Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: OIO on September 23, 2004, 10:40:28 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/22/un.reforms/index.html
Japan has asked that Germany,Japan,India and Brazil receive a council seat.
Personally I think its a great idea. Each continent should have at least two nations as permanent members of the council, the UN up to today has been dominated for too long by WW2 victor nations (which I dont understand why france was given veto powers in the first place but anyway..).
-
I like the idea, though I do not know how well Pakistan would like the idea of India getting a seat...
-
I say eliminate the wasted land there in New York and disband the UN altogether.
-
If we left the UN they could have our seat.
-
Japan and Germany definitely deserve a seat.
Gotta like Koizumi, he put the flag and anthem back, he's more agressive militarily, he sent a small force to Iraq, he's challenging the old couurupt Japanese economic system and now this.. :)
-
India has a better claim than either of them.
-
I think the time has come for these four countries to become permanent members of the UN Security Council.
But who cares what I think?
:confused:
MRPLUTO
-
The flag never went away. :)
Praising the return of the anthem, then praising the challenging of the 'old corrupt' system in the next sentence doesn't make sense. Not being argumentative here, but just trying to inform you so you have a chance to rethink your position before repeating it. The anthem is being forced on people by the same old men who want to preserve the 'old corrupt' system. It's a throwback to the pre-war days and sings the glorys of the emperor.
It's pretty hard to make the case that the 'economic system' and political system are more, or less, corrupt than anywhere else.
As for the UN, it can't hurt to have some new permanent UNSC members. The current 'old corrupt' ones aren't agreeing on much or listening to each other now. :)
-
Yeah. I think it'd be funny if we left the UN, but kept the building.
But then we'd tell everyone that they werent' allowed to touch american soil to get there and back.
-
Rolex I like the old flag and anthem as symbols. I also like Koizumis economic reform attempts and I hope that he can be sucessful because Japan needs to move forward in this area. The two arent mustually exclusive in my view of Japanese politics and culture. As far as the old men go, well, not much can be done without more voteing reform or a serious readjustement of the political parties and the faction system.
-
Japan's population is not going to blindly follow their military as they did in WW2.
This generation is completely, completely different than the one that the allies fought in the 40's.
Germany however... aya yay, about 'em im not so sure.
-
Blind obedience is not the issue. Well, I'll let you guys have the last word.
I only have 14 years experience inside the gates of government and private industry here, so I appreciate this opportunity to learn from you...
-
What with the attitude rolex?
-
What's with the attitude?
Frankly, I'd be a little pissed about some punk trying to give me his completely narrowly informed opinion about something I happened to, like, live and work in.
But Rolex wasn't pissed. It was a polite slap-down. Don't give him 'what's up with the attitude"... merely be thankful for the suggestion, and quit before you get hurt.
-
nash=check teh email!
-
rgr just checked - got it - will respond tmrw.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What's with the attitude?
Frankly, I'd be a little pissed about some punk trying to give me his completely narrowly informed opinion about something I happened to, like, live and work in.
But Rolex wasn't pissed. It was a polite slap-down. Don't give him 'what's up with the attitude"... merely be thankful for the suggestion, and quit before you get hurt.
His response had a bad attitide, not as bad your here but bad still.
I was curious why.
If he knows so much from his time in Japan then he is welcome to share it and discuss..
But go ahead nash get in yiur little insult... :rofl
-
we should pull out and let em have our seat and.... move the whole UN complex to japan.
lazs
-
"In a startling announcement today, the UN revealed that it plans on moving all facilities and operations to Dixon, California. The city council voted to financially support the move by increasing the property taxes of all Dixon homeowners and levying an additional $1,000 annual tax on each firearm owned by local residents.
Dixon Mayor Mary Ann Courville also announced that local government employees will forfeit 30% of their annual salaries to help pay for this unprecedented opportunity to place Dixon on the world map."
-
Originally posted by Rolex
"In a startling announcement today, the UN revealed that it plans on moving all facilities and operations to Dixon, California. The city council voted to financially support the move by increasing the property taxes of all Dixon homeowners and levying an additional $1,000 annual tax on each firearm owned by local residents.
Dixon Mayor Mary Ann Courville also announced that local government employees will forfeit 30% of their annual salaries to help pay for this unprecedented opportunity to place Dixon on the world map."
LOL that was awesome!
Soooo... why would we want more countries in the SC? Taking a view on whats best for our country here.... why do we want to increase the vetoing dynamics? Not being agrumentitive.... don't understand.
-
"we should pull out and let em have our seat and.... move the whole UN complex to japan.
lazs"
I respectfully disagree. A far better location would be Rwanda.
-
Well, not everyone here (or in the world) is from your country, mosgood... :)
But, I can appreciate your point that self-interest determines all positions. And that is the singlemost debilitating pressure limiting the legitimacy and potential good the UN could achieve.
Japan feels that since it pays 19.5% of the UN budget, it should have permanent member status and at least a little influence how, or where, it is spent. Only the U.S. pays more - 22%. That isn't much of a spread considering that the U.S. GDP is 50% larger and the population is double.
For the U.S., Japan permanent membership would result in a stronger position since Japan-American interests are more closely aligned than any other combination. The U.S. and Japan together are 50% of the global GDP. Economic strength used properly can tame an adversary or create an ally just as effectively as conflict.
The current lineup of UNSC membership and even the charter is woefully outdated and still reflects the world condition from the end of WWII through the cold war. Japan and Germany are technically considered to still be enemy states and the Soviet Union is still recognized by the UN charter.
Bringing about a reorganized UNSC with influence appropriate to current world conditions is the last best hope the UN has to exist and be potentially useful. I think a rational restructure of the UN should be explored because a legitimate, useful and meaningful UN is better than no world forum.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Well, not everyone here (or in the world) is from your country, mosgood... :)
But, I can appreciate your point that self-interest determines all positions. And that is the singlemost debilitating pressure limiting the legitimacy and potential good the UN could achieve.
Japan feels that since it pays 19.5% of the UN budget, it should have permanent member status and at least a little influence how, or where, it is spent. Only the U.S. pays more - 22%. That isn't much of a spread considering that the U.S. GDP is 50% larger and the population is double.
For the U.S., Japan permanent membership would result in a stronger position since Japan-American interests are more closely aligned than any other combination. The U.S. and Japan together are 50% of the global GDP. Economic strength used properly can tame an adversary or create an ally just as effectively as conflict.
The current lineup of UNSC membership and even the charter is woefully outdated and still reflects the world condition from the end of WWII through the cold war. Japan and Germany are technically considered to still be enemy states and the Soviet Union is still recognized by the UN charter.
Bringing about a reorganized UNSC with influence appropriate to current world conditions is the last best hope the UN has to exist and be potentially useful. I think a rational restructure of the UN should be explored because a legitimate, useful and meaningful UN is better than no world forum.
Thanks for that. I didn't consider a lot of that. Although, I don't think that a non-self-interest descision making process is possible.
-
rolex... I am on prop 13 and "merry ann" would never impose a tax on guns.
oh... and omega is a superior watch.
And... I don't care where the orientals have their UN so long as they are not allowed to drive cars in the U.S.
lazs
-
why not? most of the US car companies are owned by 'orientals'
mwahhahaha.
-
Grun,
Nash is right. That was a polite way of letting you know you were getting in over your head with Rolex on that specific subject.
Those type of polite heads-up happen all the time in business meetings. If you hope to achieve any type of position of responsibility in that setting, coming back with "what's with the attitude" won't get it done, when you've just been given a mild "heads up".
-
don't care if orientals own cars... just don't want em driving them.
lazs
-
If Rolex wants to give me a thurough explaination why he feels the reintroduction of Kimigayo is incompatible with Kopizuimis economic and electoral reform attempts then he is welcome to do so... I would welcome his input.
-
The UNSC should have absolutely no permanent members and no country should have a veto. This risible practice is probably the biggest cause of UNSC ineffectuality, and its disgracefully uneven enforcement of the UN charter.
Any country with a veto can act with impunity and break the very charter they're nominally enforcing. Giving more vetos and more permanent memberships just increases the number of countries the UN can do nothing about.
With the exception of France (who stuck strictly to the good old-fashioned imperialist goals of fighting to keep Africa and Indochina French), every veto-bearing member has invaded another country without provocation in direct contravention of the UN charter. You have to be in some seriously venal
company to have France turn out to be the most moral of the bunch.
None of them have been even been censured for these actions. Two permanent members are currently engaged in the contravention of the UN charter, according to UN Secretary General himself. Yet the UNSC is powerless to do anything. Indeed the two countries' justification for their breaking the UN charter is that the UNSC was rendered powerless to act by the veto powers of other permanent members.
So throwing more vetos at the problem is like putting out a fire with a bucket of alcohol.
It's wonderfully ironic to see some of the UN=ineffectual crowd clamouring to introduce measures to make it even more so.
Of course, if it get's left to the UNSC to decide, China will veto it, no doubt citing Japan's lack of apology for war crimes, and the curious habit that nice Mr Koizumi has of going off to honour the grave of Japan's very own Hitler - General Tojo - twice a year.
-
Ahh yes, I forgot the yasukuni visits.. Japan needs to be a normal country again, let them...
-
@mosgood: I agree about self interest.
@dead: I don't disagree about more vetos creating even less efficacy - if that is even possible. I'm an advocate of a complete change of charter and across-the-board restructuring, including rethinking veto power.
I'm also not an advocate for 'all things Japanese' but the non-apology issue is a non-issue. Japan has apologized many times and in many ways, but it is in the interest of China's policy makers to continue to foster this misconception.
Now, Yasukuni is a valid issue. Just to set the record straight for those who may not know, Yasukuni is not simply a memorial to Japan's war dead. If it were, then no visit would be controversial. You certainly don't see any foreign leader getting within 1,000 yards with a wreath in hand because Yaskuni is a thinly veiled monument to Japan's colonial glory. It is operated by a group that openly promotes a return to Japan's war-time political structure and pre-war, colonial aspirations with the emperor returned as head of state and elevated back to god status.
Mr. Koizumi's image is one of a reformer, but he is no real reformer. It is a very Japanese thing to view the outside image for what it appears to be (the tatemae), know the truth (the honne), but still maintain the facade of the image. Mr. Koizumi is a politician's politician.
How many politicians would heed the advice of his party and political backers to divorce his wife because she didn't want to actively campaign? She wanted to stay at home and raise their children, but Mr. Koizumi followed the party advice and divorced her many years ago when she was pregnant with their 3rd child. Getting elected was so important, that he has never seen, and refuses to even meet, the grown son.
Anyway, have to go. duty calls.
-
Rolex thats the kind of insight I appreaciate. Thanks.
Do you have anything more to add?
-
"Do you have anything more to add?"
Going somewhere?
:D
-
Going somewhere? I dont get it Nash, what u mean?
-
"Do you have anything more to add?" is usually followed by storming out of the room.
Not that this pertains to your situation; just playin' off of what you said.
Hey, when you're shooting for comedy gold, not everything's going to work. Just the law of numbers. And you have to take some risks. The important thing is to keep trying.
-
So I post this:
"Rolex thats the kind of insight I appreaciate. Thanks. Do you have anything more to add?"
And you infer that I'm upset? Man talk about comedy gold Nash...
-
Yes absolutely I infered that you were mad - because you disagreed.
Aint that how it works?
But seriously... no: was a joke gone awry.
Everybody calm down and retake your seats, the show will continue shortly.
-
Why would I be mad if he disagrees with me? I didnt like the attidute he took initially and I asked him if he could provide more info. If he thinks I'm misinformed then I'd like for him to share his perspective and experience so I can add it to my views and understanding..
Sometimes I just dont get you nash...
-
lol - I agree... cuz you certainly aint getting me right now. :D
-
Must be a language thing, eh?
-
Oh geeze eh!!?
-
thier constitution won't perment them to join. something about soliders sent to battle.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
The UNSC should have absolutely no permanent members and no country should have a veto. This risible practice is probably the biggest cause of UNSC ineffectuality, and its disgracefully uneven enforcement of the UN charter.
Any country with a veto can act with impunity and break the very charter they're nominally enforcing. Giving more vetos and more permanent memberships just increases the number of countries the UN can do nothing about.
With the exception of France (who stuck strictly to the good old-fashioned imperialist goals of fighting to keep Africa and Indochina French), every veto-bearing member has invaded another country without provocation in direct contravention of the UN charter. You have to be in some seriously venal
company to have France turn out to be the most moral of the bunch.
None of them have been even been censured for these actions. Two permanent members are currently engaged in the contravention of the UN charter, according to UN Secretary General himself. Yet the UNSC is powerless to do anything. Indeed the two countries' justification for their breaking the UN charter is that the UNSC was rendered powerless to act by the veto powers of other permanent members.
So throwing more vetos at the problem is like putting out a fire with a bucket of alcohol.
It's wonderfully ironic to see some of the UN=ineffectual crowd clamouring to introduce measures to make it even more so.
Of course, if it get's left to the UNSC to decide, China will veto it, no doubt citing Japan's lack of apology for war crimes, and the curious habit that nice Mr Koizumi has of going off to honour the grave of Japan's very own Hitler - General Tojo - twice a year.
Well said, and oh so true.:aok
-
JDA: Yes, you are correct. But only because you are a normal person and not a weasel. Below is article 9 of the Japanese Constitution:
----------------------
Article 9
(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.
(3) The right of aggression of the state will not be recognized.
-------------------------
To us normal folks, section (2) seems like pretty clear language, but to the government, being comprised mostly of weasels, as all governments are, have determined that this is very fuzzy language and open to interpretation.
So, they added the words Self Defense (SD) to all the military branches to create the JASDF (Japan Air Self Defense Force), JMSDF (Japan Maritime Self Defense Force), etc. and now maintain land, sea and air forces, but not really because the constitution doesn't allow it. Japan has the 4th largest military budget in the world, but not really since it's not allowed. See how easy that was?
It's all moot since the constitution will likely be changed shortly. Even if it isn't changed, the fuzzy language will allow it - assuming you look at it through weasel eyes.
GRUNHERZ: Unfortunately, a 14+ year data dump on Japan in this thread about the UN may be a little hard, and off topic. But, if you're interested in Japan (which most people are not) you can pick up my book at Amazon this coming spring (probably April). Assuming I can get away from AH and this BBS long enough to finish it on time... ;)
-
yeah.... "fuzzy" language that needs to be interpreted.... sorta like kerrie and the 2nd Amendment over here.
lazs
-
what book rolex?
-
The title is "Backspin."
-
Can you share a sample section?
-
Hmmm. Let me think about that. I'm way out in the countryside right now on a business trip. But, miraculously have a 30Mbps internet connection in this little hotel in the middle of nowhere...
What a country.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Hmmm. Let me think about that. I'm way out in the countryside right now on a business trip. But, miraculously have a 30Mbps internet connection in this little hotel in the middle of nowhere...
What a country.
Not sursprsing at all, I imagine the local politicans have to earn their keep even today, and even the Japanese can build only so many roads and bridges.. :)
-
i guess i shouldve asked what the book was about not its title hehe.