General discussion


The UN: New Communist Karma Thugs

By MallardtooXX ·
Ever since November I have had an annoying little buzz in my head. I can't say it was uncomfortable, just disquieting and a little savage in it's own special way. It was not until the other say that I identified it. There is a new current in the world, it is that of the Karma Thug, and beware they are everywhere. The European Union has begun to sound an awful lot like an old nemisis, of almost lutharian proportion.
I have decided to just drop this out here, call it my catharsis, call it a rant, call it what you will; but, I feel I can no longer meaningfully post on this site without this being brought to light. The UN is foul and should be disbanded. I know this is a brash and rather abrupt statement, even for me. The UN is not what the world would have us believe, not by a mile. The UN is a Yoke, much like that we cast off in the Revolution, to keep America in check. I will allow you to elaborate further, trust me I will offer more just out of space here. I will also explain Karma Thugs- but you tell me am I wrong?


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Karma Thugs

by MallardtooXX In reply to The UN: New Communist Kar ...

A Karma Thug is someone who has lived their lives in total disreguard of Karma and the effect it has in our lives. I am not saying the deep Karma of religion, this is a duck karma thing. Karma is almost like a tally. The good the bad, the right the wrong, happy sad, it is all weighed out in karma.
Someone who is so inept as to scoff will have an unexplainable problem crop up and that my friends is the work of a Karma thug.

Karma thugs are people like saddam and peter arnett. Guys that have no regard for anything but their needs and wants. Men and Women who when they die get the big ole dose of Karma they deserve and are forced to dole the stuff out to the masses through out history. Right now the UN is teaming with them just waiting to hatch. Mark my words until the UN is disbanded there will be no rest in the world, they wont have it. the UN cannot function if there is No unrest in the world. Why else do you think they even entrtain the notion of Isreal? I can only say one more thing lest I turn this post south before it gets started.

May you bless and lead us. Protect and comfort our soldiers when they need you most. And continue to guide our president in his time of trial. Thank you for listening.


Collapse -

The question

by road-dog In reply to The UN: New Communist Kar ...


I see it in a similar way, but differently. The UN has become more than anything a dysfunctional and increasingly irrevalent counterweight to America's power and influence.

In principle, a worldwide forum of representatives of all governments is a good idea when the scope of it's activities is to grease the wheels of commerce and to provide global standards for shared use of waterways and the like. There is also a great advantage for the shared functions of disaster relief and issues that confront all of humanity.

As opposed to this, the UN has become a threat to the soverignity of member nations and seeks to make the greatest among us level with the lowest. This approach fails at both the micro and macro levels.

There are many nations that fail to conform to even the most basic standards of behavior that constitute a global norm, the ideal nor the real. When these nations are given a seat at the table where they have power to control nations that do comply with suchstandards, then they are given not only recognition, but acceptance. They also assert influence asymetric with their actual power.

The spectacular failure of the UN to enforce its own resolutions in the case of Iraq underscore the case that massive reform of membership in the UN and the composition of its security council is in order.

Collapse -

The Answer

by road-dog In reply to The question

My answer to this is for the US to submit a list of nations to the UN enumerating which nations should occupy core seats in the security council and which should not. If the UN refuses to reallocate seats, then the US should reassess its own UN membership and determine if we should withdraw our membership. Should we withdraw, the UN will undoubtedly collapse due to our large share of operating revenues and the fact that any credible military might it has to enforce its own resolutions ultimately comes from us.

This is not as drastic as it appears on the surface, as the League of Nations faltered and failed in much the same way, although because several nations made this same determination and discontinued participation.

In the absence of the UN, there will arise many NATOesque groups built around economic issues in addition to common defense issues. These groups would probably coalesce into UNII, with another attempt at creating a workable operating model.

I think that the world would be better served by a UN that only allows nations that comply with international norms to occupy core voting positions.

Further, the idea of a single nation being able to "veto" an action of the security council is unjustifiable. Any single nation can stymie necessary actions if such actions are in the best interest of the collective good but are detrimental to that nation. This is a recipe for irrelevance.

"A little revolution on occasion is a healthy thing"

Captain Marco Ramius
The Hunt for Red October
by Tom Clancy

Collapse -

by Oldefar In reply to The Answer

Consider an earlier confederation of states, that of the 13 colonies in 1776. Many of the same issues existed for them that face the world at large today. Concerns of cultural differences, law interpetation, common verus local good.

The differences escalated to the War Between the States - driven by a difference in state versus federal power more so than the issue of slavery.

Almost a century later, these issues again reached a near critical point over racial differences in states like Arkansas and Alabama.

Similar issues remain in other confederations - Quebec in Canada, Ireland and Scotland in Great Britain. At the core, a fear of losing a cultural idenity as part of a larger whole. Of course, there are is no shortage of individuals who view the issues as an opportunity for personal gain, forged in the flames of general fear or discontent.

Collapse -

The issues covered

by road-dog In reply to

in the US Constitution are all based in the individual States' desire for limited central authority and maximum autonomy at the state and local levels.

Unfortunately, over time the federal government has usurped many functions and rights originally mandated to the individual states.

I'm unsure how a return to such a circumstance would be orchestrated, although I am convinced of it's necessity. Perhaps such a thing could be accomplished by a piece by piece dismantlement of many federal programs and administrations by Constitutional challenge in the courts. Although all of us have our pet programs that would probably be best served by federal control (the space program is mine), I would prefer the dissolution of NASA to the current state of affairs. Should it be the collective will to have a space program, it should stand Constitutional review and pass the mechanisms for amendment of the Constitution.

Those most divisive federal programs would probably not gain 3/4 state ratification for survival, such as social security and the department of education.

The effect of such a dismantlement would dilute out national identity and will, (probably to the relief of the world),but probably result in a more responsive delivery of services and a less intrusive and less expensive tax load.

Collapse -


by Oldefar In reply to The issues covered

We also lose site that under the US Constitution, individuals have rights, governments have power, and government power is derived from the governed.

Back to the UN. Historically, every major power has lost their position, whether that power wasa local, regional, continental, or global power. So far, the US is the sole exception.

Now, the other common factor in history is that every single major power had less powerful neighbors that became the catalyst of it losing that power.

Is it possible then that the only solution would be a single major power with no neighbors? That would be a UN central world government, with a recognition of individual rights, and some constantly changing level of power distribution between the central (UN) and local (national) governments.

An alternative would be anarchy achieved by recognition by all individuals of the rights of all other individuals, eliminating a need for externally imposed social order.

Collapse -


by admin In reply to Libertarian

Contrary to popular opinion, people have to be in a somewhat enlghtened stste for anarchy to work IMO. Libertarianism is practical though, since it allows common enforcement of the cost of individual or corporate mistakes.

A Libertarian world government is the only reasonable solution I can see to world government. Besides, we'll lose to China in a few years if we try to make a go of anarchy, even with the SARS crisis.

Collapse -

I agree

by dcosgrove In reply to The issues covered

and a good start would be to over turn laws which are not founded in the constitution. The supreme court has become a vehical of huge power. Not one decision at a time, but the sum of all decisions. Oddly, this is one of the few bodies without elections or term limits. Some of the laws passed at the state and federal level are laughable. One that still has me ticked off is the new cell phone law. I don't own a cell phone but I think that punishing an individual for an act that could causethat individual to break a law is one step away from the thought police. I don't want to bring up specific federal laws, but you all know of one, I'm sure, that the Feds have no buisness imposing. You mention the pet projects, that's the trap. You say yours is NASA, what is your projection of NASA without the Govt.? With out the bloat, I think NASA could turn a profit, imagine if they received some residuals from velcro. I think it's only assumption that these entities can only exist by the benevolent hand (in the pocket) of the Govt.

Collapse -

Single nation veto

by Oldefar In reply to The Answer

While we are currently frustrated with how the some members used this in opposition to a war with Iraq, it seems to me we have used it when the UN overall had a direction in mind that we felt strongly opposed to.

Governments change, leadership and direction changes, and even a selective list of agreeable partners can later become consistent advesaries. After all, the Security Council permanent membership was initially made up of the winning coallition from WW2, with the addition of rotatingseats to pacify those other nations who felt that coallition may choose to dominate world affairs.

Collapse -

Thanks Oldfar

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Single nation veto

You've answered very suscently a question that been bothering me for quite some time now. That was why is it all right for the US to Veto some things in the Security Council and not other Countries? But you have supplied a very concise answer in a short form.

So thanks again.

Related Discussions

Related Forums