.....

[Dantrag]

somehow missed this post.

I don't see the US (or any other country) stepping up to the plate and putting forth significant resources into Dafur, its not that the UN hasn't asked (because it has), its that the world hasn't responded.

Also, the US wouldn't dare leave the UN as it would cripple their economy.

1. Since the UN is a pretty big chunk of world leaders, I'm going to say that the UN delegates didn't respond; not the world.

2. If the US left the UN, the economy would be fine, because as much as we depend on foreign imports, other ocuntries depend a bit more on our exports.

And don't get me wrong; I'm not completely against all things UN. I just think that it should be restructured so that it has a bit more power behind its words. For example, the only countries to ever volunteer peace-keeping soldiers are Canada and Portugal. I mean, come on, those countries barely have a military. If someone threatened to have Canadian and Portugese soldiers keep peace in the US, for example, we'd probably laugh.

And my point with Iraq was that if the UN had more say-so, then Hussein's inhumane rule would have been put in check, and his arms (had they existed) would have been under control. Then there would be no war right now.

Also, when the UN tried to send food to Somalia, the food was taken by local warlords. I mean, they tried to do something, but didn't have the force to even complete it.

not to mention the Srebrenica Massacre, Rwandan Genocide...

[Channler]

Which is a nice way to say that for every 10 good/bad things you do, 1 of the good things go public, and 9 of the bad things go public.

Thats how it always is.. I promise you Pisces, you may not want to know this but not all of us Americans are gun totting rednecks with vendettas against minorities. Really were not. Some possibly, but every country has its population.

[Pisces]

somehow missed this post.

I don't see the US (or any other country) stepping up to the plate and putting forth significant resources into Dafur, its not that the UN hasn't asked (because it has), its that the world hasn't responded.

Also, the US wouldn't dare leave the UN as it would cripple their economy.

1. Since the UN is a pretty big chunk of world leaders, I'm going to say that the UN delegates didn't respond; not the world.

2. If the US left the UN, the economy would be fine, because as much as we depend on foreign imports, other ocuntries depend a bit more on our exports.

And my point with Iraq was that if the UN had more say-so, then Hussein's inhumane rule would have been put in check, and his arms (had they existed) would have been under control. Then there would be no war right now.

Also, when the UN tried to send food to Somalia, the food was taken by local warlords. I mean, they tried to do something, but didn't have the force to even complete it.

not to mention the Srebrenica Massacre, Rwandan Genocide...

1. Right world leaders, if only the US and Europe was democratic!

2. Who do you think negotiates trade disputes? Do you know how many pieces of paper flies around the world because an apple got bruised and someone mistook it for fireblight? Do you think industry will just settle down and reach a comprimise or that US diplomats are so incrediably loved that if the US tripled the numbers then they would be listened to by everyone? Without 3rd party negotiation speculation alone would cause a market collapse, not to mention how strongly the US depends on trade agreements, esp. with periphery states.

Hussein who was put in place by the US, the US having the veto, so a person who likes have their writing stamped with veto is going to suggest that motion?

You should see what happens to the food not brought by the UN. Crime is a problem, I don't know a country exempt so what would you expect going into a country without any infrastructure.

In Srebrenica there was 400 lightly armed Dutch troops vs an army of 1000-2000, US did not contribute anything, the Dutch requested assistance from NATO, NATO did not assist, the Dutch reported they were under attack to NATO, NATO did not assist, the Dutch reported the massacre, NATO did not assist. Then NATO continued to not assist for months after, not to mention the years before.

Rwanda there was a motion passed to increase the UN presence prior to the genocide, US vetoed, the US didn't even acknowledge it was genocide afterwards, I'm not sure if the US government has even openly stated it yet.

Yes I think the UN should have more power too but first of all, who is going to give it and second of all, who is going to cede it.

Oh and btw, I have plenty of ammo on Britian, France, Russia, China, Japan, Indonesia and pretty much wherever else too. Including my own selfish country which free rides off other country's militaries.

This post has been edited by Pisces: Jun 8 2007, 06:10 AM

[gamer10]

superficial

you may not want to know this but not all of us Americans are gun totting rednecks with vendettas against minorities. Really were not. Some possibly, but every country has its population.

Almost every country anyway, except Luxembourg. Those guys have got it down.

Anyway, I suppose I'll do the whole "If I were president thing", and yes, I'm going to make a list.

1.) FOREIGN POLICY: I believe that the United States needs to forge more solid, dependable relationships with nations outside of Europe. Although Japan is a strong economic partner, in fact one of our key partners, its capabilities do not currently extend beyond shaking its finger. We have also a very strong economic relationship with China, despite political and social differences, but those differences are strong enough to keep us away from anything closer. India currently accounts for a small amount of US trade, and although this is rapidly changing, it is unlikely that anything significant will happen in the next 15 years. Pakistan is only our partner at the moment because we have some use for them. After President Bush's term ends, things might suddenly shift another direction. Look at Africa. Sure, they've got their own rulers often screwing them over, but they've got a lot of untapped resources (I'm talking about people). The market for labor there is huge, and I think the United States should cozy up to Africa, seeing as how China already beat us to it.

2.)AT HOME: Well, for one thing, there seems to be a big stink about issues like abortion and homosexual relationships. I say let the states decide, as those issues should not consume much of the federal governments time. Illegal immigration is overplayed. Mexico is considered to be one the largest developing nations in the world, and its economy is growing stably. It has an income per capita almost twice that of China's, and many Mexicans are now being employed by multinational service companies, particularly from other developing countries. In twenty years or so I'm fairly certain we will see a drastic drop in immigration to the United States through our Southern border. We're not going to be run dry anytime soon by fifteen or so million people seeking a better life. As with issues such as sex education, come on. I mean, we're worrying about teaching children how to put on a condom when we STILL teach them that a guy from Spain “discovered America” and that Westernization means modernization. We've got a lot of social issues, and though sex education is no the least of which, it stands small in comparison to many other issues with our education system.

And lastly, I'd eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a glass of chocolate milk . . . mmmmmmm.

Thats about it, short list eh? My fingers are tired.

[ShogunSniper]

huh. well look who it is.

to make this post legal, im one of the people who would probably crash the country into the ground if i took control...

yeah ima hippy.

[Channler]

huh. well look who it is.

to make this post legal, im one of the people who would probably crash the country into the ground if i took control...

yeah ima hippy.

Damn hippies! Get off me lawn!

oh and..

Holy compassion batman, its gamer!

[DoomedOne]

I wouldn't pull out of the U.N., but without putting this on my platform when I'm running after my first weeks I'd propose World Peace to the U.N. in a process that would take several steps

1. The U.N. was built for a specific purpose. This purpose must change, as must the UNs laws. In essence, it must be replaced with the next incarnation of Global Government. The new UN would have no security council with 1 vote vetoes so countries like France, the USSR and ourselves would no longer be able to veto security issues. I mean, the security council formed during a very delicate time when it came to international relations, so the balance of power had to fall awkwardly and now policy that has long lost its meaning is still being manipulated.

2. The new U.N. would have to include every single country on Earth. From the warlords the West would like to pretend it didn't place in power to all other leaders, and all the leaders would work together to create a U.N. we can all compromise on, just like the creation of the constitution.

3. Since the United States has basically the same number of nukes as the rest of the world combined, my disarmorment plan would promise that for every disarmed nuke in the rest of the world, we'd disarm one. ANd I'd set it up in schedules, for instance India and Pakistan would have to disarm at the same time.

No, this would never pass, but not because the plan doesn't work, people are just too myopic and selfish. I mean, at least 70% of the United States couldn't be happier that we're a hegemon, eve though if you look at ecolnomics extensively enough, the choice is really between hegemony and survival, as Noam Chompsky put it.

Of course, I do forsee problems in the plan. For one, leaders do not act in their people's best interest. Even the founding fathers inserted a few little things in there to ensure the upper class got to stay upper class. I mean, the Bush Administration has used the Iraq war to make companies like Halliburton billions of dollars, and that won't stop.

But that just reminds me of a few more things:

Abortion - My compromise with pro-life America is that as soon as you can help me find a home for every unwanted child after its born, I will help make sure it has a home before its born.

Free Trade - It's a foundation of our country. I believe competition brings out the strongest of us and free-trade does the same for our economy. How ever businesses should out compete each other based on efficiency, ingenuity and franly the best product NOT on how low they are willing to stoop. Because corporations have no sightlines outside of the bottom-line, it's our responsibility to enforce some ethics. Like I said, trade embargo on all businesses that don't pay their employees living wages. GMOs would be taken off the market because they pose such a dangerous threat to the ecosystem. Pollution laws would be so strict that auto companies who aren't mass producing electric cars by the first two years I'm in office will all be out of business.

Oh yeah and privacy will be respected again. No one will be labeled a sex offender before at least trying or providing evidence that they were going to try to offend some sex... and at that point we would cut their balls off. This government is currently developing a machine that can read people's individual magnetic fields or some compassion that has to do with energy given off by the circular system, it's like scanning your thumb print except you won't even get a chance to refuse. That's one thing I would be very big one holding onto, one human being's right to say no.

think about it

"No Officer I will not move five blocks down, I am going to protest here under my constitutional right."

Now that I'm getting wound up, I really want to talk about the importance of government funding college too, but I won't. Oh but hey we won't get attacked by terrorists because one of my goals would be

1. End United States occuption of foreign soil so no one gets all pissed off and starts anymore terrorist cells

2. Hunt down and kill the rest, instead of hiring mercenaries to sit outside of a hamster cave cave for months on end while my army's off fighting for my immoral Chairmen associates. I mean, the United States has been a terrorist state since Reagan supported that bloody coup in Nicaragua. That's not just my opinion, that's the World Court's. Our bloody rampage across the impoverished world needs to stop now or we're going to get attacked again.

[gamer10]

1. The U.N. was built for a specific purpose. This purpose must change, as must the UNs laws. In essence, it must be replaced with the next incarnation of Global Government. The new UN would have no security council with 1 vote vetoes so countries like France, the USSR and ourselves would no longer be able to veto security issues. I mean, the security council formed during a very delicate time when it came to international relations, so the balance of power had to fall awkwardly and now policy that has long lost its meaning is still being manipulated.

I agree with your opinion on the removal of the security council.

Although I like to see my country have some special veto power, it causes a headache, a terrible one.

Anyway, I think the UN should become strongly democratic (I've gone over this somewhere else, I just know it). The UN should be based on a point system. For every million inhabitants, a country would have a vote worth 1 point. If it has less than a million inhabitants, then it would be a fraction of a point, etc. Anyway, the problem with this is that non-democratic nations would be abusing their people whenver they cast a vote, as their people would provide them their sway in the UN. As soon as democracy finds its place in every nation, which I don't see happening in my lifetime, this system might have some credibility.

[DoomedOne]

Doesn't work at all, suddenly all the power falls to China, India, Indonesia... I mean come on. A World Constitution would have to be all inclusive, because everyone has accept it an sign in the end, compromising some of their power over to this bill, in essence. If any (very probably ourselves) don't like what votes against us, we'll simply ignore it.